Loading...
2014-108-Minutes for Meeting January 08,2014 Recorded 2/24/2014 DESCHUTES NANCYBLANKENSHIP,PCOUNTY CLERK CJ 2014.08 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 02/24/2014 49:39:41 AM lILUJIIIIjllIllIfl 111101111 21 -10 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes Count y Clerk Certificate Page E .03P 0416 tii -4 K vTES e i lk p opt 0 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, JANUARY 8, 2014 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Alan Unger. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Ken Hales, Community Corrections; Helen Feroli of the Oregon Judicial Department; Jeff Hall, Court Administrator; Judge Alta Brady; Judith Ure, Administration; Anna Johnson, Communications; and five other citizens including Andrew Spreadborough, Scott Aycock and Karen Friend of COIC; and media representatives Kandra Kent of KTVZ TV and Elon Glucklich of The Bulletin. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Presentation on the Regional Transit System. Andrew Spreadborough of COIC (Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council) indicated they are seeking long-term funding for transit programs. They have a regional, integrated system but it is very new. COIC is managing it regionally and is aggressively pursuing federal funding. They recognize that they have to analyze their budget and service levels. The biggest emphasis has been on local funding in order to leverage federal funding, and fares are a smaller piece. The challenges have been not how much local funding is available but volatility, which affects the federal funding and how to plan long-term. The pool of funding needs to be stable to match the needed service level. This is regional and includes an urban area, Bend, so it is more complicated. Bend receives federal urban funding, and the balance is rural funding. The City has made commitments for local funding so that piece is more stable. COIC needs the rural portion to be more stable so they can offer consistent services. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 8, 2014 Page 1 of 8 They have analyzed other systems, and realize they eventually may have to pursue a dedicated local funding source. The approach and governance for this has not been established, and there is no perfect model to follow. A committee was formed to come up with recommendations. Mr. Spreadborough then referred to a report submitted by the committee. Scott Aycock indicated Commissioner Unger was Chair of the group. They had seven meetings to come up with findings. Some questions were easy to address; others were not. They surveyed registered voters regarding transit. Most felt it is needed but about half of them indicated they did not really want to have to pay much for it. Interestingly, Madras numbers were the highest, with support at 47%. There probably will not be an opportunity for this kind of necessary long-term funding at this time. They need to work at convincing people that long-term stable funding is important. They are not able to do all they should regarding outreach. All the money coming in now goes on the road. You can only go so far without a budget for planning, outreach and capital replacement. At that point, you see sustainability issues. They laid out some scenarios for the public. Point A is where they are now. Point B is those plus outreach and engagement, and capital replacement, and getting them back to where they were a few years ago with more service hours. This would in turn help them to be able to convert to a flex route in Redmond. The number one desire of riders and potential riders is flexibility. When you go from Dial-a-Ride to a fixed route system, ridership goes up tremendously. Karen Friend, COIC's transportation manager, added that while they set it up in an entrepreneurial way, routes were created by others and the public soon began to expect this, and people were disappointed when it had to change. Chair Baney said that this model pulled a rabbit out of a hat, and she was grateful they could do what they did. There are many discussions revolving around health care now, including bringing people out of poverty and working towards job security. The role for the County can be with planning and education of the public regarding ridership. She sees this in conversations with the CCO's. Jobs and transportation have to work together. Perhaps they can look at community investment dollars next year, and leverage some of this if they can show how these things match up. Minutes of B oa r d o f Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 8, 2014 Page 2 of 8 Commissioner DeBone asked if the numbers regarding fares, ridership and routes are mature or need more analysis. Mr. Spreadborough replied that they have done a lot of work already. Mr. Aycock added that they trimmed some and expanded others when doing the groundwork. They wrapped up the regional and. Bend plans that analyze growth patterns and other aspects. It still provides a menu of service options, if they make sense. Ms. Friend stated that the system is maximized mostly based on dollars. They found there is a lot more demand than they are able to meet. Service hour reductions had an impact; trends were up before then. They need to get back to at least what it used to be, but it has to be sustainable if it is to be a fixed route system. It cannot all be flex route. People want more service days and hours. The demand is there; they need it for their lives. Mr. Aycock added that they did a fare study and comparison. Their numbers are low compared to some, higher for others. They are working through this now, but it will never cover costs. Ms. Friend said there is no norm or standard, but 15% is common. The range is between 11% and 12% here. Commissioner DeBone said it costs about $10 each way from Bend to La Pine. Maybe they can come up with a voucher system for those who are truly needy. Mr. Aycock noted that there is a ratio of increasing fares to loss in ridership. There is a diminishing return at some point. It is a young enough system that they can experiment. Commissioner Unger stated that a Redmond City Councilor uses the bus. As the rate goes up, you lose riders. Transit is more complicated and does not always take you to just where you want to be, as you could with a personal vehicle. At that point, you lose the people who ride by choice. Commissioner DeBone asked what the main drivers are, and whether it is always highly subsidized and if it is required. Ms. Friend responded that it is a necessary public service according to studies. Mr. Aycock added that it is like any other fee service. People expect it but few want to pay for it. He hopes the cities, counties and tribes can work together on this. All agreed at the time that it was needed. They did not know the demand then, but it kept increasing. Ms. Friend noted that there are about 60,000 rides a month now. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 8, 2014 Page 3 of 8 Erik Kropp said you can get voter support in the metro areas because it means fewer cars on the road. And, sometimes in that environment, it is just as fast to take the bus. Mr. Aycock stated that many areas have a public tax for this service, including Klamath Falls and other small cities. Tom Anderson said that one thing they have asked for is data on potential rural ridership; for instance, from Deschutes River Woods and La Pine. And they asked what if it could be expanded into Alfalfa or Terrebonne and other population centers. There needs to be information gathered on how other small cities and areas pulled this off. The County has a role to play, but it needs to be determined logically. Mr. Aycock stated that about half the folks in the La Pine area live outside the city. It is an area of higher need, with more disabled and senior populations, but there is less ability to sustain it. Commissioner Baney added that they want to keep people engaged, and have a balance between work and transportation. She noted that like health care, there is a fundamental need for economic stability and security. They need to tell the story in that way. Mr. Spreadborough said that they will come back to the Board after working through the committee process. Commissioner Unger observed that transit helps with many things relating to economic development. Many people take transit to school, use it for obtaining medical care, and to go to work. There are needs around communities and between communities. The assets should be used on voluntary community needs. Needing a rural provider and an urban provider makes it more difficult to fit it all into the right box. Ms. Friend said that they have to keep funding separate and distinct between urban and rural. Census data comes late and changes all the time. There may be interim data through PSU regarding allocations. It takes a long time to receive funding. The MPO's are working on this. The 5311 funds will include recommendations about more equitable allocations. Commissioner Unger noted that Connect Oregon did not see much transit involved. Ms. Friend stated that the challenge is the local match. Small operators run into competition with others who are able to get federal funding, for instance through airports. The match factor is problematic to smaller providers. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 8, 2014 Page 4 of 8 Mr. Spreadborough said he appreciates the multi-modal efforts. Chair Baney added that transit is confusing, with a patchwork of different funds, areas and needs. 2. Discussion of Justice Reinvestment Program Proposal. Tom Anderson said that there have been discussions on how to utilize the Justice Reinvestment Program funds. Two proposals have been made on how to best use the first biennium funds. This was taken before the Public Safety Coordinating Council, and it turns out that Redmond Police Chief Jeff Sale is on the State review committee and had insights on the process. The criteria for review have not been finalized, so this is an opportunity to demonstrate a nexus between the program and what the County is doing. There is approximately $325,000 available each biennium. Although it is not technically required this biennium, in the future 10% goes to victims' assistance programs. The County is doing this now, however. The District Attorney's Office has agreed to be the gatekeeper for those funds and for review. The two proposals remain. Ken Hales said the Community Justice Plan consists of three parts. There is a specialized caseload targeting transitional folks. They take this into the community. The Department of Corrections decides who is eligible, but the County can do pre-release work to prepare these individuals as much as possible. This involves an assessment and pre-release investigation. They can finance services such as transitional housing, drug treatment, etc. The second strategy is when the Parole Office can do a pre-sentence assessment on certain offenders. The Court may have discretion, and his department can help with a departure assessment. This happens pre-trial. They cannot do this for all departure-eligible cases. Some will go to jail before going onto probation. The assessment can be done while they are in jail, and other liaison work can be accomplished at that time. The focus would be on departure-eligible people who have the highest likelihood of going to prison. Judge Alta Brady said they are looking for additional funding for family drug court. They deal with high risk offenders there. They have shifted to those who are at the last chance point. The funding is primarily for wrap-around services and is not enough to provide treatment; they need help getting to treatment and sober housing. Most have no resources. