The URL can be used to link to this page

2014-492-Minutes for Meeting September 15,2014 Recorded 10/1/2014 DESCHUTES CLERK CJ 141449 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 10/01/2014 08:57:01 AM IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I III 2014.. 0 0 If; i' ►, { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 � (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney and Anthony DeBone; Commissioner Alan Unger attended via conference call for a portion of the meeting. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Dave Doyle, County Counsel; and,for a portion of the meeting, Judith Ure, Administration; Chris Doty, Road Department; Scot Langton, Assessor; Steve Reinke, 9-1-1; Jane Smilie, Health Department; Susan Ross, Property & Facilities; Chuck Fadeley, Justice Court; Ed Keith, Forester; Nick Lelack, Community Development; Wayne Lowry and Lani Burke, Finance; Justen Rainey and J. L. Wilson of Public Affairs Counsel; and Ted Shorack of the Bulletin. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Public Affairs Counsel Update and Legislative Planning. J. L. Wilson said he is the new principal partner, working with Mark Nelson at this time. Mr. Wilson gave an overview of his experience. Revenue Forecast Mr. Wilson said they expect tempered growth mode. Over 17 forecasts in the past were uncertain. This time there appears to be additional State revenue. State budgets are built on this. This is $235 million additional from the last forecast a year ago. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 1 of 11 Pages The personal tax kicker may come in to play, $13 million, which will negatively impact the total and does not make sense. More revenue is anticipated for 2015-17, but it will be perhaps 8-10% steady growth. Mr. Rainey said that hearings are taking place now to develop concepts. This happens quickly, and his firm needs to know the issues that are key to the County. They hold organizational days in January and bills will be assigned at that time to committees as appropriate. There will be quite a bit of turnover. In February, the session starts. If there is a legislative concept the County wants to pursue, this needs to be ready by January 12, his firm needs it in September. Public Safety Mr. Rainey said AOC has a 911 tax proposal going to committee. Commissioner DeBone stated he has been involved in committee discussions on this, and he is surprised to see it on the list already. Mr. Rainey stated that 911 funding would always be a topic of discussion. He asked for more information on Justice Court funding. Judge Fadeley said. that this is always a concern because what they can take in for small claims is limited. They would still be less expensive than circuit court. This allows an alternative to having small claims handled in circuit court. He has a document with this breakdown. Small claims can take up a lot of time. Chair Baney said the idea is not the increase in fees, but that it needs to be equitable so they can offset general fund expenses and the demand on circuit court time and resources. Mr. Rainey stated they are tracking many activities, and there is a joint interim task force for Juvenile Court, relating to foster homes. There may be a pilot program involving four to six counties. The task force on public safety has been established, and much has to do with court fee adjustments, and there will be discussions on youth. Chair Baney said they may have a mental health readjustment program, and she wants to be sure that the County is held harmless for changes that result in jail population increases. She said they historically had low uses of this because of successful programs, and if there are incentives for increased improvement, they need to be held harmless and not be penalized for already having successful programs in place. No other issues were brought up in this category. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 2 of 11 Pages Health & Families HB 4134 was a priority of the Speaker regarding funding, and it is anticipated this will come back. Early education and the hub is a big issue now. He is hearing there will be more changes on early education. The hubs are not fully operational yet, so there is still more work to be done. The Speaker wants fully funded kindergarten and employee related daycare coverage. Mental health issues are a hot topic, and needs to be integrated into health care. Much of this is in draft form. There needs to be a way to get the money to counties to help those with mental health issues out of the jails. The other big issue is how public health will be handled going forward. There will be legislative recommendations. Chair Baney said there is legislation being drafted now, with the main piece being what is foundational for public health. The eight region concept is part of this and how to fund or incentivize. The foundational pieces need to be agreed upon, and this should not really be politically motivated. Jane Smilie said meetings are taking place with AOC and others, and they will have concepts to present. Land Use/Natural Resources/Transportation Mr. Rainey worked with Commissioner DeBone regarding biomass efforts. This is a priority. Commissioner DeBone said the DOE and others know there is an opportunity there and a lot of players ready to discuss this now. Chair Baney asked if they should be more proactive. Mr. Rainey stated there is time to develop the concept and move it forward. Ed Keith said that they are talking about a bigger bill in this regard, and he will try to find out more. Mr. Rainey said that DEQ is considering a new diesel contracting bill, which would contain certain requirements such as using cleaner diesel fuel. The Truckers' Association is watching this especially. It starts with the state, then move to the larger counties. Mr. Doty said that at first glance, it is concerning to him. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 3 of 11 Pages Regarding the Cyrus property, Mr. Rainey asked about new development. Tom Anderson said it is bigger than this, and there needs to be local control, although it should be statewide so Deschutes County is not singled out. Mr. Lelack feels it is a Cyrus specific bill and it is not known if it is still connected with the Metolius bill. Chair Baney said it needs to be statewide and not site or County specific. Commissioner DeBone stated the concept of open space is being debated, and it would be good to get clarity on the options. Law and the history of the issue are important. Mr. Anderson said they historically had a cluster development but want to open it up for more development. A large part of it is what to do with the open space that was dedicated when they first developed. Commissioner DeBone would like clarity on other options. SB 838 involved a task force for water legislation, and how the funds would be administered. The Deschutes River basin is a part of this and the City of Bend has a representative on this committee. They will be watching this closely. Chris Doty asked about the transportation funding bill. There may be a UGB related bill as well, called `close enough'. Mr. Anderson stated that this will make the process more streamlined for appeals. It has a lot to do with the cities but the County would be involved at some level. Mr. Rainey said the wrongful death bill is coining back but it started out regarding a specific issue in Colombia County. He asked about the Clerk and Assessor. Scot Langton stated that AOC is working on certain concepts and some legislators are involved. He and others end up having to deal with unintended consequences when the legislature passes bills relating to taxation. Chair Baney asked if Washington County is looking to lift a specific tax incentive issue and wanted support. Mr. Rainey was not familiar with this. Commissioner DeBone said that the low carbon fuels issue has come up in the past. He has gotten into this regarding diversifying fuels, especially the use of natural gas, and creating jobs, and he may get more involved. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 4 of 11 Pages Chair Baney asked about process. Mr. Rainey feels the conference calls works well. He can then update the legislators. Regarding priorities, Ms. Ure gets the bills to the department heads and asks which are priorities. Quick turnaround is important, along wit knowing how urgent it is. There will be fewer bills but answers need to come within hours. There is less time for turnaround in a short session. Calls from the Commissioners and department heads are important. Every other week calls might be appropriate unless there is an urgent issue that needs weekly calls. Chair Baney wants to be sure they get feedback quickly when needed. Mr. Rainey said they set up meetings with the legislators that are involved and need to have information from the County with specifics on the impacts to the County. It needs to be concise and streamlined. Ms. Ure said e-mails with specific information could be appropriate as well. The first meeting should be in late December or early January to see how things are going. Conference calls should take place starting in mid-January and bills need to be prioritized soon after that. There will be hundreds of bills introduced and his firm will weed through them as to what affects the County, and prioritize them accordingly. They will put together recommendations. Mr. Anderson stated that they would try to get legislators here for a meeting before they end up in Salem. Ms. Ure noted that they need to determine which day of the week works best. Mr. Rainey said that early in the morning is best for his team. 2. Finance/Tax Update. Mr. Lowry said that revenues are low but this is typical for this time of the year, prior to tax payments. Interest rates are coming up so they are not investing much now in anticipation of this change. They are in compliance for the pool investments. They will collect about $180 million this year that for the most part will be turned around to the districts. Some vacancies at 911 will be filled soon. Health/Behavior Health and the Sheriff's Office also have vacant positions. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 5 of 11 Pages Most variances in the report are in beginning fund balances. Regarding the Health funds, revenue estimates have changed but most of it was moved around. Expenditures for staff are lower, but materials are higher. A big revenue piece is for a contract which is mostly pass-through. Often the department does not know about changes at the State level right away. Community Development has had a solid start and should have revenue over estimates. The PILT payment came in higher for the Road Department. Solid Waste revenue is higher than anticipated. 