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 8, 2014 Page 5 of 8 The other major piece is a mentoring service, with daily contact. It is almost like a super 12-step sponsor who helps overcome the stumbling blocks to recovery. They look at the recidivism rate, and this fits into the criteria. Commissioner Baney asked if they are partnering with Housing Works or others. It is hard for them to find appropriate housing. Judge Brady said staff person Patricia Stonewood has developed relationships with landlords and others, and has had good success finding these people appropriate housing. Commissioner Unger said he is excited about the new concepts and hopes it can build to success. Commissioner DeBone added that this is a statewide effort, and. Deschutes County is prepared with some capacity to work on this. Chair Baney stated that she appreciates this can be phased and adjusted as things change. One thing she wants tracked is the fact that utilization rates are already low here when compared to the rest of the state. She does not want this area penalized for doing good work up to this point, as the degree of change may not be as drastic as it is for some others. UNGER: Move approval of the 2013-15 Participation Agreement. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 3. Other Items. Judith Ure noted that the legislative session starts on February 3. They will not get a list of bills until after then. At this point, they are looking at legislative concepts. As far as a conference call schedule is concerned, Wednesday morning is available this year, either 7:30 a.m. or 11 a.m. She suggested they use 7:30 for this meeting due to Board meetings later in the morning. She needs to know if they want this weekly or less often, since it is a short session. There is a briefing on January 29. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 8, 2014 Page 6 of 8 Chair Baney said she has a conflict on those mornings, but could meet at about 8:15 a.m. She noted that there will be a maximum of 260 bills introduced, so prioritization will be important. The department directors will have to be aggressive on this. Commissioner Unger added that some groups have an interest in various issues and will be following them as well. Ms. Ure stated that she can ask the department directors what they see as important issues. Some are already following a few. Commissioner Unger said that 190 organizations, COIC and transportation might be in there, either as a bill or to at least bring about awareness. Commissioner DeBone noted that there might be a 1.5% requirement for biomass for new government construction projects. Solar and geothermal are already in there. Phil Chang may sponsor this, especially relating to new school construction. Ms. Ure asked that the Board be careful about what is prioritized as a 1 and put less in priority 2, which becomes a catch-all. She does not want to duplicate the information that comes from the Public Affairs Counsel, either, so management of the details is important. Commissioner Unger said he is involved with the Freight Advisory Group. They are developing a schedule and plans for information building. They need direction from the Oregon Transportation Commission on what is coming and what is a priority, so they can move forward. Chair Baney stated that there are some challenges now with membership changes, and they are working on a funding package. She will try to find out a timeline. Commissioner Unger said they are working on Trip 97 with COACT (Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation). This has to do mostly with transportation corridors and economic development that can be enhanced by transportation investments. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 8, 2014 Page 7 of 8 Mr. Anderson noted that he is on the Trip 97 steering committee. He, Chris Doty of Road and ODOT will give a presentation later in the month regarding their efforts. Some might not be site-specific traffic issues, and could be outside of typical transportation thinking. Some of this is based on faith because the benefits might not be seen in the immediate area right away. Mark.Cappell of the City of Bend has asked about the County having evening meetings. He did not know that the business meetings are video recorded. Rick Allen of the City of La Pine says he does not get agenda updates. Maybe there needs to be more outreach or a press release to make people aware the recordings are available. Anna Johnson noted that they are both on the distribution list for press releases and information about the recorded meetings, but she will send out a reminder. The Board went into Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(a), employment of a public officer, and (h), pending or threatened litigation, at 3:00 p.m. Being no further discussions or action taken after the executive sessions, the meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. ag- DATED this t ( Day of 2014 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissi rs. Tammy Baney, Chai r Anthony De:one, Vice Chair ATTEST: (2x144)(4:1_, Alan Unger, Commissioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 8, 2014 Page 8 of 8 w01;000(4, 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, JANUARY 8, 2014 1. Presentation on the Regional Transit System —Andrew Spreadborough, COIC 2. Discussion of Justice Reinvestment Program Proposal — Tom Anderson 3. Other Items Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(h), pending or threatened litigation 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 dales,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 encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location 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(c1),deschutes.org. • .."...o. -7 .-)•"1 ,L io 6 '\I T., /...„.1 7') /..--■ :',::' (\ N r° 1 ,.0 .C7:1 $ ,„.:. 11 "... „ X._., _......, QT- ,.. C.A. r.:3 ps. c•^1 '7') r.-- "-- , C.r---. \ (1) ---- r-- rri te,, — --- 0 •s-. ',.., .= \,P ■ Z-- ‘..-) - ■4 -— "21 Q--1 zi COli I ----' 7 C.3I CIA ! 1 ! 1 47) till - 1 .c i- 5---- :— .61 r---• 3 1-- [ e,-.....,_:. .._j 1 i.„ __,.... \ c To J J \) ------ V • -)r\ •-•-• c-----: , 0, 3 .....) (.. (---..f■ ....■ ‘....--) ...... 1 CO '2 ,_ • - , .".4.) ____) 45 ,•,1 -IL RI Z ck ■.... IND .....) .0-a.,. "- T f+ V 0-04 N 4 7 V a ■D cv N N M GO VC d 7 r P C ✓M co p G N V r ^ VY p C U5'' . g- IP M Cr! V 0 PO N r'-' r..-.-- V M N 7 P N f] a H = G H E E E — w C m e. — a 0 a b L a Q Co_ N a e.O N W T j O 0 Q ..-. 4 U V yy N a U A 0U 17 A a r' tG N v S o Fo c 05 c _ 02 o ' @ o .g a H 2 m c m ° c m -O 0 a e m U d 0 z 5 � , E m y m o c 7 y O ' b ' .0 C? .2 U y x o m � U y E E y E o ¢'G Y O C 0 R-0 N(SE o. Q) ,w U 2 a O m ° o c o I-- 'c.A Q o 2075' 0•'4 o ,,,,(1' 013 &.2 r m p.� Onn Co (." U °ULL 0 coUUd 0 . - •• V O N co CO V N .. oz. — M M AD V) V Q) N o O N0)CP NN .- Cy r M N4l D cc; o • W) N N V V N 0 W V ,c;,' N CO V CO Co u N co O— N V N Of D 7 7 C' N N 9 C C C) V N 0 CO N N 0 V Co ;72 c-0 E O r ..6 o Z d . c " �Xw `dibsM vi�to U � v O •o C m R G p y O n(J. Xi p .) co m l o A V '� Q Q Q Y 9 o c _ F a ° U c FE 44 K a P S a iU 2 o Urm .od E r E AQ 0 a z U e0_ su, U o o < z J £ 4)e. mm U H U 0 m — — o V co In N CM)Co N o N-e CO !K four.: CO n Co � 1.'4 '4 W C OA P N (V / O P N W N o 0 cDHOM N � C ,_ o co , cD CO O co Co oO Co N W • U 2 U Y 'r4 C F N D U [ 9 0r C Nd Co °• M w o i¢ � U n� CO 9 • o 0 0 h• 0• 0t) Z Z q co ° E N 'c 0 o en '.. 0 C aaaace a L. a) m — — v C o N a0 N r U Co Co co 0 7 AD 0 00 N 4 a,'" o o V Co 4 co CCD_CVO a ao oT o CO O 0 2 co 4 N •' i N 1+� _N�_ Co cD OD Co YN`,• co IX N cD 4 �'~!•. O N 0 '0 V)H 1A Co Co CD V "1 ro N ' Co a p'. b o O N O v a ig Li. x 2 LL A /G m _ W ' ,M N '°-"? .Fn' -d Co N a CD N 4 AO AD VV) N 0 _. G o 'n V N 'C. N ('')N O u''i 4 N fV fP O m a 10 a Y V 8 .4 v ?" r fli..0 .- �cD N m a m Q - O a,a z.;"""rz; v> Co c V C p C �i E Q. ° co I' a G co C E m .',.,1 ' , , c a 2 °- ,,a a • ° m g U u 2 c c 0, c a Z 5 - — V) V I ." co O a 4 N1 NC) M N T 4 T o 4 O co us N Co 4.0 cp m 17 . N N V P N V fA - e- N N a) 7 N N u, CNam co_N co NQ, V N N CO CO c)7 pop 7 o to 00 c..j• /.� 1.--- ao 1D aT c N AO Q M An '' ¢ °H M O 2 N»V»R Co Co N _ran DC C c CO▪ - O) �' -- 0, •v1 — _ 0. m S CO —4) a Y/ C LL Z.. yy'ili N G LL .4' N C O c N U CO m 7 W �yii',4. .I2 R j R a, O CC. O 1:° N 17 ,2 u E C �Jy E c c¢ y m y t_.E 0 a a x VP Co EO 0 t c.(VI ,'. '0 o 0 �." r '300) W � C°y CO aNi y m a n° 41 U 4, 0 a 3 c --0 d E L v U ,k, N ; , m m 7. 7. @ c y E ... m IL tIS {r t o— 7 N "4y , H m N IQ e E m w ✓' N LL of V E D, �' X2 av a .-pmp %o o .( v¢>O 9UU co U' a) ��� w� m . 2 ai y V .•-• d—c m K1 '_ , , y3 l��F ®' v m,n_ °—) m m m 0 ea a x O..f- W r ✓ ", ,., W �cna cn ua iiv°OLL2O — — — CET Local Dedicated Public Funding Subcommittee DRAFT Recommendations December 13, 2013 Background and Purpose At their June 7 2013 meeting,the COIC Board developed a six-member Subcommittee charged with developing recommendations on local public funding options for Cascades East Transit. The Subcommittee decided to expand to include a variety of regional leaders and to provide recommendations regarding the following four questions: • Governance:Should transit continue to be operated at the regional scale by COIC,and/or should a transit district or districts be formed? • Funding Geography:Should there be a single tri-county local funding solution,or a combination of funding solutions tailored to the service needs/priorities and willingness to pay of individual communities? • Local Funding Tool: Considering the broad array of dedicated funding tools in use in Oregon, what/which are appropriate for.CET? If a fee or tax is recommended,what should the rate be? • Level of Service:Should the funding solution(s) be aimed at maintaining the current level of service,a highly expanded level of service,or somewhere in between? The Subcommittee met seven times from August through November 2013,and produced these draft recommendations. See Appendix A for the full Committee meeting process/timeline and roster. Assumptions During the course of their work the CET Subcommittee developed a variety of Assumptions upon which to guide their work: • Central Oregon's local governments—cities and counties—and COIC are the key partners for transit service delivery for two reasons: 1. Local governments are the only organizations that have a stake in the broad suite of values served by transit—including addressing congestion and other community mobility issues, meeting the needs of underserved populations,and promoting community economic development and quality of life. Also,they are the best positioned to understand the balance of community needs and priorities. 