911 is starting out with more than anticipated due to less expenditure. The Fair & Expo fund started out with a negative balance on the resource side. The Fair generated more than anticipated, and they are putting the new tax revenue to work. Mr. Anderson said they are tracking that revenue and will report on it. Mr. Lowry said that some of this amount will be held until they reimburse expenses. Other departments are about the same. The Sisters Health Clinic grant for $460,000 finally arrived last week. 3. Discussion of Financial Policies. Mr. Lowry stated that in the budget process, the budget committee reviewed a set of financial policies that have been in place for some time. He compared. this to those of other agencies and recommended some additions. These things are already being done, but the work should be formalized. He went through the changes, as highlighted on the attached copy. Commissioner DeBone asked about retaining outside services to analyze the policies. Mr. Lowry said none of this information addresses that, but a bond counselor is required if you go to the bond market. They use outside professionals as needed, and go out to bid for those services as appropriate. On the last page, there is a significant change regarding bank accounts. The Board has a policy regarding Policy F-7, bank accounts. The Board has to approve all of these. Policy F-3 has to do with credit cards, which is very restricted. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session. Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 6 of 11 Pages Most agencies have the finance director make these decisions. He would like to be able to set up bank accounts as needed. He added that sometimes it is a good business practice to have credit cards for certain users. Mr. Anderson said credit cards are going to be very few. He agreed that there are situations when there should be one issued, as they did for the Sheriff's Office. Mr. Lowry said some jurisdictions have a purchasing card for those in the field to utilize. There are also travel cards, and all have procedures in place. His concern is the administrative side. Chair Baney said the bank account opening is not a concern, but they would like to be notified. It is not a concern now, but future administrators need to know the reasons. Mr. Lowry stated that the exiting policy would only be changed from the Board to the Finance Director or the County Administrator. A letter is sent each year to all banks to make sure there are no new accounts that were not authorized. The process would still be in place. Chair Baney would like the credit card issue to be in consultation with the County Administrator for checks and balances, and because the Administrator is the responsible person if something does not go well. Commissioner DeBone wants to see minimal use of credit cards. The Board suggested this is appropriate from the Finance Director in consultation with the Administrator. Regarding contingencies and working capital, Chair Baney said there has been some differences of opinion between the Finance Director, the Administrator and the department heads as to the amount. Mr. Lowry said that the Administrator is the budget officer, and the contingency and reserve fund aspects are very strict. Mr. Anderson stated that some is arbitrary and should be agreed upon, with some flexibility in mind for certain circumstances. Commissioner DeBone asked if 8.3% is the required reserve. Mr. Lowry stated that some funds need more than that earlier in the year to avoid shortfalls at the end of the year. The different accounts can vary. Mr. Anderson said that this could be reviewed each year with the Budget Committee as well. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 7 of 11 Pages 4. Discussion of Tax Payments at Banks. Mr. Lowry said that tax payments can be made as follows: • In person at banks. • Mail the payment. • Drive through or pay at the County counter. • Pay through lenders. • Call or go on line to use a credit card. The bank method is one of the earliest established, but use of this method is dwindling. It generates about $10 million at this time. Accounts are maintained at the banks and eventually the checks and tax coupons come to the County. He has been thinking about possible changes. They want to offer customer service, but he recommends discontinuing this method, which requires hiring an additional person at the County to process the payments, and there is a delay involved for processing the checks. They also have to reconcile with the bank's records. There are many ways to make these payments now. In addition, customers can also pay through their own bank on line. Also, the County does not get electronic images of the checks unless requested, to find out who made the payment. Loni Burke stated that on-line bill payments did not have a postmark in the past, but they do now. It can be a lot more difficult if the check comes without the tax coupon. U.S. Bank will collect and send a copy of the payments electronically to the County. Mr. Anderson said that about 4,000 people use this method of paying taxes, and if this changes, there is a risk that those people will not know what to do at the time, especially if they wait until the last day. Mr. Lowry stated details would go out with the tax bill so people will know their options. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 8 of 11 Pages Commissioned DeBone noted that there are limits geographically. Ms. Burke said they could provide the banks with an envelope to the County. Mr. Lowry said they get late payments a lot from those that want the discount. Ms. Burke stated that it has been based on the postmark, but it might not be postmarked in time if the post office has already collected it from the boxes. So, the County has been giving a day's grace time. Statute is loose in this regard. Mr. Lowry said they need temporary help for at least two days. The bank process takes twice the time as other options. They notified people last year that some options may be eliminated. There may be some implications to certain customers. Chair Baney likes the idea of having information at the banks along with envelopes addressed to the County, postage paid. Commissioner DeBone will ask around to get an idea of how people feel about it. Mr. Lowry stated that the banks would probably prefer not to be a collection point anyway. Ms. Burke said that neither Crook nor Jefferson counties use the banks for this. Because of this, Deschutes County has to maintain relationships with almost every bank. 5. Other Items. Susan Ross said that the Bulletin is running editorials regarding the veterans' plaque at the Courthouse. At the time the memorial was to be designed, representatives of veterans groups met to decide what they wanted for the memorial. They provided the quote. She made sure it was written as appropriate. Since 2008, there has been discussion about the quote purportedly from George Washington that is on the plaque. This question came up during the John McCain campaign. In 2005, the County was not aware of the possible error. Chair Baney stated they could change it to `unknown'. Mr. Anderson said the committee members could be contacted to make them aware, or at least the agencies. The Commissioners are surprised of the focus on this issue by the newspaper. The statement still resonates even if is unknown if George Washington ever said it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 9 of 11 Pages Ms. Ross said they have reached agreement regarding the industrial land in La Pine, with the City asking for 50% of the proceeds from any sales there. Mr. Anderson recommended this be accepted. The initial capital cost of platting can come out of the current fund. Ms. Ross stated that the community came together to develop this, with the County being a conduit. Mr. Anderson said this is on the City Council agenda this week. Commissioner DeBone explained that the City can get its own Realtor in place. Ms. Ross stated they used the Desert Rise agreement language, so some of the language had to be changed. They intend to include the La Pine data center transaction. Commissioner DeBone hopes the final draft version is approved by the City, and would then come to the Board with any proposed changes. Regarding County College, because the locations had to change due to Board scheduling issues, a review is needed at this time. Mr. Anderson said that the order of the slides is an issue. The attendees will have less time to introduce themselves. Mr. Kropp likes to hear where they work. Chair Baney feels it is a way to create dialogue and increase the comfort level. Anna Johnson said that they did this last year and they went way over on the time. The Board will not be at the first part of the meeting. Chair Baney wants to engage the attendees, but perhaps stay away from why they applied for County College. Mr. Kropp said they could keep it short since they know each other already. Mr. Anderson said the overview can be kept brief as well. The Board discussed and prepared for the combined south County (Sunriver and La Pine) Chambers presentation at Thousand Trails on September 19. Mr. Anderson said the department head meeting today will include a discussion on reporting to the Board on performance measures and other aspects. The departments have been allowed to do this as appropriate, or they can list a deliverable that helps to implement some of the annual goals. He has asked for success stories that relate to this, and several will be brought to the Board to report. The highlights will come to the Board on a quarterly basis, so it is not overwhelmed with details or a huge report that requires a lot of review. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 10 of 11 Pages Chair Baney said the objectives need to be tracked, and she wants to hear about more than the positives. Judith Ure said the highlights will be quarterly, but they still have to report for the budget document. Chair Baney wants to hear about the struggles as well, or of any barriers to success. She wants to know if there are outcomes that are not being met, and why. Commissioner DeBone added that it is important to know the challenges as well. Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. DATED this ?/*---- Day of 7✓t/4— 2014 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Ta - y Bailey, Ch. Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ajzok_ 041.u_ ATTEST: Alan Unger, Commissioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 11 of 11 Pages c fix'• am kik a 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 WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 1. Public Affairs Counsel Update and Legislative Planning—Judith Ure; representatives of PAC 2. Finance/Tax Update — Wayne Lowry 3. Discussion of Financial Policies— Wayne Lowry 4. Discussion of Tax Payments at Banks— Wayne Lowry 5. Other Items PLEASE NOTE:At any time during this meeting,an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e),real property negotiations;ORS 192.660(2)(h),litigation;ORS 192.660(2)(d),labor negotiations;or ORS 192.660(2)(b),personnel issues;or other issues under ORS 192.660(2),executive session. Meeting dates,times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners'meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St.,Bend,unless otherwise indicated. If you 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 honnie.lhaker( deschutes.org. '4 N --- x m �, *e I T ' '1 u ti 1 EI n � � 1 0. 1 ti, _ �, ;N� II I I 1 ... ...A. 7 - II I 1' I �I J v I J III o I 1. r � I i r tii 0] � 1 �I I C I I M I i . Oj II � J -C A �" �'' r �' _ � : ._... I---. i NI r I i I I _ 11 VI -..."� I I vk Cry _ it N r L I 7-%'- I I dI I I 1 I I � I I I, cII▪ I " . Co. r � I I h ...... 1 `� '--II \ l J �, °" 111 ,gyp �1 b01 r,),/TT S, �: 1 �\' d z1! '1 I , t .. T I i I � •. I ' I , C O , n. �an I CJ —I Y � CI'VI C ' J � r‘ O CIJ , __.)1 i Ij \:%"-lj ,- , _.) :7„N\1:1-,. ' V.,-- v 1' `All . , , I � i n. \ Vii. P B FA I C ` a, E 1. Deschutes County Agenda Deschutes County Courthouse Monday, September 15, 2014 1:30pm I. INTRODUCTIONS a. J.L. Wilson—New Principal Partner at Public Affairs Counsel II. 2015 SESSION BUDGET/REVENUE OVERVIEW a. September Revenue Forecast III. LEGISLATIVE DATES OF INTEREST a. Legislative Days a. September 15-17, 2014 b. December 8-10, 2014 b. Organizational Days a. January 12-14, 2014 c. 2015 Session a. February 2, 2015 Session Convenes IV. 2015 COUNTY ISSUES FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNSEL TO MONITOR a. Public Safety i. 911 Tax (AOC proposal) ii. Justice Court Fee Adjustments iii. Joint Interim Task Force On Juvenile Court Dependency Proceedings (HB 3363) iv. Task Force on Public Safety v. Other Issues for Public Affairs Counsel to Monitor? PO BOX 12945,SALEM, OR 97309 867 LIBERTY STREET NE PH 503.363.7084 FAX 503.371.2471 F.M A I I,; pacounsel @aol.com b. Health and Families i. Youth Development Council Funding(HB 4134) ii. Early Education Funding (Speakers Proposal) iii. AOC Mental Health Concepts iv. Public Health Workgroup v. Other Issues for Public Affairs Counsel to Monitor? c. Land Use/Natural Resources/Transportation i. Biomass (SB 1578) ii. DEQ's New Diesel Contracting Proposal iii. Cyrus Property iv. SB 838 Workgroup v. Other Issues for Public Affairs Counsel to Monitor? d. Finance/County Administration/County Clerks i. Wrongful Death (HB 4048) ii. Other Issues for Public Affairs Counsel to Monitor? PO BOX 12945, SALEM, OR 97309 • 867 LIBERTY STREET NE • PH 503.363.7084 IAX 503.371.2471 EMAIL: pacounsel @aol.com Public Affairs Counsel Contact List Mark Nelson 867 Liberty St Ne Salem,OR 97301 Work:(503)363-7084 Cell:(503)949-9228 Email: pacounsel @pacounsel.org JL Wilson 867 Liberty St Ne Salem,OR 97301 Work:(503)363-7084 Cell:(503)569-8054 Email:jlwilson @pacounsel.org Justen Rainey 867 Liberty St Ne Salem,OR 97301 Work:(503)363-7084 Cell:(503)816-3075 Email:justenr @pacounsel.org David Reinhard 867 Liberty St Ne Salem,OR 97301 Work:(503)363-7084 Cell:(503)910-4930 Email:davidr @pacounsel.org 3 T STAFF BIOGRAPHIES Mark W. Nelson is a principal of Public Affairs Counsel and is Oregon's leading business lobbyist and political strategist. Since 1980, Nelson has represented a multitude of diverse interests before the Oregon legislature, has provided campaign management for over 30 statewide ballot measure campaigns, and has built a leading public opinion survey research firm that specializes in polling for political campaigns, statewide ballot measures, local school districts, and local projects. Nelson will serve as the overall project/campaign manager. J.L. Wilson is a principal of Public Affairs Counsel. Wilson has a 14 year history in public affairs and lobbying as past Executive Director of NFIB/Oregon and past Senior Vice President of Government Affairs at Associated Oregon Industries. Wilson has been a full-time lobbyist representing various interests since 2000. Prior to that, he served as Legislative Director for two Speakers of the Oregon House. Wilson's history also includes leadership,steering committee and management roles in seven statewide ballot measure campaigns since 2001. Justen Rainey is a full time lobbyist and political strategist for Public Affairs Counsel. He joined the firm in March of 2012, and helped with the No on 81 campaign. Prior to joining Public Affairs Counsel,Justen served as the Legislative Director for Oregon House of Representatives Co-Speaker Bruce Hanna during the 2011 and 2012 session. Justen held a similar legislative position with the Oregon Senate Republican office. During that time, Rainey worked with the campaign arm of the Senate Republican Office,The Leadership Fund,to help Republicans pick up two contested state senate seats during the 2010 election cycle. Rainey began his political career in 2001,where he spent 7 years as an aide to U.S. Congressman Greg Walden working out of both his field office in Bend and later his Washington D.C. office. David Reinhard is a lobbyist and communications specialist for Public Affairs Counsel. Prior to joining the firm in 2008, Reinhard was a columnist and editorial writer at The Oregonian newspaper for 22 years. His background also includes work as a staff assistant at the US Department of Energy as well as a legislative assistant in the US Congress. Reinhard specializes in message development and management for the firm's clients with issues before the Oregon Legislature. He has also played key roles in message development and media relations for two statewide ballot measure campaigns (No on 66/67 in 2010, No on 81 in 2012) and,as a consultant,for two statewide candidate campaigns(Chris Dudley for Governor in 2010 and Jason Conger for U.S.Senate in 2014). 4 r N. 71-, ® m Ill 'oily P N 1D rrl r-1 O N N y� N a1 LO ',I a0 11111 , u1 c-1 r1 N VA H r-i WA 2 'III m N `^ o 11 111 2 'w ° N 1111 co,m a' JJI d 1 w a ',,, ry m 1n m o ` a ,4%1q1 1 1 o':; N H N m 11!.1 111 M1 p �..... �P"✓'f�"5`!I��H�r. U 2 1 vi I try N n N 0p Ft N CO N C4 P�� N N N �� 141 V41rvi M O N. N m 1 a N'O m N o 1 1I1 1 m 111 1 1 Ii1Il1 1 k 1 rr!=I '.: ©© ® ni} 4�ri tll N N p�!.�I 1114 ~ "� N 3'Sv n M N N CV 1t II III I ?r W II I }N W `J[III V1 M A n C41 C441 Z 1y1VrII p-.. w �I 41" SC o* r TI,, H N M I� IV N "Q �+Nyr��ll Ol lD —A Vi„ en N s-1 Lo d4 1'111. ® N N 11111 d- 0 c4 E An„„ ,,,, ,...,c, , . , .:, N yJmSy'' N C71 111 Ln NI 9 4 1 4-1 -4 IrIII Pali , }, E X11 ° a , I ° 0® 1111 R N rn m o ' '',p; N �o m a M N m Ni m 1..� llI�lIqV1I . H ® N 1 ® ry Phil' ! r.Fir,fp N 1 ^' N N ® -:- t—i h 111 m o r l Y I■�® ry�f C y ® w.■� N N 5 lr Nit III m !r7,1'1, rnlo� U■ r NI 11q.I +I full PII F Y cNi VIII k7A X �° N � N ■ I-1 04 1 •ilk II IIIIII p ork,iii, 1 � G rl W m I.I'.N d u1 N l rD N N Q ■ N 6 0 4 O.--1 N 14 �r+hll. T.7" '' m � 'y N ■ N N w 11 «Y F d VII o N I „ ^ o m 0,1 r_ 1I ■ m d N ON N Q1 I N N N m II 11?Iiiii a 04 ��„ N .'1 N O1 hl, a r1 N N 1 iV '-I N N 1/1 N n � m ®W r"1 N N r-1 m p N y ■ .zr W ® o r-.;n N N 111 ,,, c O '' N tT r-1 o N jIII'' I �r 'r,= ›- N c11 In r 1 r-1 N I m `,`,1 0 U.1 i pf W N m r1 w I 4 m 4 ~ N f r4 a, Up 9 g N 11 `-' ma 0 N al M N ■ m N !^' N rill 11F 1. I IIIII I n 00~ N r-, a .,-1 ..., N vA 11 w 1iS V r rn 3, r7 ,...,rn ir Fill D M � ® Ql QI rl N M W yI ryry 04 01 1J-1 1 a /Q `� N N N a co irlq 0 n N ■ N �Nry la I. N a CO 0 ,1 N in III I III IIIIi I7telliIII.III vi 15111101 US TH NI 04 .©,„r LA 11 iv, N N ry c-1 N N N 6 Public Affairs Counsel Subject: September Revenue Forecast Attachments: 20140903154620568_pdf All Clients, Last week the Oregon Department of Administrative Services(DAS) released the September Revenue Forecast. While the econonmy is slowly improving,the forecast is pretty close to what was anticipated at the close of the 2013 session. GF Revenue The forecast for 2013-15 General Fund/Lottery Fund revenue is estimated to be$17.204 billion. This is an increase of $85.9 million from the June forecast. Lottery resources are down$15.9 million from the June forecast. The combined GF/LF resources are up$ 70 million since June. Ending fund balances are down$50.7 million since the Close of the 2013 Session. The Rainy Day fund is projected to receive a$159.1 million transfer following the 2013-15 biennium,which would leave the state with a forecasted remaining balance of$91.6 million. Kicker A corporate kicker of$43 million is projected for 2015-17,which will be dedicated to K-12 spending. No personal income kicker is projected at this time. For additional information from the state economist please visit http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/OEA/pages/economic.aspx#most recent forecast If you have any questions, please let us know. Thanks, Public Affairs Counsel 1. STATE OF OREGON LEGISLATIVE N STATE CAPITOL REVEBUUE ILDING OFFICE 900 COURT ST.NE RM 143 SALEM,OREGON 97301 PHONE(503)986-1266 FAX(503)986-1770 Paul Warner,Legislative Revenue Officer LRO FORECAST SUMMARY September 2014 NEW FACTS SINCE THE LAST FORECAST 2nd Qtr 2014 2nd Qtr 2014 Forecast Actuals Difference Employment 1,712,048 1,710,443 1,605 Personal Income ($billion) 163.4 164.5 1.1 Personal Income Tax($million) Withholding 729.8 733.6 1,395.9 1,420.3 24.4 • Other Payments less Refunds 3.8 Total 2,125.7 2,153.9 28.2 Corporate Income Tax 180.4 203.2 22.8 • Second Quarter . pefsr�n�1 income tai Collectfprts tlVet�[1{�$28�m�illart�1�°Job from the June 2014 far�5t arter-corporate income tax collections were up$22 +Second'., � t��'Itt7lcn(72 6°!u)frvr[a e Jtan 2Q94 �arst. n personal income was up$1 'I billion(0 7%)from the J 2014 forecast • I��gct • Oregon errlploymentwas down 7 605 fobs�0 1% fern the June 2014 forecast LRO:8/26/2014 Forecast 0914,xlsx 8 f• Forecast Summary Page 2 of 7 CHANGE FROM CLOSE OF SE SSION ($Million) General Fund Resources Close of Session September 2014 Difference Forecast Beginning Balance 543.5 486.8 -56.7 Transfer to Rainy Day Fund -136-9 -136.7 0.2 Personal 13,558.2 13,851.4 293.2 Corporate 1,056.6 1,046.7 -9.9 Kicker -20.3 0.0 20.3 Other 1,027.9 1,002-5 -25.3 Gross GF Revenue 15,1522.3 15,900.6 278.4 Shared Services Fund -57.5 -62,3 -4.7 Rainy Day Fund -43.0 -10.4 32.6 Net GF Revenue 15,521.8 15,828.0 306-2 Lottery Resources** 1,059.5 1,039.1 -20.4 Anticipated Administrative Actions*** -18.2 -12-7 5.6 Net GE and Lotte Resources 16,969.6 17,204.5 234.9 ""All lottery resources including dedicated funds. ""Administrative Actions equal expenses associated with cash flow management,exclusive of internal borrowing. CHANGE S NCE (OSE{ F SES$lON ••'Personal int erne tax avenue iS up$293 2 mithpn(2 2%)from the 2013 COS estimate . Corporate tax revenue is down$9 9 million(-0 9%)from the 2013 COS estimate • General Fun l gross revenue is up$278 4 rritition(1 8%)fro the 2013 COS,estimate .•Glm r+d t Qtter resoUr es are iF$23 �J rrillttcirl(1�#�aj ff�fm the 2013 COS estimate.• EFFECT ON 2% KICKER . ($Million) Revenue Source Close of Session 2% Kicker September 2014 Amount+!