2. Central Oregon's cities and counties formed COIC in part to provide services to meet needs that are shared across the region in an integrated and efficient manner. COIC and local governments should build on this foundation to work cooperatively and proactively to identify transit service needs and funding opportunities. Once base level service is achieved, additional focused partnerships can be developed to bolster service. DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 1 of 24 • "Focused partnership funding'is not sufficient to fund "backbone" or"base-level"transit service because partners will desire to fund service elements that provide direct benefits to them and not the system as a whole.These types of partnerships are therefore most useful in developing additional services over and above base service in specific areas and/or for individual clientele. However, partnerships will enhance support for any future funding measures because they a) demonstrate support for transit and b) represent funding participation by entities that may not directly contribute to public funding tools like a property tax(e.g.entities such as schools, government agencies and hospitals that do not pay property taxes). • Fare increases will help pay for transit and are a potential policy choice, but will not provide a basis for transit funding because transit provides public goods above and beyond the benefits to individual riders, most of whom cannot afford the full cost of a ride. • Due to the Assumptions listed above,for transit to be viable now and into the future will require a new source of dedicated local public revenue. In Oregon,options include passage of a property tax, payroll tax, local sales tax, or city utility fee. • The results of the September 2013 survey(see Appendix B for a summary of the survey findings), indicate that voters are unlikely to approve a new transit taxing measure in the next 1 to 3 or 5 years. The CET local public funding strategy requires a multi-phased approach,with short-term and long-term elements. Short-term elements will, in part, be aimed at developing greater public awareness of the benefits and value of transit in order to improve voter willingness to pay for it. Recommendation Highlights The Funding Committee has developed recommendations related to the original four questions as well as additional recommendations regarding Partnerships and Outreach and Engagement. The full list of recommendations,organized into Goals and Actions,are provided in the following section. Multi-phased Approach The survey results demonstrate that voters have yet to be convinced of the value of funding transit through a taxing measure. Therefore,the Funding Committee has recommended that COIC and its partners pursue a multi-phased approach to public funding including short-term (0 to 3 years)and long- term (3-5+years)elements. Phase One (short term)elements: • Develop agreements with cities and counties to define needed service levels and long-term funding methods that are tied to the actual cost of providing a base level of service (Scenario B) in each community and across the region.' • Build COIC's outreach and engagement capacity to increase public awareness of and support for the CET system and to develop focused partnerships with partner organizations and agencies. '"Focused partnership funding"is defined as contractual funding from individual businesses,state or federal agencies,or other organizations to improve service in specific areas or for specific interests or groups of clients. 2"Scenario B"is defined as the current number of service hours provided in each community plus a)conversion to fixed route in Redmond and flex routes in Madras and Prineville;and b)additional necessary components(that aren't currently funded)such as planning,outreach,and capital replacement. This service level is also referred to as"base level"and is defined in Appendix C. DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 2 of 24 Phase Two(long term) elements: • Develop a dedicated, local, publicly-funded tool to achieve"Scenario B"service levels across the region. • The funding tool will replace existing funding sources in areas that desire Scenario B service levels. In areas that desire Scenario C(see Appendix C)services,any new revenue would augment existing funding in order to provide this higher level of service. Governance and Geography In Oregon,certain funding tools are only available to specific governance approaches(e.g. property taxes are only available for transportation districts). The Committee recommends the following: • Maintain a regionally-based transit system with regional governance. • Pursue legislative changes to allow COIC to levy a property tax(subject to voter approval)for transit operations. • Short-term, maintain governance and operations with COIC. • Long-term, maintain regional governance and ensure that the governance model supports the chosen funding tool(s). Service Level A key question for the Committee has been the vision for transit service-specifically,should transit be very modest and designed to only meet the needs of transit-dependent riders, or should it be more robust and meet broader community goals? The Committee considered various service levels(see Appendix C),and recommends the following: • At a minimum, provide a base level of service(Scenario B)across the region within the short- term time frame. • Aspire to a robust(Scenario C)service level across the region over the long-term. Partnerships Partnerships are viewed as a key means to stabilize funding for base level of service, improve transit service over base levels,demonstrate support, and to ensure that all beneficiaries of transit are contributing. As stated above,there is a distinction between core local government partners and focused partnerships with other entities.The Committee recommends the following: • COIC will develop formal partnerships with cities and counties for local funding to provide base level of service(scenario B) in communities throughout the region. • COIC will pursue focused partnerships to meet the organizations and agencies'specific transportation needs,augment base levels of service, and demonstrate the value of transit. Key partnership opportunities include education,tourism,social service,and health care sectors. • Partnerships should span multiple years, be stable,and involve extensive outreach/ communication and the option for modifications to ensure that services are meeting needs. Outreach and Engagement DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 3 of 24 A lack of marketing and outreach/engagement was identified as a key weakness for Cascades East Transit's ability to develop public support for transit and partnerships. The Committee recommends the following: • Significantly bolster COIC/CET's outreach/engagement and marketing capacity to raise community awareness of transit,engage key partners, leverage resources,and build support for transit service and funding. • Build a strong,diverse coalition of transit supporters with a coordinated message. Local Dedicated Public Funding Tool The key to transit sustainability in Central Oregon is the eventual development of a dedicated local public funding tool. Principles with which to analyze local public funding options: • The local dedicated public funding tool should support Scenario B service levels(see footnote 3 and Appendix C)throughout the region. • Individual communities and partner organizations can "buy up"service over Scenario B with increased contributions. • All parts of the region should contribute to transit service. • The local dedicated public funding tool(s)should be consistent with the desire to maintain ongoing regional governance. • The local dedicated public funding plan should be equitable in that those organizations that particularly benefit from transit should help pay for it. The Committee recommends the following: • Over the short-term,develop partnerships with local governments to collectively develop local funding to achieve a sustainable base level of service("Scenario B")throughout the region. These partnerships could be formalized in the form of Agreements specifying important issues such as funding,service levels, route and hub locations,decision-making roles, and monitoring and performance expectations. • Focus short-term goals and actions towards the passage of a dedicated local public funding tool(s) in the long term. See Appendix D for a list and analysis of the available tools. DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 4 of 24 E a 0 0) u a H ° 1.- Q V) C t C CA +, 7. C rn !a C ++ L vi C 6 ro v,cu ai CO -p p L ra C C .w in C a c a (C o +� c ra O bA O O .- LL O To 0 E v C a ra o0 a •V ° O 7 y. CU W a 0_ . . VI a a, + to C +�+ O a aJ c vi V a o_ ni Co N C L L 5.41 p C O ° u ra _0 .p -O _ - 0 4- f0 'dq w a '� in p C • Q.1 U' O 0 .r d a L E a a L C (..) rC a u1 U 0 rC ' ' yr .4 "O r0 a X U C U1 Cl) +-.. C CCO d0 •C y 'c a •i 0. L.r -O i c '� 0.0 ns co vl ra C a O O ra 'n O rn a fa . r6 a C C a L o_ a .'_' m a o a a 'ra > rn ut r2 0_ v u 0 7 0.0 0 u, a -0 a ° C of apn 0 Q m E v) c u 0 a Q O IA ra a 0 0 • Q • L7 • < • , . C O O +' • L ut E vi -O ° L) a a U_ a C ba . - p -° L v C }' C to rc CO -0 +- � 0 'E c a VI C P C en C -0 a u -= ° U 0 = a .P C v a U a - ao To E 7 m C a 'c p •.O C 0 co c co C c 'c w° •�' v Q — t C E �, C ° t a 7 +, C 7 C . O Li v o CO C U CO 131 E u o f ° aon a u v 7 ra O v L, L Y o0 C, +, 'D U CO a ±+ .` +, O O E a E C co ra 4-' a L 0 0 n 7 ,., a C a r° C U C 4 0 C w vai ro E o _o a �' a E ,r 7 3 a p 0. " '3 z ? vi t' C `� O Q + -° N: ''' ra E o. O O - a 0 co a is a -0 0 t6 C a ,a, v rn rC v' ifj' Cp V 7 C a ra LO u a_+ O +± c C rn C 7 u1 O rO . ro 0 N u c w E a a) m O C Cl) co a —n C a ai E E p a, E C Vf U D a 1- C) ,ro.,: - t0 VI a 0 a C ra 13,) - O ° + 'an C°q z m en o a 3 -a ° _0 U E E ra a ro rti rn c a o a CO c cca o v np a+-3 al = a u, ao a � � T + ° - - E > 000 C a ° a E " ra a c 0 O °° a 'dn a 00 @ a +' U p V C 'n .- E a� L1 a b4 p ca 7 a t o a ro•CO L O 3 © N a n •7 s.. a L C,0 a N L a LL a O a ° w VI Li U — Ol +., a co 3 • W a s C O H -0 .- u ° f0 r'•C v 0 •. n w C 'I'0. U v.- 0 Li r 7. E a, O +, r0 a C Q �-- rC 0 m (O' O o •- c H i 0 a - - o U m 0 tko o .- m +�, �^: +^ — ° LL '- ,, c _ n 01 O °u Co `�° o c ° v. 