- Threshold Forecast Kicker Threshold • Personal&Other 14,528.5 14,819.1 14,791.7 -27.4 Corporation* 976.5 996.0 1,019.5 23.5 As per the AG,the corporate kicker calculation excludes the minimum tax paid by 8-corporations because it is a flat tax. SICKER i EFUNDS IMPLIED BY FOREC 1SY PERSONAL No personal kicker is projected for 20'15 CORPOF ATE •$43 m l ion in co dedicated to rporate tax revenue ls.prolecferl to 1aa .K 12 t<d ation.spending in i -f 7;; 9 .... Forecast Summary Page 3 of 7 X09315 CHANGE FROM PRIOR FORECAST ($Million) Combined Revenue June 2014 September 2014 Difference Forecast Forecast Beginning Balance 486.8 486.8 0-0 Transfer to Rainy Day Fund -136.9 -136.7 0.2 Personal 13,816.7 13,851.4 34.8 Corporate 1,007.6 1,046.7 39.1 Other 990.7 1,002.5 11.8 Gross GE Revenue 15,815.0 15,900.6 85.6 Shared Services Fund -62.3 -62.3 0.0 Rainy Day Fund -10.5 -10.4 0.1 Net GF Revenue 15,742.3 15,828.0 85/ Anticipated Administrative Actions*" -12.7 -12.7 0.0 Net General Fund Resources 16,079.5 16,165.4 85.9 Lottery Resources* 1,055.0 1,039.1 -15.9 Net Combined Resources 17,134.5 17,204.5 70.0 `All lottery resources including dedicated funds, '"Administrative Actions equal expenses associated with cash flow management,exclusive of internal borrowing. REVENUE CHANGES • Projected 2013-'15 Jet General Fund resources are up$85 9 mdhon{0 b%) _rom the: June 201:4 forecast B! reso>rrrces ar,�down X15 9 mdllon � 5�a}from the.. .; • Pxotecte�fi 201� �;;totte; ,: : Jule-201..4 forecast • Projected combined net_General Fund and tottery resources are up$70 million (0 4%)frorn the June 2014 forecast 10 -r Forecast Summary Page 4 of 7 204 3 �5 f EFFECT ON ENDING BALANCE Current vs. Close of Session ($Million) General Fund Close of Session September 2014 Difference Forecast Beginning Balance 543.5 486.8 -56.7 -136.7 0.2 Transfer to Rainy Day Fund -136.9 Revenue 15,521.8 15,828.0 306.2 -12.7 5.6 Administrative Actions -18.2 Total Resources 15,910.1 16 165.4 255.3 Expenditures 15,608.7 15,914.7 306.0 Ending Balance 301.5 250.8 -50.7 Rainy Day Fund Transfer 156.1 159.1 3.1 Remaining Balance 145.4 91.6 53.8 'Includes the Supplemental Ending Balance. ENDING BALANCE . Sesston.ected ndtng balance as dwn$50 7 million (16 0° )from the 2013 Close-'of .The�rotes�rmate •.The projected ending balance+s•up$85 9 mill on(52't I'�)from,, „ ::,ne 2014 forecast .The Ratrt pa �u1gd!:,.=; rolect ed to receive$1591 million following the 2013-75 y 7 btenniuri� Current vs. Prior Forecast ($Million) General Fund June 2014 September 2014 Difference Forecast Forecast Beginning Balance 486.8 486.8 0.0 Transfer to Rainy Day Fund -136.9 -136,7 0.2 Revenue 15,742.3 15,828.0 85.7 Administrative Actions -12.7 -12.7 0.0 Total Resources 16,079.5 16,165.4 85.9 Expenditures 15,914.7 15,914.7 0.0 Ending Balance* 164.9 250.8 85.9 Rainy Day Fund Transfer 159.1 159.1 0.0 Remaining Balance 5.7 91.6 85.9 *Includes the Supplemental Ending Balance. 11 f r Forecast Summary Page 5 of 7 201'3 1 W . fr erueFtiind F'61ttolj Education Rainy Day General Fund Reserves erves Stability Fund* Fund Available ($ Millions) Beginning Balance $7.4 $61.9 $69.3 - Deposits $167.7 $147.2 $314-9 Interest $1.0 $1.4 $2.5 Withdrawals -$1-0 $0.0 -$1.0 Projected Ending $175.1 $210.5 $250.8 $636.4 Balance 'Excludes funds in the Oregon Growth and the Oregon Resource and Technology Development subaccounts. 1 CHANGE FROM PRIOR FORECAST ($Million) Combined Revenue tune 2014 September 2014 Difference Forecast Forecast Beginning Balance 164.9 250.8 85.9 Transfer to Rainy Day Fund -159.1 -159.1 0.0 Personal 15,627.4 15,613.1 -14.2 Corporate 1,046.6 1,042.4 -4.1 Other 967.9 965.5 -2.4 Gross GF Revenue 17,641.9 17,621.1 -20.8 Shared Services Fund -86.2 -86.2 0.0 Rainy Day Fund -9.7 -9.7 0.1 Net GF Revenue 17,546.0 17,525.2 -20.7 Net General Fund Resources 17,551.7 17,616.9 65.2 Lottery Resources* 1,141.8 1,107.4 -34.4 Net Combined Resources 18,693.5 18,724.2 30.7 12 Forecast Summary Page 6 of 7 201 1� CHANGE FROM PRIOR FORECAST ($Million) Combined Revenue June 2014 September 2014 Difference Forecast Forecast Personal 17,055.8 16,985.4 -70.4 Corporate 1,012.3 1,006.7 -5.6 Other 1,027.8 1,025.9 -1.9 Gross GF Revenue 19,095.9 19,018.1 -77.8 Shared Services Fund -46.2 -46.2 0.0 Rainy Day Fund -37.7 -37.9 -0.3 Net GF Revenue 19,012.1 18,934.0 -78.1 Lottery Resources* 1,302.8 1,257.8 -44.9 Net Combined Revenue 20,314.9 20,191.8 -123.0 All lottery resources including dedicated funds 2019 21 CHANGE FROM PRIOR FORECAST ($Million) Combined Revenue .tune 2014 September 2014 Difference Forecast Forecast Personal 18,810.5 18,729.4 -81.1 Corporate 1,041.5 1,036.1 -5.3 Other 1,104.7 1,103.5 -1.2 Gross GF Revenue 20,956.7 20,869.1. -87.6 Shared Services Fund 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rainy Day Fund -39.0 -39.4 -0.4 Net GF Revenue 20,917.6 20,829.7 -88.0 Lottery Resources* 1,420.6 1,362.2 -58.4 Net Combined Revenue 22,338.3 22,191.9 -146.3 All lottery resources including dedicated funds 13 •- Forecast Summary Page 7 of 7 202 2 CHANGE FROM PRIOR FORECAST ($Million) Combined Revenue June 2014 September 2014 Difference Forecast Forecast Personal 20,717.3 20,668.3 -49.0 Corporate 1,114.3 1,112.1 -2.2 Other 1,170.5 1,170.1 -0.4 Gross GF Revenue 23,002.2 22,950.5 -51.7 Shared Services Fund 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rainy Day Fund -42.1 -42.5 -0.4 Net GF Revenue 22,960.0 22,907.9 -52.1 Lottery Resources* 1,554.2 1,477.9 -76.3 Net Combined Revenue 24,514.2 24,385.8 -128.3 All lottery resources including dedicated funds plentlial.Net 2evenhe'Grnv`th '1993 2021 I Personal Corporate Other Total 1993-95 to 1995-97 17.1% 18.8% 28.4% 18.3% 1995-97 to 1997-99 13-0% -13.9% -17.6% 71% 1997-99 to 1999-01 22.6% 28.2% 2.8% 21.5% 1999-01 to 2001-03 -11.9% -44.4% 97.9% -7.5% 2001-03 to 2003-05 16.8% 52.5% -35.4% 11.4% 2003-05 to 2005-07 22.8% 31.7% 6.4% 22.1% 2005-07 to 2007-09 -8.6% -18.9% 10.2% -8.0% 2007-09 to 2009-11 3.7% 20.9% 29.8% 6.8% 2009-11 to 2011-13 15.7% 6.8% -4.1% 13.1% 2011-13 to 2013-15 13.9% 17.2% -14,7% 11.7% 2013-15 to 2015-17 12.6% -0.3% -3.7% 10.7% 2015-17 to 2017-19 9.1% -6.2% 6.3% 8.0% 2017-19 to 2019-21 10.6% 2.9% 7.6% 10.0% 2019-21 to 2021-23 10.4% 7.3% 6.0% 10.0% 14 * AssociationlOt 4 INS tl l®r Oregon Counties COMMUNICATIONS Steering Committee Meeting Monday, September 8, 2014 Local Government Center, Room 118 8:30AM -9:30AM 1201 Court Street NE, Salem, Oregon To attend this meeting by telephone: 1-877-366-0711 Pass code: 39984287# TIM -111E:ITEM 1141111' i PAGE 1 §1PE F � 1. 08:30AM Call to order,welcome,introductions Co-Chairs Ton y I�li l'li DeBone&Mike Smith 2. 08:35AM Agenda approval(ACTION) Co-Chairs Tony DeBone&Mike Smith 13. 08:40AM Next Gen 9-1-1(INFORMATION) Dave Stuckey, Oregon Emergency Management Dept. 4. i 08:55AM State Radio Project/FirstNet/State Interoperability Executive Council Tom Lauer,Dept.of (INFORMATION) Transportation;Steve Noel,Dept.of Administrative Services 5. 09:10AM 9-1-1 Tax Increase Legislative Concept(POSSIBLE ACTION) Pg.2 Patrick Sieng 6. 09:20AM Stakeholder Reports(INFORMATION) Stakeholder Group ......................... Representatives 7. 09:25AM Other Business Co-Chairs Tony DeBone&Mike Smith 8. 09:30AM Adjourn Co-Chairs Tony DeBone&Mike Smith Next Meeting—October 13, 2014 1 15 LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEMO DATE: September 8,2014 TO: President Earl Fisher,Legislative Committee FROM: Co-Chairs Tony DeBone&Mike Smith,Communications Committee STAFF: Rob Bovett,Legal Counsel&Patrick Sieng,Public Safety Manager SUBJECT: 9-1-1 Tax Increase(AOC Concept 003) REQUESTED ACTION: Support committee action on increasing the 9-1-1 tax(AOC Concept 003) BACKGROUND: The 9-1-1 tax has remained at$0.75 since 1995. In the 2014 session,the tax was expanded to prepaid cellular and voice over Internet protocol phones and a current hybrid project is underway to collect this tax using a point of sale system. During AOC Public Safety Summits held around the state,commissioners,sheriffs,and other stakeholders discussed the need to modernize this tax to help offset many counties who have to fund their public safety answer points. AOC Concept 003 seeks to increase the tax by$0.50 to$1.25 and then attach further increases to the consumer price index. 2 16 4 Association of ,I L. Oregon Counties AOC CONCEPT 003 2015 Regular Session 06/12/14(REB) DRAFT SUMMARY increases and extends emergency communications tax.Applies to telecommunication services on or after January 1,2016. Takes effect on 91st day following adjournment sine die. 1 A BILL FOR AN ACT 2 Relating to emergency communications taxes; amending ORS 403.200 and section 4, chapter 5, 3 Oregon Laws 2002 (first special session); prescribing an effective date; and providing for 4 revenue raising that requires approval by a three-fifths majority. 5 Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: 6 SECTION 1. ORS 403.200 is amended to read: 7 403.200. (1) There is imposed on each paying retail subscriber who has 8 telecommunication services with access to the 9-1.-1 emergency reporting system a tax [equal to 9 75 cents per month] at the rate provided in subsection (6) of this section. The tax must be 10 applied on a telecommunications circuit designated for a particular subscriber. One subscriber 11 line must be counted for each circuit that is capable of generating usage on the line side of the 12 switched network regardless of the quantity or ownership of customer premises equipment 13 connected to each circuit. For providers of central office based services, the tax must be applied 14 to each line that has unrestricted connection to the switched network. Those central office based 15 service lines that have restricted connection to the switched network must be charged based on 16 software design in the central office that restricts the number of station calls to and from the 17 network. For cellular, wireless or other radio common carriers, the tax applies on a per 18 instrument basis and only if the subscriber's place of primary use, as defined and determined 19 under 4 U.S.C. 116 to 1.26, is within this state. 20 (2)The subscriber is liable for the tax imposed by this section. NOTE: Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new;matter litaiic and bracketed]is existing law to be omitted. New sections are in boldfaced type. 1201 Court Street NE, Suite 300 I Salem, Oregon 97301-4110 1 503.585.8351 I www.aocweb.org 3 17 AOC 003 06/12/14 1 (3) The amounts of tax collected by the provider are considered as payment by the 2 subscriber for that amount of tax. 3 (4) Any return made by the provider collecting the tax must be accepted by the 4 Department of Revenue as evidence of payments by the subscriber of amounts of tax so 5 indicated upon the return. 6 (5) The tax imposed under subsection (1) of this section does not apply to prepaid 7 wireless telecommunications service provided on or after January 1,2015. 8 (6) The tax imposed under subsection (1) of this section is 75 cents per month, until 9 December 31, 2015, one dollar and 25 cents per month, beginning January 1, 2016, until 10 December 31,2016,and beginning January 1,2017,the rate applicable to 2016, as adjusted 11 by the Department of Revenue under this paragraph. Beginning in 2016, and every year 12 thereafter, the Department of Revenue shall determine the percentage increase or decrease 13 in the cost of living for the previous calendar year, based on changes in the Portland-Salem, 14 OR-WA Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for All Items as published by the 15 Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. On or before July 1 16 of each year, the department shall adjust the tax rate for the following calendar year by 17 multiplying the amount applicable to the calendar year in which the adjustment is made by 18 the percentage amount determined under this paragraph. The adjustment may not exceed 19 three percent for any year. The department shall round the adjusted amount to the nearest 20 cent,but the unrounded amount shall be used to calculate adjustments in subsequent years. 21 The adjusted tax rate becomes effective on January 1 of the next year. 22 SECTION 2. Section 4,chapter 5, Oregon Laws 2002 (first special session),as amended 23 by section 1, chapter 4,Oregon Laws 2002 (third special session), section 1,chapter 629,Oregon 24 Laws 2007,and section 1, chapter 749,Oregon Laws 2013,. is amended to read: 25 Sec. 4. Taxes imposed under ORS 403.200 apply to subscriber bills issued on or after 26 January 1, 2002,and before January 1,[2022] 2032. 27 SECTION 3. This 2015 Act takes effect on the 91st day after the date on which the 28 2013 regular session of the Seventy-ninth Legislative Assembly adjourns sine die. 29 [2] Association of Oregon Counties 4 18 • 51.310 Schedule of fees; payment of fees to county treasurer.(1)Except as provided in ORS 105.130,the justice of the peace shall collect, in advance except in criminal cases, and issue receipts for,the following fees: (a)For the first appearance of the plaintiff, $125 [$40]. (b)For the first appearance of the defendant, $125 [$40]. (c)(A)For plaintiff filing a claim in the small claims department: $40 when the amount or value claimed does not exceed $2,500,or,$75 when the amount or value claimed exceeds $2,500; and, (B)For defendant requesting a hearing: $40 when the amount or value claimed does not exceed$2,500,or,$75 when the amount or value claimed exceeds$2,500 [In the small claims department,fin-a plaintiff filing a claim, $28; and for a defendant requesting a hearing, $28]. (d)For transcript of judgment, $12 [$6]. (e) For transcript of judgment from the small claims department,$12 [$6]. (f)For certified copy of judgment, $12 [$6]. (g) For issuing writs of execution or writs of garnishment, $30 [$6] for each writ. (h)For issuing notices of restitution as provided in ORS 105.151,$12 for each notice. [For taking an affidavit of a private party, $1.] (i)For filing a motion described ORS 21.200 in an action filed under paragraph (a)of this subsection,1/4 of the amount set forth in ORS 21.200. [For taking depositions,for each folio, 70 cents] (j)For supplying to private parties copies of records and files,the same fees as provided or established for the county clerk under ORS 205.320. (k)For each official certificate,$12 [$1]. (L)For taking and certifying for a private party an acknowledgment of proof of any instrument,$12 [$3]. (m)Costs in criminal cases, where there has been a conviction, or upon forfeiture of security, $5. (2)Not later than the last day of the month immediately following the month in which fees set forth in subsection (1)of this section are collected,the justice of the peace shall pay all such fees,other than those for performing marriage ceremonies,over to the county treasurer of the county wherein the justice of the peace was elected or appointed, for crediting to the general fund of the county, and shall take the receipt of the treasurer therefor. 52.410 Trial fee. (I)Parties to judicial proceedings in justice courts are required to contribute toward the expense of maintaining justice courts, or a particular action or proceeding therein,by the payment of a trial fee. (2)The trial fee in a justice court, for every trial by jury, is $125 [$17] for each full or partial day of trial,payable by the party demanding the jury trial at the time the demand is made; for a trial without a jury,the trial fee is $75 for each full or partial day of trial, payable by the plaintiff when the action or proceeding is set for trial. The amount of the fee for subsequent days of trial shall be paid in advance each day the trial continues by the party responsible for the fee. 19 • JUSTICE COURT FEES Present & Proposed as compared to Present Circuit Court Fees May 2014. Justice Court- Justice Court- Circuit Court- Filing Fees Present Proposed Present Civil Action Filing Fee(P1 &Deft $40 $125 $158 Small Claim Filing Fee(P1&Def) $28 $40(claim $2500) $53 (claim<$2500) $75 (claim> $2500) $95 (claim> $2500) Forcible Entry&Detainer(FED) $79 No Change $79 Miscellaneous Fees Transcript of Judgment $6 $12 $16 Transcript of Judgment from Small Claim Dept. $6 $12 $16 Certified copy of Judgment $6 $12 $16 Writ of Execution or Garnishment $6 $30 $37 Official Certified copy of Satisfaction Of Judgment $1 $12 $16 Notice of Restitution(ORS 105.151) $0 $12 $16 Trial Fee's (Civil Actions—Excluding Small Claims) Bench $0 $75 $125 Jury $17 $125 $225 Motion Fees Fees set forth in ORS 21.200 $0 $75 $100 20 Oregon Legislative Information System Page 1 of 2 f•e p;Staff Lcgin 2013 - 2014 Interim Joint interim Task Force On Juvenile Court Dependency Proceedings (HB 3363) Overview Assigned Measures Membership Chair Patricia A.Sullivan Member Nancy Cozine Member Lois Day Member Lori Fellows Member Lene Garrett Member Valeri L. Love Member Leola L. McKenzie Member Angela Sherbo Member Megan Shultz Member Joanne Southey Member Elizabeth Welch Staff https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz12013I i/Committees/WGTCD/Overview 9/10/2014 21 HE 3363 Task Force DRAFT, Foster Care Reduction Through Effective Representation in Juvenile Court Proceedings Pilot Program ("Pilot") Problem: The juvenile court dependency system is complex and under-resourced and, as a result, children and families suffer through lengthy foster care stays, experience reduced visitation, endure long waits for,pianency, and often feel devalued and ignored. f:P e Proposed Solution: 11133363, passed during,tie'2013 session, created a workgroup charged with examining the juvenile court court4ependency system, for the purpose of reducing delays, identifying specific actin s and/or legislative anges to mitigate such delays, and reporting to the legislature,t a:,the findings of the, oikgroup. The workgroup recommended 4idloprogram winch would provide adequate resources to enable optimal functio .mng oaf the juvenilk court dependency system. The components of the pilotprograin include ,high..quality,;representation of parents and childr r,sufficieYi t,well trained judicial tcsources, and well-advised DHS caseworkers. :: Draft: 't,,:::;_:.,:;-;::,:::::•.:::.:::_:<.. Relating to improvingthejuvezide dependency system; declaring an emergency; amending ORS XXXXXXX.and appropriating money. I. Findings a. The Oregon Lslative Assembly finds that children need a safe, stable 6-00'hioine to grow into healthy and productive adults. b. The OregonLegislative Assembly finds that not all children have a safe, stable family home. c. The Oregon Legislative Assembly finds that children do best if the child's home can be made a safe, stable, family home. DRAFT ,Foster Care Reduction Through Effective Representation in Juvenile Court Proceedings Pilot Program page! of 4 22 d. The Oregon Legislative Assembly finds that if a child must be removed from his or her home, the State of Oregon must establish a safe, stable, family home for the child. e. The Oregon Legislative Assembly finds that placing a child in foster care for prolonged periods of time with many different placements is not in the best interests of the child or the State of Oregon. f. The Oregon Legislative Assembly finds, 1%at reducing the use of foster care is both cost effective and in the.JieSty.interests of Oregon's children. g. The Oregon Legislative Assembly finds that crdence-based research shows high-quality legal representation improvesoutcomes for `I- children and families including;,children are morrre'slikely to remain in the home, children spend less time:.in fOstei-care and children achieve permanency rnore q ickly. h. The Oregon Legislative A scmbly finds that DHS Child Welfare needs additional legal'xe'ources to better'ainiinister Oregon's dependency s. i. The Oregon Leg d Or ative A e rly finds That the Judicial Department needs additional j udges and ireferces with_juvenile court experience. :,J the Oregon 1ati\c Assemb.8y finds that the Office of Public Defense Services needs adttttonal resources to reduce caseloads and provide l igh7quality legal representation to parents and children. II. Ramose a. 'Tho,purpose oftht Actis to create a juvenile dependency court pilot called the Poste Care Reduction Through Effective Representation in .TuvenitouiProceedings Pilot Program. b. The Pilot`r ' take place in a minimum of four and maximum of six Oregon counties. c. The Pilot will: i. Improve the quality of representation for parents and children by reducing caseload, providing adequate compensation, DRAFT,Foster Care Reduction Through Effective Representation in • Juvenile Court Proceedings Pilot Program page2 of 4 23 ensuring additional oversight, and providing multidisciplinary support and training. ii. Increase resources to the Department of Justice so it can provide additional legal representation to DHS Child Welfare thereby ensuring caseworkers are represented. iii. Increase resources to the Judicial Department for additional judges and referees in order to adjit 4'cate dependency cases more expeditiously. iv. Measure outcomes to deternnne if e,use of foster care has declined. III. Process a. Linn and Yamhill Counties' 'Mil the first Pilot Counties The Judicial Department,the Attorney General"and the Off ceofPublic Defense Services shall:choose the a ditional counties to participate in the Pilot program. b. The Office of Public Defense shall contiact with attorneys to represent children 1d parents in the.partictpataing counties and shall adopt standards and trdiing for these attorneys,,::, c. The Dep .rtn-►ent ofJustice shall employ attorneys to represent DHS Child Welfare as'the Department deems appropriate and shall establish standards and trammg ft r attorneys representing DHS Child Welfare y itl;c Pilot'program. "d the Oregont4riminat Justice Commission or an independent evaluator 011 evaluate' ach county participating in the program. e. NdirOi,thstandigh Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Judicial Department may employ eingloys,tiOttred judges or judicial referees to reduce workload for judges prekiaing in dependency matters in the circuit court of a county chosen to participate in the Pilot Program. f. The Judicial Department,together with the