'E L v ,c ca `a_' v •� 0 a 3 c E w — ra ° a ra C cr,to L 0 p c 'C ra cv C ,w in ro O - cui O 6.0 CC O to °u rya' ° P ai 7 '@ ai Q C '"C'J. ...+ C ra as CO +' C 0 N Q ID O 2G ra V:.: C -0 E - C. Ou Q yco E O O a O -a0 a6 N p c U, v E C •- v L - E a +, O 5 a C "O u O 7 C N 4 O 7 7 L U 3 +, +, o t io •F3 7, i r•-1 C a ° .a. E o_ Zl......tJ. ut 7 v1 4-, CU " s o t '^ 2 uu co c 0 Q .e a ° U E v' a 0U CC LL w tit U 0 @ .r bp .n C.7 • • < • • • C co 7 • • • • • a E 0 U ii f0 E u 7. 4-5 L L ° E °1 CU ba o 7 U O LL (2 C.7 J m fa -40 ra c t c t co U O ,r, a -. 0.0 J b 0. I- C O a o c 4- OA a 4- -0 c v a U + • .- V 0_ Mr a s>., -0 N L vs 0 Qs - U a U co '.P 7 a i v o v CU rra E c -0 n -0 -0 a p Qs co u u O c A 0- —° P-. 0 0_ o OD to C 0 U J C7 . Q 4-, -. 0) o 1:32 o c u w ,+� O t ill -0 i 0 v1 O E IA CO L O _ CL' a u c a Ln a t o c cis H u CO a 7, a U O Q > r6 7 a C i U �' w ° L a C vi — 7 a a �, IC co E a O v c 2 E w QO v E O Ln O -0 cu o -• 5 E E c U m u O ° L I -° o ° .co (D •U •- C +� ro ._ w a a .-+ a) L .-+ Q a L s0 h0 0 4- C VO _N •5 o o LO °" in d E ro ++ v Y a LL 0 4, Q C L C } Q C E c ° C in "4 N O -p ro a f° c° a ra ' a C •E Q O ▪ -O C C " i E `n N . a C +� a O a -O Cl) v) 4-, rD ra c Cl LL w .� ° O U •C °cA C CC t .0+ (6 Cl) ..-. H ro C sr ra f° 0 = on C CQ r.C f° .0 C a p WI a .v p :u o v X 0 E C 0 +, a— C_ 4' i a' V L "6'..U .� U a Cl) L v) C a+▪ ai C E O a. a. .. C — ra p, r° C N -O O Q �1 a 4) +.r m C -° ° U ...1 Cl; 0.:C •- c° r6 L C {' -° •o E _ 7 0 CO ^ C C ° c ra C7 °' ....a p ,.5 �- •� ° L no aa) 7 a c° Cl) p o �--' C In L+ L N U M13 "0 CU C > C U a cn .- ra "O C 0 -o 3 -a C) o �° +� 0. .- 0 0.0 U a a u i= .•.. a L +' U a VI N vl a) O s C C a � • a V co m a C 3 y O. bA •7 a °- `- -° ro "0 i ° a Q V a c a o V' s L p © ° u co i rw ° a ca a Co in O a o 0_ v c c ^ ° � c E C C > +' to LL. C L V .r• -Q a L ° o ° v U a co c Rs dp ro ro o C ro a ate) L U C C a C cO a © E j vai cn ` ; m C C '0 a 0_ P .x w L a ? a a _c Q O "uO a (...3 -o cc O x y -7, O_ . -a r° a s .'..c 0 m LL ro o .Q a o s o. LA a cn O — a ." E t, ; p E Q u� a�i y c -7 C u to :C_ 3 _c °-) a) c o c '�' a N E rc. c' +C.. = a ce - L a n - — ++ L a u i s- "O cv '^ T II ro a ca .0 O O a a a) " i .nH c x C L 3 v t • a w Q m N o a -0 > E o. -0 O `m U ro m 3 w 0 L _o v aa) W' °C° v o U CO +� C N 0. n c c 0 0 Y a 7 - a — 0 a C - C -o a) -0 _ o U, O c o L ° u 4, m . a .� .0 bp r° a n — t H C Q O co . a a a a) a o .0 ra C _c a a 5 x s t 0 U c� L) U rn m 0 0 3 rs o 4, a m Lu 3 o ;r 0 V) ¢ • • • • Ur • • • • • N t lA V c C Y L a. a =a as in U 0 LL C -O ca C '� 4 ° o. _° c E a a u a E + a a) c° et L _C co to .-p N CJ CO C O LE c cu a) 4- n O C) U a) 7 " +' a b C ro a a L +, 2 Y -0 a C I @ = N to `!'I U O E co p ra c L.).) -1 L .• • < ` C �^ U CA - DO 0 .0 O U ' CA .n v CO C co to c ._ Y N .- ! cn 1u41w N u co C "O' U a C C C L 3 C Q a a_ U 'j to i. E "O O on 0. O. C co co +-' a L t o '-'c iL, L ' E QJ 0 ° �+ A N .� C i-, VI N ° C C a, .. U a c �, a CO 4- �, C E 48 a a) ° C 0 0 i C m ° C C 0 L CU IIa 0 E CU o m w C E +, v v N N C O v *' 7 © `)'" C ;� O v " Cal) c Q o 0 0= al -0 a. I— a m iri � .. O a v 7::°- -=a to a? 0 v Cl mm C rC W to t •C9 Q'.& W 70- °- C O [+, d0 > O U i 7 N , al "4 Vf -C N u v o_ (�6 Ry L v -C - C Q O_ O C co u co 7 .y E ct E co C C E na L N L C N ra: a L L Q- +, U i C L N 7 u 'C C. ' pa +, C O. C N w w.. "fJ CO O O •t rp bp co �' cC O. U Cl)X C C r^ � a u ,., . 0 C C U ° r i ° v C +- a. L) — a a ea ra a }, v v C n +. ra ° w+ E m C ° a '^ °) +. °- w' O 0) a L C 0 'oa o O i 0 '^ C C m Q ca N 3 m a) 0_'- U 0 m E i o co i LL 'Q C °' U Cq .0 .� +, u in `- `. O.w O w co O a W ca .t T C i O a ca "O C N 7 +, — O -p C O 0 C U -0 co w n3 of Y o Vl ,-r-t° N +• co O 0' +, v� +, .,. U a a) i L C ° Cl.° ° C .� c ++ = 0 C .-E v v u, m ++ m q. rC U ate) C 0 L C v C +C +-' N C +CD '.� +O, Q1 Y b O C �, O' Q cc +� rn 7 a c9 rD '- o C. O a �' N +,..,:;Caq _ 7 �n ,;,...y..;.... _O 2 O u1 7 u .- a C "O — °_ +-' a CO Q Cp co "Q ea cn Cr o CC' a) C 7 47.a E I- a LL ° Y E r'D C •• U L( Cl v �1 .7 d Q) a) _c ,1/1 `/7 f�6 `. v o f a ° '- a' a O o ° = v v a.' L -a o C Co v-, 0.1 ,_, C o v o 4-, r.) a — E C u Q -I O CU c c C rCC v ry E *, 0 3 -C a ' a o 0 0 0 o a @ lim L U O -0 L 7 L ...... a °' n C , N . _ m • -a o LL OU > I o- I-•- o o y CD 0 4.6. a) E a .A H V ro ea 2 7 'O 0 ea + v N N L CO 0 `d Co r IA a as E co d L a I- to c O J Y C L a uo ( O _° a vi to N ca U + ca CO C L a -0 V, L ° V C N VI ° C 0 II ,c ihuI ! fl1I1Ih; ..,.. +i, -C c V. ,,.a °; c +� c O ^ c a C o C o cn c o -o C - co C , - 0-.•>:: co U $- Cl) c a ns 1- t a U co ° ca CU c `a U 7 v c 0 c D t C -p ° Co U a vi c Ili a + .a[ CO L c Q to O LO v1' O c::CO +., y CO in 0 e., v �, O ,�'113 OD ca cu a c N U N O_ O_ ca v N c ° N c a a Q O 0 •v C v ap u 'L° '° a s o p E v, c ., v m ra ca E L W .; +, v l an I- a m c 0 CO o a Q v 1 ca °� ,= v 0 °c° a ra 3 7 a q�n c N a :: d�A i w O o, v, C - t U a) c VC -° Y O J C ..° ~ a a O L T 4 C -p 4-' as as '= ° ° *- m 0 c Y a 0. y. to as p .2 in E - v �° ° u C a Q II. O ca C a c +, t c ,n C o 3 a ° s E a c'°i ° v c„ +, c° c v au' ) ++ U a s ++ ra C :+, ° = L C ut a C a ° L LL ro F2 O cO 0 '' 3 Q c c° c 4 W ai 4- a @ w° c 0. 0 L H 0.a0 ° .1) vi ° ° E `° c ro ? w, c G — 4, b'''.. c U c T7 a C e N • 0 a - p_ ra a) c a O E c`o c a,1 = j 0. J H_ _ C. 0„ a0 L ON -O i° a a O Q -p m ° u c OA 'c ca +� O a C U ,, E a O o E .,_ a -p v s ° p 7 a Co a c a uo OL D v a v ao+ +-+ ++ C r6 ++ c Y I -c, I— U O C C vi -0 CO C_..A.:� - Y -p a E 0 LL . +' co CO ° v, L r CO t OD , -C '° Y 0 a_ O + f`0 +U-+ CO a a s 'C U C vl ra +z, cis rz c n +' v chi ,c ° -u a -C C qa a E a :E - .w c Q o ro E a ra p a 3 +_• 3 •D p U 3 ra co 03 co ca 0 o a Cl) ra �.r': a O a .0 ° D +, 1- 0 0 'u a L o cco o v > U o C) 0- +`, , 0. o .. .E on > °''c= o C aao 0 .0 a s 0 0 c Cl) .- a +, +' 0- d .- Cl) 0 C 'i =..,..Q a C 3.. x ca L u w Y -0 U 0 IL E o ca > - < 0 a Q 0. U ,,.0 -° Cl CO 0_ m a .E m w I o IP .0 u V) • • Q • • • • • • • • • • • • • T an y, U T O o h9 ++ _ co• O 0.0 - C 7 0 a c T_ O v C a) U v v d v c O_7 0) c C N a U +' N -0 • v • a) L O n co c CU > a) o Li- -C a O u 'G CL a t C *' o a)a) to +. . .� . v L -0.0 LI N a) a w QCQ 41 a) co Lo c0 v n T . co "Q v, L a > U i-� v v) -o a) N -a ate+ rD @ 3 •C a) L CO 'O a) 0 ° C a-+ CO U O V, 0 v) •� C 4••• N • 2 �O E ° hA N ra CI N Li,-�- a bA to .w 41 o c ate-• = m C O v) a O •r CO w ° N C O m N EM , p C 4- i1 U X' d Ol rte+ p_ • u Q1 "6 �^ O •vf •++ C 7 7 .0 U " hO E ° C h4 O_ U L O u _ to ca G - L 7 C co -p "O p Q p -° O u aj co c fl N O U a) U, N C N c`a ' 7 yr Q v U) a) -a -o T = C H a) c 4., O .o C r6 (a a+ 7 C CO h4 0 w m N I- 4- VI i x 0 a1 v _ CO 0 C. CO a w CO 4- C O u O@ N -1 C7 • • < Z +.. an • • _ VI 7 •}• i U 0 •+-. CU U- T u y �.' O E c N hO c Ln > 0 i U Ca C 'o i 4, 7 U, U _C 0 CU O V 7 C O E ° "Q '+� a) o U C o a) s t c _c - E m ,c " -r), 0 v a) .- C i U C 7 '+.+ (6 Q 0 's' C U L O a) t co C i C to Ca +• +• }� cl) $ -- L)L) -p 3 v ra 3 c a' ' C a) Cpj �, a� m a U c vi c o a, Cl) C E O c y to . = CO U co 7':O a) N "O Ou U) 7 C V) ++ rn c Ln cp tiN ro'`� co a) OD o CO Q)CC C a) v O E C v U v' '^ u C O X: 0 w u c E O a t 8 v m: s al 4-, `L'-0 0 N 7 U cos Ln CU 7 E •v, +' cir ° 4-' 7 m E E . aU ,- O c U) ._. c o O E > o i W a co 7 U U C 0 (a 'U l6 a) to a) Q ',• c ho E C Ou 0 vOi N N. C L C O 7 c"a c 5,, as c W C 0 m a) a) E L .- c c to +, E• v C a C -° a s ,•- +r y7.... C po Q) v, T a) O C a.+ p r0 U, a) w co "O C > co a-• '+, +' C+. 'C t C C N a � CO C C N r6 _o 7 a) R co "0 a) O_ 7 C C C +, O ° u u =ra U O p C L E co ro ° aci w '~ :� fO i — co ca co o E v a) cn U a) C 0 a vs y _0 v, Q N ro C O - O O C .7 0 m d vyi v > a LL CU CU a • U .� s.. CO a) C m C °_ -O hC.:,hO OC c O c w • ao v — m o •c - o v 4, m y a� 3 H Q. c 'O *' s -O •- m C a p C C V a) L. vi 7• - C N u) a) lC t' t 7 T Y 7 C 44 (O v a) -Q i a) co a - a) i C -O +• ++ as CO +-. W (O O u t' c"1 • — CU = ✓) CD C 0 u0 V/ .0 L, 2 v y 0 ` c`) 3 1 N CO •C Q W +- a (a v ° c E o E LE o v —O ant ,,, E O v m m t a ¢ m ¢ u)) c cco w a p E O a�i ai E ¢ a) E •- c m Q u t'=#• 0 • • • Q • U 12 7 O. m U U, O Q -0 1- •V• • a = A u. APPENDICES Appendices A. CET Funding Committee Roster and Meeting Process/Timeline B. Summary September 2013 Transit Survey Findings C. Transit Service Level Scenarios and High-Level Costs D. Available Dedicated Local Public Funding Tools for Transit E. Transit Funding Governance Options DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 10 of 24 APPENDIX A CET Funding Committee Process and Timeline Updated: December 13, 2013 Committee Purpose:To develop recommendations for the COIC Board on four primary questions: • overnance: Should transit continue to be operated at the regional scale by COIC, and/or should a transit district or districts be formed? • Funding Geography: Should there be a single tri-county local funding solution, or a combination of funding solutions tailored to the service needs/priorities and willingness to pay of individual communities? • Local Funding Tool: Considering the broad array of dedicated funding tools in use in Oregon, what/which are appropriate for CET? If a fee or tax is recommended, what should the rate be? • Level of Service: Should the funding solution(s) be aimed at maintaining the current level of service, a highly expanded level of service, or somewhere in between? ° i;,' ! w,:; �.�e . ��,. �����du�, w 1a� �\ 1 \\�� u � � \ \�.�;;k �..�.d�.�,m �.. a1I17!r 1 ....