Office of Public Defense and the Department of Justice, shall submit an annual report to the judiciary committee on the Pilot Program. IV. Appropriations DRAFT,Foster Care Reduction Through Effective Representation in Juvenile Court Proceedings Pilot Program page3 of 4 24 • a. There is appropriated to the Court Administrator's Office for the biennium beginning July 1,2015 out of the General Fund the amount of for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of section of this 2015 Act. b. There is appropriated to the Office of Public Defense Services for the biennium beginning July 1, 2015 out of the General Fund the amount of for the purposes of carrying:o t the provisions of section of this 2015 Act. c. There is appropriated to the Departindarot Justice for the biennium beginning July 1, 2015 out of:t e General. hind the amount of for the purposes of carrying-obit the provisions ofsection. of this 2015 Act. • 'rf d. There is appropriated to the Oregon (.. l imal Justice'Corunission or independent evaluatpr'for the bienriiuxri.beginning July 1-, out of the General.Fund the a zriii nt,.of for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of section` cf this;21115 Act. E. V. Timing a. This 2015 Act is repealed o .June 30, 2021. DRAFT,Foster Care Reduction Through Effective Representation in Juvenile Court Proceedings Pilot Program page4 of 4 25 Public Affairs Counsel From: Justen Rainey <JustenR @pacounsel.org> Sent: Wednesday,July 02, 2014 12:14 PM To: Public Affairs Counsel Cc: JL Wilson;Justen Rainey; Public Affairs Counsel Subject: Head Start Mark/JL This is a note/reminder for the working file for agenda for the next Head Start meeting. Donna talked with Speaker Kotek's staff today. Kotek is gearing up and focusing on$250,000 for Early Learning/Early Care type programs in 2015-17. Apparently the rough plan is for $150 million to go to implementing full day Kindergarten. Then$100 million to be split between (ERDC-$60 million)and Childcare Quality programs($40 million). According to Donna,the plan is to leave the current HS funding for OPK the same for 2015-17 and not change it. The feeling is the Hubs are not ready to do that. Justen 26 DRAFT RULES (REB; 8/12/14) DIVISION 70 MENTAL HEALTH JUSTICE REINVESTMENT PROGRAM 213-070-0010 Authority These rules are promulgated pursuant to Chapter ,2015 Oregon Laws. Stat.Auth.:2015 c. §§ 1-10 Slats.Implemented: 2015 c. §§ 1-10 213-070-0020 Purpose The purpose of these rules is to administer the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program established by Chapter ,2015 Oregon Laws. Stat.Auth.:2015 c.__ §§ 1-10 Stats.Implemented: 2015 c. §§ 1-10 213-070-0030 Definitions As used in OAR 213-070-0005 to 213-070-0080,unless the context indicates otherwise: (1)"Commission"means the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. (2)"Community-based programs"may include one or more of the following: (a)Intercept 1 -Law Enforcement Diversion: (A)Crisis outreach response team. (B)Mobile crisis response. (C)Voluntary mental health database. (D)Forensic assertive community treatment. (E)Respite centers. Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program—Draft Rules Page 1 of 5 pages 27 (F)Acute care centers. (G)Drop-off centers for law enforcement. (H)Psychiatric crisis centers. (I)Peer navigators and mentors. (J)Crisis intervention training for law enforcement officers. (K) Sobering stations. (L)Access to medications. (b)Intercept 2—Initial Detention and Court Hearings: (A)Peer services. (B)Transitional, supported housing (C)Access to medications. (D)Judicial and attorney training. (c)Intercept 3—Jails and Courts: (A) Transition services with peer navigators and case management. (B)Transitional, supported housing. (C) Access to medications. (D) Specialty courts. (E)Other programs that divert or otherwise reduce referrals to the state hospital under ORS 161.370. (d)Intercept 4—Reentry: (A) Wraparound services. (B)Dual diagnosis. (C)Peer navigators and mentors. (D)Peer provider organizations. (E)Transitional housing. Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program—Draft Rules—Page 2 of 5 pages 28 (F) Supported housing. (e)Intercept 5—Community Corrections: (A) Wraparound services. (B) Dual diagnosis. (C)Peer navigators and mentors. (D)Peer provider organizations. (E)Transitional housing. (F) Supported housing. (3)"County"includes a regional collection of counties. (4)"Grant Review Committee"means the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review Committee established under Section 53,Chapter 649,2013 Oregon Laws. Stat.Auth.:2015 c.-- §§ 1-10 Scats.Implemented: 2015 C. §§ 1-10 213-070-0040 Grant Applications (1)At the beginning of each mental health justice reinvestment grant application cycle,the Commission will determine the proportion of grant funds available to each county in accordance with the formula used to distribute baseline funding under ORS 423.483. The Commission will include those amounts in its grant application solicitation. (2)An application for a justice reinvestment grant to fund one or more community-based programs must be submitted by a county,after consultation with that county's local public safety coordinating council convened under ORS 423.560 and the local mental health authority operating under ORS 430.630. (3)The Commission may negotiate with an applicant to clarify its application or to effect modifications that will make the application acceptable or in furtherance of the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program. (4)The Commission may, in its sole discretion,waive solicitation requirements or cancel any solicitation in whole or in part if it deems such action to be in the best interests of the Mental. Health Justice Reinvestment Program. Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program--Draft Rules—Page 3 of 5 pages 29 (5)At the conclusion of the grant application period,the Commission will make awards to counties in accordance with these rules. (6)If unallocated funds remain at the conclusion of the grant acceptance period,the Commission may: (a)Establish a supplemental grant period and distribute some or all of the unallocated funds in the manner provided in OAR 213-070-0070. (b)Use some or all of the unallocated funds to evaluate the community-based sanctions, services and programs funded under the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program. Stat.Auth.:2015 c. §§ 1-10 Slats. Implemented: 2015 c. §§ 1-10 213-070-0050 Grant Application Review Criteria In general, grant applications should provide for ways to measure efficacy. There should be a specific, measurable, achievable,realistic and timely design. The Grant Review Committee and the Commission will review and evaluate each grant application based on whether the applicant's program is designed to prevent persons with mental illness from entering the criminal justice system, or from further involvement in the criminal justice system, including,but not limited to,reducing referrals to the state hospital under ORS 161.370. Stat.Auth.:2015 c. §§ 1-10 Stats. Implemented: 2015 c. §§ 1-10 213-070-0060 Grant Application Processing (1)Commission staff will evaluate each application based on the criteria provided in OAR 213-070- 0050,and will make recommendations to the Grant Review Committee. (2)The Grant Review Committee will review each grant application,and the recommendations of Commission staff,and will make recommendations to the Commission. (3)The Commission will notify applicants of the decision of the Commission. The Commission will prepare a grant award agreement for each grant awarded,which will set forth the terms, conditions, and requirements of the grant. (4)The Commission may amend a grant awarded under this rule. Stat.Auth.:2015 §§ 1-10 Stats.Implemented: 2015 c. §§ 1-10 Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program—Draft Rules Page 4 of 5 pages 30 213-070-0070 Supplemental Grant Period If unallocated funds remain at the conclusion of the grant acceptance period, and the Commission decides to establish a supplemental grant period to distribute some or all of those unallocated funds, the Commission may: (1)Use those funds to supplement and expand the scope of one or more grant programs that were awarded,without the need for further grant solicitation,but using the criteria provided in OAR 21.3- 070-0060. (2)Issue a supplemental competitive grant application solicitation, and allow counties to submit applications to provide community-based programs,using the criteria and process provided in OAR 213-070-0050 and 213-060-0060. Stat.Auth.:201.5 c. §§ 1-10 Stats.Implemented: 2015 c._ _§§ 1-10 213-070-0080 Evaluating Efficacy; Termination; Report to Legislature (1)(a)Each Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Grant that is awarded will be evaluated by the Commission on a quarterly basis,based on the measurable benchmarks provided in the grant application and grant award agreement. (b)Programs that lack efficacy will be given notice of that deficiency, and an opportunity to adjust or modify the program. (c)Programs that persistently lack efficacy may be terminated. The Commission will notify a program of intention to terminate,and allow for a hearing before the Commission under ORS 183.411 to 183.471. (2)In order to establish model programs,each grant cycle the Commission will select one or more programs funded under the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program for close evaluation. In selecting programs for close evaluation,the Commission shall take into consideration existing research,as well as the need to establish the efficacy of new programs,or program models being implemented in Oregon. (3)The Commission will report the results of its evaluation conducted under this rule to a committee of the Legislative Assembly related to the judiciary. Stat.Auth.:2015 c. §§ 1-10 Stats.Implemented: 2015 c. §§ 1-10 Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program—Draft Rules—Page 5 of 5 rages' 31 „ ' ” ii Association of V' # I Oregon.Counties AOC CONCEPT 002 2015 Regular Session 08/18/14(REB) DRAFT SUMMARY Establishes Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program for the purpose of preventing persons with mental illness from entering the criminal justice system, or from further involvement in the criminal justice system,including but not limited to,reducing referrals to the state hospital due to lack of fitness to proceed in criminal cases. Directs Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, in consultation with advisory body,to administer program. Sunsets July 1,2025. Declares emergency,effective on passage. 1 A BILL FOR AN ACT 2 Relating to crime; creating new provisions; and declaring an emergency. 3 Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: 4 MENTAL HEALTH JUSTICE REINVESTMENT PROGRAM 5 SECTION 1. The Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Account is established, 6 separate and distinct from the General Fund. All moneys in the account are continuously 7 appropriated to the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission for the purpose of making grants 8 to counties in accordance with section 2 of this 2015 Act. 9 SECTION 2. (1) In consultation with the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review 10 Committee established under Section 53, Chapter 649, 2013 Oregon Laws, the Oregon 11 Criminal Justice Commission shall administer the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment 12 Program described in this section. From funds appropriated to the commission for 13 purposes of the program, the commission shall award grants to counties that establish 14 services and programs that are designed to prevent persons with mental illness from 15 entering the criminal justice system, or from further involvement in the criminal justice 16 system, including, but not limited to, reducing referrals to the state hospital under ORS 17 161.370. NOTE: Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new;matter[italic and bracketed]is existing law to be omitted. New sections are in boldfaced type. 1201 Court Street NE,Suite 300 I Salem, Oregon 97301-4110 1 503.585.8351 I www.aocweb.org 32 • AOC 002 08/18/14 1 (2) After consulting with the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review Committee, the 2 commission shall adopt rules to administer the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment 3 Program.The rules must include: 4 (a) A methodology for reviewing and approving grant applications and distributing 5 grant funds. Rules described in this paragraph must provide the Justice Reinvestment 6 Grant Review Committee with the ability to approve grant applications, subject to final 7 approval by the commission. 8 (b)A process for evaluating the efficacy of services and programs funded under this 9 section. 10 (3)Notwithstanding subsections(1) and (2) of this section, upon receipt of a letter of 11 intent to participate in the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program submitted by a 12 county, the commission shall distribute to the county a proportional share of funds 13 deposited in the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Account. The proportion shall be 14 determined in accordance with the formula used to distribute baseline funding under ORS 15 423.483. 16 (4) Funds distributed under this section must be spent on the provision of services 17 and programs that are designed to prevent persons with mental illness from entering the 18 criminal justice system, or from further involvement in the criminal justice system, 19 including,but not limited to,reducing referrals to the state hospital under ORS 161.370. 20 SECTION 3. Section 2 of this 2015 Act is amended to read: 21 Sec. 2. (1) In consultation with the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review Committee 22 established under Section 53, Chapter 649, 2013 Oregon Laws, the Oregon Criminal Justice 23 Commission shall administer the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program described in this 24 section. From funds appropriated to the commission for purposes of the program, the 25 commission shall award grants to counties that establish services and programs that are designed 26 to prevent persons with mental illness from entering the criminal justice system, or from further 27 involvement in the criminal justice system, including, but not limited to,reducing referrals to the 28 state hospital under ORS 161.370. 29 (2) An application for a grant described in this section must be submitted by a 30 county, after consultation with the local public safety coordinating council convened under 31 ORS 423.560 and the local mental health authority operating under ORS 430.630. [2] , P Association f mid P Oregon Countks. 33 AOC 002 08/18/14 1 (3)(a) During a grant application period established by the commission, the 2 proportion of grant funds available to each county shall be determined in accordance with 3 the formula used to distribute baseline funding under ORS 423.483. 4 (b) At the conclusion of the grant application period, the commission shall award 5 grants to counties in accordance with rules adopted by the commission. If unallocated 6 funds remain at the conclusion of the grant acceptance period, the commission may 7 establish a supplemental grant period and distribute the unallocated funds. 8 (4) The commission shall regularly evaluate the services and programs funded 9 under this section. The commission shall report the results of an evaluation conducted 10 under this section to a committee of the Legislative Assembly related to the judiciary. 11 [(2)] (5) After consulting with the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review Committee, the 12 commission shall adopt rules to administer the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program. 13 The rules must include: 14 (a) A methodology for reviewing and approving grant applications and distributing grant 15 funds. Rules described in this paragraph must provide the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review 16 Committee with the ability to approve grant applications, subject to final approval by the 17 commission. 18 (b) A process for evaluating the efficacy of services and programs funded under this 19 section. 20 [(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, upon receipt of a letter of 21 intent to participate in the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program submitted by a county, 22 the commission shall distribute to the county a proportional share of funds deposited in the 23 Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Account. The proportion shall be determined in accordance 24 with the formula used to distribute baseline funding under ORS 423.483.] 25 [(4) Funds distributed under this section must be spent on the provision of services and 26 programs that are designed to prevent persons with mental illness from entering the criminal 27 justice system, or from further involvement in the criminal justice system, including, but not 28 limited to, reducing referrals to the state hospital under ORS 161.370.] 29 (6)As used in this section,"county"includes a regional collection of counties. 30 SECTION 4. The amendments to section 2 of this 2015 Act by section 3 of this 2015 31 Act become operative on July 1,2017. 3 r Association of °' Oregon Counties 34 AOC 002 08/18/14 1 SECTION 5. Section 53, Chapter 649, 2013. Oregon Laws, as amended by section 54, 2 Chapter 649, 2013 Oregon Laws,is further amended to read: 3 Sec. 53. (1)(a) In consultation with the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review Committee 4 established under subsection (2) of this section, the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission shall 5 administer the Justice Reinvestment Program described in this section. From funds appropriated 6 to the commission for purposes of the program, the commission shall award grants to counties 7 that establish a process to assess offenders and provide a continuum of community-based 8 sanctions, services and programs that are designed to reduce recidivism and decrease the 9 county's utilization of imprisonment in a Department of Corrections institution while protecting 10 public safety and holding offenders accountable. 11 (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, no less than 10 percent of grant 12 funds awarded under this section must be distributed to community-based nonprofit 13 organizations that provide services to victims of crime. 14 (2) The Justice Reinvestment Grant Review Committee is established, consisting of the 15 following members:. 16 (a)The Governor shall appoint the following[five] seven members: 17 (A)[On] One member shall be a district attorney. 18 (13)One member shall be a county sheriff. 19 (C)One member shall he a chief of police. 20 (D) One member shall be a county commissioner. 21 (E)One member shall be a community corrections director who is not a sheriff 22 (F)One member shall be a local mental health authority designee. 23 (G) One member shall be a treatment professional experienced with people who 24 have co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorder. 25 (b) The President of the Senate shall appoint two nonvoting members from among 26 members of the Senate. 27 (c) The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall appoint two nonvoting members 28 from among members of the House of Representatives. 29 (3)(a) A majority of the voting members of the committee constitutes a quorum for the 30 transaction of business. 31 (h)The committee shall elect one of its members to serve as chairperson. ■ AcSOCL Bern oi' [4] "a 'w i�� Oregon Counkiies 35 f AOC 002 08/18/14 1 (c) If there is a vacancy for any cause, the appointing authority shall make an 2 appointment to become effective immediately. 3 (d) The committee shall meet at times and places specified by the call of the chairperson 4 or a majority of the voting members of the committee. 5 (c) Legislative members of the committee shall be entitled to payment of compensation 6 and expenses under ORS 171.072,payable from funds appropriated to the Legislative Assembly. 7 (4) An application for a grant described in this section must be submitted by a local 8 public safety coordinating council convened under ORS 423.560. 9 (5)(a) During a grant application period established by the commission, the proportion of 10 grant funds available to each county shall be determined in accordance with the formula used to 11 distribute baseline funding under ORS 423.483. 12 (b) At the conclusion of the grant application period, the commission shall award grants 13 to counties in accordance with rules adopted by the commission. If unallocated funds remain at 14 the conclusion of the grant acceptance period, the commission may establish a supplemental 15 grant period and distribute the unallocated funds. 16 (6)The commission shall regularly evaluate the community-based sanctions, services and 17 programs funded under this section. The commission shall report the results of an evaluation 18 conducted under this section to a committee of the Legislative Assembly related to the judiciary. 19 (7)(a) Before applying for grant funds to administer a community-based program 20 described in subsection (9)(a)(D) of this section, the county must obtain the consent of the 21 presiding judge of the judicial district in which the county is located. 22 (b)A grant application to administer a community-based program described in subsection 23 (9)(a)(D)of this section must include the costs of appointed counsel. 