� ,, � 0 . v, Meeting #1 August 16 • Discuss committee goals, process and timeline • Orient participants to CET funding framework; Work to date on system Committee Orientation vision, planning, and sustainable system funding concepts and CET Overview • High level review of governance options • High level review of funding mechanism options • Determine CET Committee need for additional information, data, research Meeting #2—September 6 • Review of CET service level/cost scenarios • Detailed review range of transit system funding mechanism options Data and Info on Budget • Determine CET Committee need for additional information, data, research, and Funding Mechanisms etc. Meeting #3—September 20 • Detailed review range of options for transit system governance • Review preliminary outcomes of regional public phone survey Data and Info on • Determine CET Committee need for additional information, data, research, Governance etc. Meeting #4 —October 4 • Discussion of geographic governance options • Review final survey outcomes and findings/meet with consultant firm Regional Options • Determine CET Committee need for additional information, data, research, etc. Meeting #5—October 18 • Facilitated Committee discussion regarding options for a sustainable funding approach. Preliminary identification of recommendations. Facilitated Discussion— • Determine CET Committee need for additional information, data, research, CET Sustainability etc. Concepts Meeting #6- November 1 • Develop draft recommendations on sustainable funding approach Develop Draft/Preliminary Recommendations Meeting #7— November 15 • Develop draft recommendations on sustainable funding approach Develop Draft/Preliminary • Achieve concurrence on recommendations to COIL Board Recommendations November 15—January 2014 • Provide draft recommendations to COIC Board, city councils, County Outreach boards of commissioners, and stakeholders; solicit comment and feedback. Meeting #8—TBD • Based on COIC Board questions and feedback, revise/refine recommendations Develop Revised/Final • Discuss implementation concepts and next steps Recommendations • Achieve concurrence on revised recommendations to COIC Board COIC Board Meeting — • COIC Board accepts final recommendations February 6, 2014 • COIC Board approves sustainable funding plan for CET system Acceptance of Recommendations DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 11 of 24 APPENDIX A COIC--CET Funding Committee Roster m\\p„p \`\rN 44 4 ,�nN ., bxvr ei.xa41'n\,x,�d�\n b drl ,+\�G, wm..,,.mn\tm�w 1 4;.4444 n� ,N'Pe��;1\��"u\\ ,,,i1\ ,�h\ ;,d\ Ck'‘4,,,� �N\\\�\� N\ u�l`�.,�i.,.. �4N� �P Alan Unger, Deschutes County Commissioner Richard Ladeby, Madras City Council 541-388-6569 503-930-7093 AIan.Unger @deschutes.org rladeby @ci.madras.or.us Jason Carr, Prineville City Council Chris Bellusci, Private Sector 541-233-9692 541-550-0745 jcarr @cityofprineville.com cbellusci @geoengineers.com Victor Chudowsky, Bend City Council Jim Wilson, Private Sector 541-749-0085 541-410-7746 vchudowsky @ci.bend.or.us brassrng @gmail.com \ nu ;q1'"; u ilk, w N 4 � , k , ' �p '4 \ 444 ; n'441 = , . , 1 Scott Cooper, Executive Director Jeff Monson, Executive Director Neighborlmpact Commute Options 541-548-2380 ext102 541-330-2647 scottc @neighborimpact.org jeff @commuteoptions.org George Endicott, Mayor Pamela Norr, Executive Director City of Redmond Central Oregon Council on Aging 541-504-2000 541-678-5483 George.Endicott@ci.redmond.or.us pnorr @councilonaging.org Ken Fahlgren, Commissioner Ron Parsons,Program Manager Crook County Oregon Department of Human Services 541-447-6555 541-504-1320 ext 438 ken.fahlgren @co.crook.or.us Ron.Parsons @state.or.us Gary Farnsworth,Area Manager Dave Rathbun, President and General Manager Oregon Dept. of Transportation Mt. Bachelor 541-388-6071 541-382-4224 Gary.C.FARNSWORTH @odot.state.or.us drathbun @mtbachelor.com Wendy Holzman,Councilor Mike Riley, Executive Director City of Sisters Environmental Center 541-549-8558 541-385-6908 x 19 WHolzman @ci.sisters.or.us mike @envirocenter.org Eric King, City Manager Kirk Schueler, Chief Administrative Officer City of Bend St. Charles Health System 541-388-5505 541-706-6958 eking @bendoregon.gov keschueler @stcharleshealthcare.org Matt McCoy,Vice President for Administration Matt Shinderman, Natural Resources Central Oregon Community College OSU Cascades 541-383-7704 541-322-3159 mmcccoy @cocc.edu Matt.Shinderman @osucascades.edu " a u�1 pW�\ q p p��u\4., ,�, N}p^t i "'P, ! w•9,'4�4 r a 4 ry\ P1� N \�\,�\NN"k ;i,�\f1 , '\d��P yy ' ;04 " Pp "4 � e n y� 1, . n \4;� " \ � ` ' `� ° . S `1 x , 1�, p ° 44 t‘' p04n; ' V ',MVO' n` r1 u �:'4w44 i . P i ""^ o\ \d' Andrew Spreadborough, Executive Director Karen Friend,Deputy Director/CET Manager (541)504-3306 (541)548-9543 aspreadborough @coic.org kfriend @coic.org Scott Aycock, Community Development Mgr. Tamara Geiger, Program Assistant (541)548-9523 (541)548-9527 scotta @coic.org tgeiger @coic.org DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 12 of 24 APPENDIX B 0 MOORE INFORMATION OPINION RESEARCH • STRATEGIC ANALYSIS September 27, 2013 TO: Scott Aycock and Karen Friend, COIC FROM: Robin Kreger, Moore Information RE: Central Oregon Voters and Transportation Issues Methodology A total of 1,150 live telephone interviews were conducted among representative samples of voters in four Central Oregon cities, including: N=400 interviews in Bend; N=400 in Redmond; N=200 in Prineville and N=150 in Madras. The region-wide N=1,150 interviews were weighted to actual voter population of the four city area. Landline and cell phone interviews were conducted September 12-17, 2013. The sampling error associated with each survey follows: Plus or minus 3% at the 95% confidence level for N=1,150. Plus or minus 5% at the 95% confidence level for N=400. Plus or minus 7% at the 95% confidence level for N=200. Plus or minus 8% at the 95% confidence level for N=150. Summary and Highlights Overview The transportation funding measures tested in these surveys are unlikely to pass in the Central Oregon region, or in any of the four individual cities, as economic factors weigh heavily on voters' minds and lack of public transportation is not a salient issue. • Overall, the current issue priority region-wide is"creating jobs" (the top issue for 54%), distantly followed by"improving public education"(20%). "Improving public transportation" is the most important issue for just 7% of respondents in the region. • It is important to note that a significant percentage of voters don't know how to rate their area's public transportation system, with 30% having no opinion region-wide (28% no opinion in Bend, 36% Redmond, 34% Prineville and 31% Madras). • Further, lack of public transportation is not a leading issue for respondents region- wide, nor is it in any of the four cities. • The fact that most voters are not concerned about"lack of public transportation" in their transportation routines as well as the high percentage of voters who currently have no opinion about public transportation in their own community is reflected in the lack of enthusiasm for the funding measures tested in the survey. 2130 SW Jefferson St. Ste. 200 428 4" St., Ste. 8 1 21 South Ave West, Ste. 406 Portland, OR 97201 Annapolis, MD 21403 M ssoula, MT 59801 503.221.3100 410.216.9856 406.317.1662 DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 13 of 24 APPENDIX B Funding Options When given the chance to choose a preferred funding option for public transportation expansion and improvements, fully 52% of the region's voters prefer no tax or fee increases (this includes 33% who prefer "re-allocation of funds from programs and services" paid for by their city's general fund and 18% who prefer no increase). Looking specifically at a potential property tax increase, the survey tested two funding levels; a 35-cent per thousand/assessed value and a 20-cent option. Neither property tax option would be approved in an election held today, and the less expensive option would also face an uphill battle to pass in the near future, at least while economic issues are foremost on voters' minds and public transportation is not perceived as a major problem. The survey also explored a potential utility fee option to fund transportation, described to respondents as a "$2.75 per month utility fee, totaling $33 per year." This funding option is unpopular and generates majority opposition region-wide and among voters in all cities. Messaging and Moving Forward The most effective message in generating support for a property tax increase for public transportation overall is: "Improving public transit in [CITY] will provide services for area residents who are disabled or elderly or are lower income who depend on transit service." This message is rated "very" important in transit funding voting decisions by more than 50% of all voters, region-wide and by city. This message has potential to be leveraged in future COIC communications, including potential marketing and outreach efforts. Further, region-wide, voters are more likely to agree that public transportation should be "substantial,"rather than "minimal." "Public transportation in the[CITY]area should be substantial. Public transportation is an important element for encouraging the area's economic growth, and plays an important part in reducing traffic congestion and our area's environmental impact." COIC communications should leverage the following groups' support for "substantial" public transportation into willingness to vote for funding measures for public transit: Bend residents, women, voters age 18-64, Democrats, Independents, voters who have voted in three or fewer of the last four elections and public transit supporters. More survey details follow. Most Important Issue Overall, the current issue priority region-wide is "creating jobs" (the top issue for 54%), distantly followed by "improving public education" (20%). "Improving public transportation" is the most important issue for just 7% of respondents in the region. Additional responses include "reducing crime" (6%) and "protecting the environment" (5%). Another 5% say "something else" is the most important issue and 3% have no opinion. Creating jobs is the current issue priority among all subgroups region-wide. • "Creating jobs" is the most important issue among voters in all four cities and "improving public transportation" is not a top priority anywhere (7% say improving public transportation is most important in Bend, 7% in Redmond, 2% in Prineville and 6% in Madras). DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 14 of 24 APPENDIX B Transportation Issues Fully 79% of voters believe that their area's public transportation system (identified primarily as Cascades East Transit bus system) is important, including 47% who say it is "very" important. Another 13% say it is "not very important." Just 5% say it is "not important at all" and 3% have no opinion. There is majority agreement among all voter subgroups in the region that the area's public transportation system is important. • These results are consistent across all cities, with wide majorities considering the public transportation system important (81% important in Bend, 70% Redmond, 78% Prineville, 82% Madras). When it comes to rating their area's public transportation system on a scale from excellent to poor, voters in the region are not impressed, with just 14% giving an "excellent/above average" rating, 33% saying "average" and 23% "below average/poor." Importantly, a significant percentage of voters don't know enough to rate their area's public transportation system, with 30% having no opinion region-wide. Subgroups least likely to know enough about the transportation system to have an opinion include: seniors, Redmond residents, voters who say public transportation is not important and voters who are undecided on a potential property tax increase and potential utility fee. • Sentiment is consistent across all cities, with no more than 16% giving a combined "excellent/above average" rating (15% excellent/above average in Bend, 11% Redmond, 12% Prineville, 16% Madras). And similarly, significant percentages of voters in each city don't know enough about the system to have an opinion (28% no opinion in Bend, 36% Redmond, 34% Prineville and 31% Madras). From a personal standpoint, the two biggest problems voters have when traveling from one place to another in the region are "road construction" (23%) and "condition of roads/potholes/dangerous roads" (20%), followed by "congestion" (17%). Other perceived problems include "don't drive or have access to a car" (6%), "lack of public transportation" (5%) and "lack of certainty about the time it will take to get there by car" (2%). Another 15% give an unspecified response and 13% have no opinion. The biggest perceived problem(s) differ by city, but lack of public transportation is not a top concern anywhere. Bend voters are most concerned about construction and condition of roads, Redmond voters are most concerned with construction, Prineville voters say congestion and Madras voters are concerned with condition of roads. The following table illustrates these results. Biggest Transportation Problem Region- wide Bend Redmond Prineville Madras ,, P;r',elf\o nU \\d "4"T Condition of roads, potholes, 20% 22% 12% 8% 26% and dangerous roads Don't drive/have access to a car 6% 6% 2% 6% 7% Lack of certaint about time 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% Don't know 13% 12% 15% 27% 15% DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 15 of 24 APPENDIX B Funding Proposals When given the chance to choose a preferred funding option for public transportation expansion and improvements, fully 52% of the region's voters prefer no tax or fee increases. This includes one-in-three (33%) who prefer "re-allocation of funds from programs and services" paid for by their city's general fund and 18% who prefer no increase (this was a volunteered response to this question). Among those who would be open to some type of funding option, 14% prefer a city-wide sales tax on prepared food and beverages, followed by a property tax increase for homeowners (9%), increased payroll taxes for businesses (6%) and a utility fee for homeowners and businesses (5%). All voter subgroups prefer re-allocation/no increases over any of the funding options. • Similarly, re-allocation/no increases is the leading preference among voters in all cities. Redmond and Prineville residents are most likely to share this sentiment (63% Redmond, 63% Prineville), but a plurality of voters in Madras and Bend are also opposed to any type of increase (49% Bend, 47% Madras). In a follow-up question, voters were asked why they preferred the option they chose. The leading response for choosing re-allocation of the existing general fund dollars was "too many taxes/can't afford taxes." There is less consensus for preferring the other options: • Those who prefer a property tax increase say they are "in favor of property taxes," "it's fair,""it's the"best option"and "transportation is necessary." • Those who prefer a utility fee say"everyone should be taxed equally,""it's fair," "homeowners shouldn't have to shoulder the whole load"and it's the"best option." • Those who prefer a sales tax on prepared food/beverages say"tourists should/will also contribute," "in favor of food/sales tax," it's the"best option"and "everyone should be taxed equally." • Those who prefer an increase in payroll taxes say"transportation is necessary," "businesses should pay for it,""funds are not spent properly,""oppose a property tax,""don't want them taking money from schools"and "too many taxes, can't afford taxes." Looking specifically at a potential property tax increase, the survey tested two funding levels; a 35-cent per thousand/assessed home value and a 20-cent option. Survey results reveal that neither property tax option would be approved in an election held today and the lower option would also face an uphill battle to pass in the near future, at least while economic issues are foremost on voters' minds and lack of public transportation is not perceived as a major problem. DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 16 of 24 APPENDIX B 35-Cent Option Region-wide, two-in-three voters (67%) would vote no on the 35-cent option, including more than half (54 0/0) who would "definitely" vote no. Just 27% would vote yes on this option, presented as follows: "Would you vote 'yes'to support or'no'to oppose a property tax increase of an additional 35 cents per thousand dollars of assessed home value, or BEND= $88 per year on a $250,000 home REDMOND= $70 per year on a $200,000 home PRINEVILLE= $61 per year on a $175,000 home MADRAS= $53 per year on a $150,000 home to sustain and improve transit service levels in [CITY]?" All voter subgroups across the region are opposed to this funding option. The strongest support for this option comes from voters age 18-34, Democrats and "transit supporters." ("Transit supporters" include voters who say improving public transit is the most important issue in their city, say public transit is "very important," rate local public transit as "excellent/above average" and voters who say a lack of public transit is their biggest personal transportation problem.) However, support among any of these groups does not reach a majority. • By city, the 35-cent option faces majority opposition among all four cities (67% opposed in Bend, 68% in Redmond, 71% in Prineville and 57% in Madras). 20-Cent Option A 20-cent property increase option is also opposed region-wide, with 54% opposed (including 44% who are "definitely" opposed) and 42% in support (just 13% "definitely" support). The language for the lower cost option follows and was asked among voters who said "no" or were undecided on the 35-cent option. Results among these voters were then combined with the "yes" responses on the 35-cent option to get overall results (it is assumed that"yes"voters on the 35-cent option would also support the lower amount). "Instead of 35 cents, would you vote 'yes'to support or'no'to oppose a property tax increase of an additional 20 cents per thousand dollars of assessed home value, or BEND= $50 per year on a $250,000 home REDMOND= $40 per year on a $200,000 home PRINEVILLE= $35 per year on a $175,000 home MADRAS= $30 per year on a $150,000 home to sustain transit service levels in [CITY]?" As with the 35-cent option, the most supportive of the 20-cent option are voters age 18-34, Democrats and "transit supporters." • By city, Bend, Redmond and Prineville voters are opposed to the lower amount in majority numbers (54% opposed in Bend, 56% Redmond, 59% Prineville). However, in Madras, voters are divided on the 20-cent option (47% yes, 49% no). Among the most supportive subgroups in Madras are women, younger voters, Democrats and "transit supporters." DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 17 of 24 APPENDIX B The following table illustrates results for both cost options. Potential Property Tax Increase 35-Cent Option 20-Cent O•tion Re•ion-wide 27% 60/0 67% 42% 4% 54% = Redmond 26% 6% 68% 41% 3% 56% a. \1a1e�.J �,,� Madras 35% 8% 57% 47% 4% 490/0 After the property tax increase options were tested, the following additional information was presented to respondents: "Here is some more information about a potential property tax increase, as you may know, the final amount of the proposed property tax has not been determined. A 35-cent property tax increase would allow for public transportation improvements throughout your area, including increased bus routes, hours and frequency; expanded weekend service and expanded shuttle service between Central Oregon cities. A 20-cent property tax increase would maintain current public transportation service levels only, with no improvements. Based on this, do you prefer a 35-cent property tax increase option or a 20-cent property tax increase option?" Based on this additional information, there is no consensus among voters overall; 28% prefer the 35-cent option, 31% the 20-cent option and 36% prefer no increase (a volunteered option). Region-wide, among voters open to an increase, subgroups most likely to support the 35-cent option over the 20-cent options are voters age 18-34, Democrats and "transit supporters." After hearing this additional information, results by city follow: • Bend voters are divided between the options, but 37% still want no increase. • Redmond voters prefer the 20-cent option 31-22%, but 41% still want no increase. • Prineville voters are divided, but 35% still want no increase. • Madras voters are divided, but 28% still want no increase. The survey also explored a potential utility fee option to fund transportation, described to respondents as a "$2.75 per month utility fee, totaling $33 per year." This funding option is unpopular and generates majority opposition region-wide (55%). Further, 41% "strongly" oppose (vs. 38% total support, 14% "strongly" support). Similar to the potential property tax increase, the most supportive subgroups for a utility fee are younger voters, Democrats and "transit supporters." • Looking at city results, majorities of voters in all cities oppose a utility fee. DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 18 of 24 APPENDIX B The following table illustrates results for the utility fee. Potential Utility Fee Support utility fee Oppose Don't know utilit fee Bend 39% 8% 54% Prineville 31% 6% 62% h�� �i�'`������1v����' Messaging The survey also tested four messages about public transit and asked voters to rate the importance of each when it comes to voting on a potential property tax increase. The most effective message overall focuses on providing services for transit-dependent residents; more than eight-in-ten (84%) say this is important in their voting decision for a property tax increase. "Improving public transit in [CITY]will provide services for area residents who are disabled or elderly or are lower income who depend on transit service." This message is rated "very" important by more than 50% of all voters, region-wide and by city, among all key voter subgroups. The three additional messages tested are not nearly as effective. Although each receives combined "total important" ratings above 50%, fewer voters say these messages are "very" important in their voting decisions and the messages' total "not important" scores are higher. A table illustrating these results follows. DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 19 of 24 APPENDIX B Public Transit Messages Very imp. Somewhat Total Total not im.. 1m•. im•. b ,'f^W,,, Sd N\ N t\&'S '1, 0,i A ,mm« R ^";@' , 1`\ @�1 , N` fi\�w`,,d°\xv\..\,\�rX \1' • \RI N ,1\ , t',6"'0,011,,,", ( \ ( \ p \ \ µ , � 'd p ' , 0I1 ,, q r \ \ N' \ \ ' f , \ l � ° ^ * \ � y F u * \ " \ V N, \ . � w * W ti \ \ 1 j't � p � , 0 �• *0�, 4 Nh Mi�0��'\ � R ,�\ ;, M ,� � \0 \ \ \ Region-wide 54% 30% 84% 13% „ 4 Nm w ' Nr ,, ' ° „ \ y\ . ' � q ' u , n � , „M r r P� \!\� � \ u" WN Redmond 51% 30% 81% 15% Madras 57% 23% 80% 14% A4, 11 p a yy as \e\Ny ''a N \ m* b dN k tt nV A a(\ \ 4 \ A, d\ A \mt \ 0\ , u d 0' t� \ \fi ' \ �' p0 , \ ' t " � ' ' \01 i "\ tlr m m ,'J1 �raM • N �. \ � � '' � ` MJ' � Hd4 \\ ',_" '1'.\i,"",,',,4 4,i,,j 0,. ‘'',"l't"''\Y ,,"■\;'1, 1,1/4,,,,k,,,,1/4,,,„0,, ,,,,\,.11,\,,y, 0\S■; ,, ,1/40"k\?'i dl',1''',1/4 111'''''',''1/4"P,',',V\V Vil',0q1\' 't\o"0„,'1,,4,,tiitt+,,,;„,1, ,,,;,,,„',,,,,„ ,,,,,,,,o;\i,, ,,ic^,,,0q0,,i„i,‘,4,,\,,,,„"i,,'',,;,, III, ,,',,,°,4,,,:i, uk Wh � V P �° � * �„� . ` \ �9 \ 0. ;,,Rp' Region-wide ` 29% 37% 65% 31% \�°�' %\q �\, \, \ p \ N �\O (\ ( it 46,46 \ 'N, wq,* ''",`\i' \. arm�" ;\W ,N,N\ M" \ n'*yM 11 Redmond 29% 35% 64% 29% ,, d p „ W a Mp4 .„ \`N � \ �ra� Madras 35% 39% 74% 21% Auk a\` 1 :\'',‘,''',\ \\ .,, ",� 4 . \'.I ,” \ ., „ P, ,a \ \ �'\\''\\\ \ e''' ',,,,43.,10,‘4,'''',,,‘,,�* P °\ ` i p � \ F*, °,, N1 8 1 W M p d1 ,, \ pA ,`. Region-wide 34% 33% 66% 31% Redmond 29% 32% 61% 34% t\ v,t m po,..'," "\d,„k, r'N1!N 0. ,\ ;N111,, 1\1 \y,( , �\, 1+ Vv,"6W�\AP, 01't a.';' i\\. 'p 1" , \ p , v„ b. p1 ( \� 0.m ,,,,,\ , d N ,,,,, ,,,\ ud, , * >„*,,1 Po, ,,, ,,, ‘ . ,,, 1\ ,O' , $r,\ ,\\� N Madras 37% 34% 71% 25% A ti'°P °�,yN\PW\h\„NTdq":. \\\\*G1,� ''�,d,\u,a �. ° �a' e pp k p PW;\\,\\\,'0' \11\'pc r\;pY fl ',,µ ,\�+° \,\M y � ;�.i � toU\\�4 1\ ` \\\\ F1\,'1➢,\� h 4q \ i �� � u ', p� ,u, �,\a a a m\ r ' , "\\u °,c� V,\° d °0 \d �' , \ � \ d1� p �, \ ,f,� b 1, d ' p \� , i p '„ ,i" ' "''^\ N\,\ . 0■,'\0', �, @; ��� , N„ � . M ' \, ' ` '` , M . �� O "` \s�, p a i ., ti ''t','\', \ \ ' ''� ,�\ ,,0 \ . � , , 'n GM , \ ,,1* '\ p ,, � \,, ',; \ ,\n\ ,, \ _.,, \ p, d „ M. 11',;)� " 1 ; \ i1 11 a \ \ ,p 1 1 S ' . i � 0' � �— •��p Rp a 'm"\ \ " \�! � ' W� Y N p , p � \ ' � n 1 $ �, * e ''. ,�r ' ,1'`\ � M h Y� `� ,,� ^"\. \ � � ' \\ r1 d\ \, \: Region-wide 28% 38% 66% 29% ;lN,v\,Nr\':"�1�,,V\,\r \;,v :p^;f , \ ';N,,^, \\,t„t .\" ' ad\'p'l+ °'' .a. ' 80'\*„ \.:.` \n4 m.A�w` ,'', Redmond 27% 34% 60% 33% ,,, i A f M∎ , ' \ y 1` �\ \h �,n p � r\ .' M'd0, �� \ ' 1 6I \u 1 t\ G rd11 , ' ,„ n\ r r � 1 � \ '' ',\ '''' ` :0 l' ,,N\ ,\pp l'N ;„ ,, ,', 10 ,\\,\ ',\ i Madras 32% 36% 67% 25% The survey also tested two schools of thought on public transportation and asked if respondents agreed or disagreed with each. "Public transportation in the[CITY]area should be minimal, and primarily provide transportation for people who have no other options, such as low-income residents, the disabled and the elderly." "Public transportation in the[CITY]area should be substantial. Public transportation is an important element for encouraging the area's economic growth, and plays an important part in reducing traffic congestion and our area's environmental impact.” DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 20 of 24 APPENDIX B Region-wide, voters are more likely to agree that public transportation should be substantial (66% agree, 32% strongly agree) rather than minimal (51% agree, 25% strongly agree). Looking at subgroup responses region-wide, subgroups among the most likely to believe transportation should be substantial include: • Bend residents • Women • Voters age 18-64 • Democrats and Independents • Voters who have voted in three or fewer of the last four elections • "Transit supporters" • Voters willing to pay a fee/tax increase for public transit COIC communications should leverage the above subgroups' support for"substantial" public transportation into willingness to vote for funding measures for public transit. Conversely, among the most likely to believe transportation should be minimal are: • Prineville residents • Republicans • Fee/tax increase opponents DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 21 of 24 APPENDIX C Transit Service Level Scenarios and High-Level Costs December 13,2013 The CET Funding Committee considered four service levels in their discussions. With the exception of Scenario A,which is the current budget,the costs for each service level are high-level estimates. Scenarios Description Total Cost Estimated Local Portion Scenario A—Current Current service levels—no budget for contingencies, $5.2 Million $1.9 Million Service planning,outreach/engagement,or capital replacement. Scenario B—Current, Current service levels PLUS $6.1 Million4 $2.3 Million Sustainable and • Conversion to fixed route in Redmond Convenient • Conversion to flex routes in Madras/Prineville • Budget for planning and outreach • Budget for capital replacement and contingencies Scenario C—Mid-term Full Mid-term Buildout as Proposed in Bend and Regional $9.2 Millions $4.9 Million Buildout Transit Master Plans: • Additional local fixed routes in Bend and Redmond • Later evening hours • Saturday service in rural areas • Additional Community Connector shuttle runs • Limited Sunday service Scenario D—Urban Conceptual Urban Transit Service with significantly $16.3 Million $11.8 Million Services reduced headways and extensive expansion in service hours(early morning and late evening),days,and CC shuttle runs. 4 Year 1 of Scenario B also includes a total capital expansion cost of$372,500. Local match will depend on the grant program,but would typically be in the 10-50%range($37,000-$186,000). 5 Year 1 of Scenario C would include$656,000 in capital expansion costs in Bend. Local match is estimated at 20%of this total,or$131,200. DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 22 of 24 ,6 N \p 1, a, = a, = m = Co v Q O O a, 0 ro '9�G,\i,,L v U v U v U n 0 rrO • D V} vi y w w v a m LA �, O co O ro O o E ti v L�. a°. a, � a, a a, O V} .c M C V, C O c _ L•• T 4 to N 00 Lh 00 in 2 CO -O N n 00 en n C 0 ` mo � � � m o M O O N N O C ,1� O O O n O c a O O O D O .E CIO O O C l ro N O u \ O O O CO 4`;�.. O OO 00 0 rj i n cu � in If O N Q NI 0 O n O I- VI e-I n CD 00 O L0 n O n 0 O1+, -I 0 L} O 0 0 .-1 0 0 a,• C I O O O .l O —1 O O . ' O .-' O .-I , V} If V}If i/?iil i/? ii}in i/}V} V}i/). C En r.+ Q c I O1 M n fA vi Co Cl) V 'LA 4 m _0 = C (Cl E O N O R C .N 7 +�- C �, C TO "O lD N M co Y v1 42 ui _ r0 > C Q1 J1 00 .J, I— "O Q H p U O Cl) ' •^ ���,,,u, N 00 n r+ C E O •. 7. ..+ ~ p U E O i/T E m ,n ro O @ U T >. O ti c 0G o X N 0p en `" ro J U 'r +��+ p 0 m ti t .. � J w C Lf1 n O U w E N N M to= G4.. "4 � O1 ip 4— to U rO O Q C P V} 0 a, U w lel V ZI U C , 0. C y U, ro O 7 Y u c E d I- ry „ `:,,,0'; ro c m C v LA U G 3 H N 1 'A c •• c ,c E +v, co c O ro O U a) "hh` a, c co a E i..• co to E o 1— a, ;`W1 E N C {j C ` LL c].) u ,r .0 7 Y G rya 70 ce ff\; 7 on 6 � E a,• 0 v a 0 a/ v c c c ,}u .6 L., ro �1 _ a, c — ? — i a, a, x O vr, i= v a � N ( GG OA CU .in � Cl)a O i v L w O c., u D fa c a,a, ro '',r0'44 c41 E a c •— it a, lc X E c : \ c -o E ' i ? 42 c0 m C °E -O aw ;a ill 03 -o a C V, -o Cl) +� � O c ' v a,N 0 yy E ��Y\1, y V, }a co O V O co \�qwY, v' 7 C u c C co C m 0 Ln �P"` , m y 0 3 c a, X tea, u O 01 A„ \' L 7 0 u X ri Q ■�I ;u; 7 C a, ? C _0 O C -o ro hp co l' �,v u p u, c ro ro a-• L c c C w s w i,\N c •` -a vti u c -O -o co n, A w;1� G LA 47 a, a, E (CO ” \) 0_ co m 00 CO c o w ro LL aa, a c \' '„ ` I v l N ro I v c o 7 0 LLI 4j,U — d0 O ',"'N\1. O O O ` 7 O O 1i v .7 J U Q co c •� •m c =Q CIO y, d c m xn G i � v O O U I- , v4 a, 1.0 O (n m ( ,n O r,H a 5 CU > 0 m a e / 2 Co cr \ } E C N @ - 7 % _ % Co 2 a a _ et al 2 >/ co C N _ § _ 5 « \ m — c 2 / ƒ / / CO / a / 2 .- CO \ o j e2 y ° ƒ o rx c - { / e e 6 E ) c c Co ) k ( co VI 7 \ § k co"' 5 e E � 2 0 LL O. - E § co _ C c \ — , m 2 2 { CO = 2 >- f ` & 0 § a / Ci \ } Co k _ \ Z LLI _ > ) 2 ° \ E e u # _ o $ $ k a, / 3 c -to ' \ b_§ \ \ =ID 2 ° a) � CrA \ / _ = m Co / ° e — � C ® 2 1_ . U ■ 2 w, m § 2 c ) _ . E c b > \ >>. o u bu IV \ to E / o } = 802 £ Cl) 0 \ Co / t Co Co 5 § 2 . • 2 _D r 5 ro k 2 C E J 0 / c r \ M ) 0 E 8 0 M = e § » m = Cl) § : _ » _ a { { c o 0 o u m , _ o Co Co , E x « CL o = 7 ® • ° 2 2 4 t 2 e C « / < m o = _ ® a 2 2 ) k co . 2 2 = ro C � L r 2 .- # » Co .» Co -D § Q \ » c J _ . C \ fEtf (.. (7, k } z q 3 § ._ o § - c / } # \— § m J > 5 S { C y@ u 2 2 y ' 2 a) — _tr, ! x c — ® ® ? 7 2 e E ` 0 s CO) co § - CO r � = U _ . m I— u 2 co OJT s QD Deschutes County Department of Administration O � P. O. Box 6005,Bend, OR 97708-6005 -� 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200, Bend OR 97701-1960 0 (541)388-6565- Fax (541) 385-3202 � .. www.deschutes.org Asu, Tom Anderson,County Administrator Tom.Anderson @deschutes.org MEMORANDUM DATE: January 8, 2014 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM Tom Anderson, County Administrator SUBJECT: Justice Reinvestment Program Proposal/2013-015 Participation Agreement Background: The Justice Reinvestment Program was established by House Bill 3194 during the 2013 legislative session, including a financial incentive (grant) program for local government. The purpose and objective of the JRP grant program are set forth in HB3194 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. Administration of the JRP and grant program has been assigned to the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission (CJC). Discussion: Deschutes County is eligible for $321,192 in grant funds for each fiscal year FY14 and FY15. Staff from Community Justice-Adult Parole & Probation, the Sheriff's Office, the District Attorney's Office as well as the State Circuit Court met as necessary over the past several months, and discussed proposals for use of the grant funds in accordance with the criteria outlined in the bill. Beginning in the next biennium, the Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (LPSCC) will be required to review and approve the proposal from each county. Although not required in the current biennium, the proposal elements described below were presented to LPSCC on December 3, 2013. Most of the LPSCC discussion focused on the future process and potential review criteria to be used by the State in future JRP allocations. LPSCC members were generally supportive of the current proposal. No comments in opposition were made. The following elements are include in the current proposal and are presented for your consideration and discussion. Community Justice-Adult Parole & Probation 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 HB3194 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 H53194. Sanctions, supervision and treatment will be financed from the JRP. To implement the proposed the department seeks $229,072 annually to cover startup costs, finance two personnel and to purchase electronic monitoring, transitional housing, drug and alcohol treatment, sex offender treatment, and batterer's intervention treatment for JRP program participants. The program will require two personnel positions. One to be included in a FY 2014 budget amendment request and the second will be requested in the department's FY 2015 budget request. 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; participate on the Supervisory Authority Board (SAB)Administrative Committee; assign staff and track completion of Morrissey Hearings on jail inmates to ensure they are processed in a timely manner; liaison with jail staff and SAB to coordinate imposition of jail sanctions for offenders' on community supervision with population management needs of the jail; 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; 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; 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; and batters intervention programming. Deschutes County Family Drug Court Deschutes County Family Drug Court (DCFDC) is a court-supervised, intensive treatment program serving parents in Deschutes County who have current or pending criminal charges, and have had their children removed from their custody or are at risk of having their children removed as a result of substance abuse. Upwards of 75% of drug court participants fall within the target population of HB 3194, defendants who can be diverted from a sentence to State Prison. Of the current FDC caseload 20% have or will be on a downward departure sentence, 8% are currently on post-prison supervision, and an average 40% - 50% have received a conditional discharge deferring a presumptive prison sentence if they successfully complete the program. In alignment with best practice standards set forth by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), DCFDC only admits medium to high risk offenders as determined by the LS-CMI and/or criteria established by the NADCP. The use of this assessment and eligibility criteria also align with the programmatic intent of HB 3194. The program has established processes for assessing individuals referred and providing a continuum of community-based sanctions, services, and programs designed to reduce recidivism, effectively treat offenders with substance abuse disorders in the community who may otherwise face extended jail or prison time, and hold offenders accountable for their decisions and behaviors. The mission of DCFDC program is to promote accountability and substance abuse recovery for parents and ensure the safety and welfare of their children. Using a team approach, the program provides close judicial supervision, intensive substance abuse treatment and comprehensive wraparound services. The goals of the DCFDC program to: (1) lessen the impact of illegal drug use on the community, law enforcement agencies, courts and corrections, (2) reduce community rates of addiction and substance abuse, (3) help drug addicted parents and pregnant women become sober and responsible caregivers, (4) create environments in which children are healthy and safe from abuse and neglect, and (5) promote positive, pro- social behavior. The average length of time to successfully complete the program is 18 months. Funds provided through the Justice Reinvestment grant will enable DCFDC to (1) fund a 1.0 FTE Certified Recovery Mentor, and to (2) increase access to wraparound services for family drug court participants. Utilization of funds received will be tracked by the FDC Program Coordinator and reported to the County on a quarterly basis. Data collected will include the number of individuals served by category (i.e. post prison/downward departure/conditional discharge), services provided by unit, and participant outcomes. Use of wraparound funds will be limited to support services to individuals identified as high risk/high needs who are on post- prison supervision, downward departure, or on a conditional discharge with a presumptive sentence of prison time. Certified Recovery Mentors (CRM) provide peer support and services to individuals engaged in addiction treatment. CRM's assist individuals transition through the continuum of addiction treatment by mentoring, providing life and vocational skills, maintaining regular telephone and face-to-face contact, conducting home visits, assisting participants in accessing community- based services (childcare, health and social services, transportation), and facilitating contacts with other people and groups to promote pro-social skills and a sense of belonging within the community. DCFDC currently has funds to support a part-time (.37 FTE) through BestCare Treatment Services. Despite the program's growth and evolving population served, funding for this position has been static since the program's inception in 2006. Within the last year, the program has maintained at or near capacity of 25 active participants compared to a previous caseload of 14- 16 individuals at any one time. Additionally, the program has experienced an influx of male participants from an average of 18% of the participants served to 33% and an increase in the criminal risk levels of individuals served. Additional FTE's for a Certified Recovery Mentor will enable DCFDC to meet the increased demand of the number, gender, and criminal risk of individuals served. The CRM will work closely with the assigned Probation Officer and Drug Court Team to coordinate home visits, curfew checks, drug testing, and overall compliance monitoring. Funds designated for 'wraparound services' will be used to assist FDC participants to access clean and sober housing, medical/dental care, transportation, GED classes/testing, clothing/personal care items, childcare, and other goods or services shown by research to improve treatment outcomes, reduce relapse and improve outcomes for families. More than 67% of participants are homeless at admission and more are living in unsafe homes affected by substance abuse, domestic violence, and criminal activity. Access to stable, clean & sober housing is vital to their recovery and to providing for their children's safety, well being, and permanency. Less than 8% of participating parents are employed upon admission. On average, sixty percent have no medical insurance upon admission. Of those with medical coverage, 50% have no dental benefits. Research conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) demonstrates that to be effective, treatment must address the individual's drug abuse as well as associated medical, psychological, social, vocational, and legal problems. The provision of wraparound services increases treatment retention and improves outcomes for individuals, families, and the community. Integrating a continuum of rehabilitative services, including medical and dental care, into substance abuse treatment decreases substance use but also improves patients' health, social adjustment, criminality, employment, and health care utilization.2 Individuals engaged in substance abuse treatment who have access to primary medical care show significantly less addiction severity at 12-month follow-up compared with those who with no primary medical care. 3 Residents of sober living homes showed improved outcomes on the Addiction Severity Index and Brief Symptom Inventory scales, 12-step engagement, and had fewer arrests.4 Based on prior year requests for financial assistance, DCFDC anticipates spending funds allocated for Wraparound Services as follows: • 50% - Housing Assistance: Assistance to participants in securing stable, clean & sober housing after being released from custody and/or discharged from residential treatment • 25% -Transportation Assistance: Providing bus passes or gas vouchers to assist individuals in getting to treatment related appointments and/or other obligations (court, school, employment). • 15% - Medical/Dental Services: Assistance with medical/dental copays or services and prescription assistance for individuals who are uninsured or underinsured • 10% - Other Services: childcare, court/work appropriate clothing, GED classes/testing, and other recovery-related needs National Institute on Drug Abuse. Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment:A Research-Based Guide. Third Edition. (2012). 2 D'Amore MM,Cheng DM, Kressin NR,et al. (2011).Oral health of substance-dependent individuals: impact of specific substances.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,41(2), 179-85. 3 Friedmann,Peter D.,Zhang,Zhiwei,Hendrickson,James, Stein,Michael D.,&Gerstein,Dean R. (2003). Effect of primary medical care on addiction and medical severity in substance abuse treatment programs.Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18, 1, 1-8. Polcin,D.L.,Korcha, R.A.,Bond,J.,&Galloway,G(2010)Sober living houses for alcohol and drug dependence: 18-month outcomes.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,38(4),356-365. Annual Allocation Certified Recovery Mentor (1.0 FTE, Wages& Benefits) 41,000.00 Certified Recovery Mentor—Mileage 2,400.00 Wraparound Services 16,600.00 Total 60,000.00 Victim's Assistance (District Attorney's Office) From HB 3194-Section 54(b): Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, no less than 10 percent of grant funds awarded under this section must be distributed to community-based nonprofit organizations that provide service to victims of crime. Although not eligible to receive and use the funds within its own Victims Assistance Program (VAP) the District Attorney's Office has offered to coordinate the distribution of JRP funds to local nonprofit organizations such as The Kids Center and Saving Grace. It is expected that $32,120 will be available in both FY 13-14 and FY 14-15 for this purpose. Although the JRP does not provides specifics on how the money is to be used to provide services to crime victims, The D.A.'s Office has indicated that eligible organizations will be required to submit annual application proposals, and that a review will be conducted to ensure that the grant funds will be used in the most efficient and beneficial manner possible. Requested Action: Review and discuss the proposal elements contained herein. Staff will incorporate any changes requested by the Boar6d and bring the matter back before you for final consideration. If the proposal elements are acceptable as is, the Board is requested to approve and sign the attached participation agreement with the State Criminal Justice Commission. • 2013-2015 Participation Agreement Deschutes County's initial funding award fs$642,383 for the 2013-2015 biennium. Justice Reinvestment Grant Program funds must be spent on community-based sanctions,services and programs. Please indicate how your county intends to use these funds: ❑ Community-based n ty sed sa ctlons(Please describe below or In an attachment) ❑Community-based services(Please describe below or in an attachment) Community-based Programs: ❑Work release programs Xl Evidence-based programs designed to reduce recidivism that include a balanced administration of sanctions,supervision and treatment (See attached) ❑Structured transitional leave programs ❑Reentry courts FIB 3194§29 CS Specialty courts aimed at medium-risk and high-risk offenders (See attached) Deschutes County intends to participate in the Justice Reinvestment Grant Program and requests an award in the amount of$ $642,383 for use during the 2013-2015 biennium. Signatures of County Commissioners Printed Names of County Commissioners Date Federal Tax 10 Number State Tar ID Number Approved by Criminal Justice Commission Signature Date Name/Title Printed Name/Title OREGON CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION - 885 SUMMER ST NE SALEM,OR 97301