24 (8) After consulting with the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review Committee, the 25 commission shall adopt rules to administer the Justice Reinvestment Program. The rules must 26 include: 27 (a) A methodology for reviewing and approving grant applications and distributing grant 28 funds. Rules described in this paragraph must provide the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review 29 Committee with the ability to approve grant applications, subject to final approval by the 30 commission. [5] ;, xs5ocIationof + j Oregon taunttes 36 AOC 002 08/18/14 1 (b) A process for evaluating the efficacy of community-based sanctions, services and 2 programs funded under this section. 3 (9)As used in this section: 4 (a)"Community-based programs"includes: 5 (A) Work release programs; 6 (B)Structured,transitional leave programs; 7 (C) Evidence-based programs designed to reduce recidivism that include the balanced 8 administration of sanctions, supervision and treatment; 9 (D)Administering a reentry court under section 29 of this 2013 Act; and 10 (E) Specialty courts aimed at medium-risk and high-risk offenders. 11 (b)"County"includes a regional collection of counties. 12 SECTION 6. The amendments to section 53, Chapter 649, 2013 Oregon Laws, by 13 section 3 of this 2015. Act become operative on July 1,2016. 14 SECTION 7. (1) Not less than once per biennium, the Oregon Criminal Justice 15 Commission shall identify: 16 (a) The avoided costs to state government resulting from the passage of this 2015 17 Act; and 18 (b) Any increased or decreased costs to local governments resulting from the 19 passage of this 2015 Act. 20 (2) No later than January 1 of each odd-numbered year, the commission shall 21 submit a report to the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review Committee established under 22 Section 53, Chapter 649, 2013 Oregon Laws,and to the Legislative Assembly in the manner 23 provided by ORS 192.245, that includes the determinations described in subsection (1) of 24 this section and describes the methodology employed by the commission in reaching those 25 determinations. 26 (3) As used in this section, "avoided costs" includes the costs of operating the state 27 hospital,and the costs associated with additional state hospital capacity. 28 SECTION 8. Sections 2,3,5, and 7 of this 2015 Act are repealed on July 1,2025. 29 [6] 0 ' Association of" Oregon Counties 37 AOC 002 08/18/14 1 UNIT CAPTIONS 2 SECTION 9. The unit captions in this 2015 Act are provided only for the 3 convenience of the reader and do not become a part of the statutory law of this state or 4 express any legislative intent in the enactment of this 2015 Act. 5 EMERGENCY CLAUSE 6 SECTION 10. This 2015 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the 7 public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2015 Act takes 8 effect on its passage. 9 [7] HOC I�n� 38 4 4.41if- '4i'ti' 74,,,'",.1}-mft4 ,-,.P,k..., s:,:.,„'.ts.t,`"T:>•,727.•,':••,...?i '1.4....::•.1,01.1F.Z .:',..-:.' ' •::"7•':.1': -•.".1'2L,'-4='-'''' Joint int.,e, ,i,,,,.,01T..."Ta.:..s;kliFeoariethe on xxxxxxxxx:201 4 ‘,.r..--- 4rt[tt Care the - t Interim Task Force ori., :.'" A men:.;:, - ,. iT. and Primary Pr'iimomarYRaneidmMinleiristaelitallete7t.lt4 Care lifenzbership.- , 161a,.. , ._ t Report to Rick Kcinaciadit.eiNM,DM,SC:oA-CNIpla,ico-chair MarY '1- - . '..,..-q;,, men Reimburni, ,,,, „... i - Sen Tim KnoPP 201;ral:',=.'.-,„.:1z.::i:„,,. .....„ Sen.Laurie Monnes '''' ''''''''tui e.. Anderson Rep, John Lively b. ii,..ndersm ps3, ,,,,.,,,,.17HTtizq-TA::,, :7,,_..1,.. ReP.Jul i'-' P a ms 1) : . Robin - Etob Gluclmlan,MD gap.w 1 Sean Kolmer ,:,,,,,,,.. Goralee Koning,MS, ,,,, PA-C ,.:;:;;:.-:::; ,..,„ jobil Pra5sas ..,„ ....„..,:j15ingN,....,.. ."2;::.'!3ri.l. Ruth RDgers 113tW''''' '''W jeancnc smiklIP . - Staff- sandy --"...ii I :::4!, Thick-C irka • .9,. 39 Executive Summary Itt 2013, the 776 Legislative Assembly enacted House Bill 2902(Appendix A),which established a thirteen-member Task Force on Primary and Mental Health.Care Reimbursement,to study payment reform options in support of primary and mental health care,specifically addressing payment parity for physicians,physician assistants,and nurse practitioners in Oregon.The Task Force has been directed to prepare this report recommending an array of potential changes to statute in support of sustainable payment models for primary and mental health care services.The Task Force is scheduled to sunset at the convening of the 2016 Regular Session of the Oregon Legislative Assembly, The charge of the Task Force is to_ (a) Study and make recommendations for a payment s1.'t4ire for reimbursement.by insurers of licensed physicians,physician assistants and certilie4'nurse'p1nnntioners, (b) The payment structure must promote the majatctixnce and expati nn of the primary care and. mental health care workforce in Oregon (c) The payment structure must ensure that alL.pimary care and mental b-e,lth care providers in these licensed specialty designations are ciiMppgsated fairly, The Task Force began convening monthly meetings on.1'a4:0;a*1 2014.During thcii°incetings testimony was presented concerning: • Primary Care workforce • Patient-Centel ed P ' txzrx�ry Care Mcdi Home 3 .::- • Behavioral healthRtztCegratmn models { • Behavioral hei(t1 worleforc issues-PhSrs eta.tt,Pk ysician Assistant(PA)and Nurse Practitioners(14 perspective,; • Insurer perspective?fin paym reform and`'i distribution of health care expenditure;and • Altepattup,payment i,nodels'= • The Taski+nice construe d,a set cif pals and pmseipT. s(Appendix B)in the process of underst (3ing the challen cfpaymirgtcefortn in order to organize the findings and rccomment tiqns to follow.11;rsithe understanding of the Task Force that while there are many efforts to fintiMpal payment stiff lures acrd-$.',the country,no single effort has cone forth as the ideal.The follower report repress the cumulative learning Of the five meetings of the Task Force. = -- -- y:,Sp Findings Regarding Paytiitsn# arit.y for Physicians.Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants: Oregon's payer environment,prior to the passage of House Bill 2902(2013)experienced several payers not reimbursing physicians,nurse practitioners,and physician assistants at the same rates for the same services being provided.The providers used the Evaluation and Management(E&M)or Health and Behavior(H&B)coding system.This inequity particularly affected a number of behavioral health NPs, which resulted in substantial economic impact.There were no reports of payment inequity in the physical health environments. Testimony clarified the uniform use of the E&M/H&B coding system.This system is used in Fee-For- Service(FFS)payment structure,for defining the level of service(LOS)provided and the corresponding 2 40 1 payment by: • Using documentation elements from a visit encounter, • Elements include specific information in history of present illness,review of systems,past medical,surgical and social history,as well as physical exam,diagnosis and treatment plan; • Based on the level of complexity a LOS is assigned; • Specific LOS have a graduated fee schedule,increasing with advancing levels of history, examination and decision making;and • Providers submit an LOS code for each encounter to the insurer for payment Testimony also pointed out the limitations of the coding systems in describing several factors directly and indirectly related to the visit encounter including • The LOS does not reflect the level of training,Conte ll ledge,quality outcomes,or cumulative experience of a provider,even within tl>Aatrie 1iE ezised specialty; • The LOS is entirely dependent on the ability to%iocfiaent accurately and completely,thus is dependent on the documentation skills of thcl jFwider,not necescal`lly,what actually occurred during the visit; _ 1 • New electronic medical record(EMR)syAttiks often utilize templates"fa documentation,which :<. can impact the detail in a visit's documentafiOu _; • Coding rules and requirements are routinely chary d atfed al and internattoi l levels,in the CPT and 1CD-9/10 systems tnann6tcmpt to trnprd?cafle4uate determination of LOS,winch, while potentially helpful,create cri tiara within the prto ider community,and • The current U.S.coding system isiftrmlykAblished and a `;attempt to use an alternative payment system for FES billing,urilOs to Oi n,is not feaA;i:>.le Testimony also highligh ,t.tie"drikences in tt4.n.g fdt' rovtdecs licensed as Physicians,NPs,and PAs,as well as the roles the provider'types pl ry in tlt e'are of pattonts including: • Cumulative years.'4*clicat:Whool and residency training for physicians,particularly those With s pecialty tratntu 5ti psyclilaty,pedra,Oes,addiction medicine,and geriatrics • (1,ttisixlative y'saxs irf traritlb for NPs particularlfihose specializing in behavioral health, :,:geriatrics and pet atn.cs • `Itilationship of PAS: acticing! er the license of a physician • lnrigp ince of curnulat_v clmzcal p hence in all provider groups iri10' :tisq„ Recommendat ons:Payment Pair ty The Task Force recommends th,aithe 2015 Legislative Assembly: 1. Maintain sunset langzlage in current ORS 743A.036 and that the Task Force continue to evaluate; 2. Clarify the definition of"independent practice"as it pertains to billing for services impacted by House Bill 2902; 3. Assure compliance of current statute through the Insurance Division,Department of Consumer and Business Services(DCBS);and 4. Monitor and report any clinical and financial impact of the provisions enacted by House Bill. 2902 on the mental health delivery system. 3 1 41 Findings Regarding Support for Primary and Mental Health Care Workforce: The Task Force beard consistent testimony that the shortage of primary care and behavioral health care providers(of all types)is significant and multi-factorial.The workfirce shortage is even more dramatic in the rural areas of Oregon,particularly for psychiatric physician access.The provider shortage is not unique to Oregon,but testimony implied that it was more profound than in other regions of the country. Common elements contributing to the shortage of providers in these specialties include: • Low reimbursement for services relative to specialty and procedural care; • Limited training opportunities(residency slots,MD/DO/PA/RN degree positions)in Oregon for primary care and behavioral health for Physicians,NPs and_ ;s,which is currently under study by the Health Care Workforce Committee,Oregon Ieal<.t ;!lilicy Board(Appendix C); • Challenges of serving complex patient.populations; ,;.}r''s"a' • Increasing demands on primary care providers for opirlatron management,care coordination, chronic disease care,documentation,and patient edticatton Withgpt a corresponding increase in reimbursement; • Large debt burden for physicians coming coming,Pakif inedical school,inffne,pcing their choice of residency programs to those specialties Wi ,igher income potential,tiftk • Limited loan reimbursement.programs in Oieggia Several options were presented to the'l4'aslt.I'orce to address tic alri�riage of primary care and behavioral health Physicians,NPs and PM includi'ro ° _ ;:. • Significantly increase the overall reiiiibursakiit for primariA4ire and behavioral health care services,recognizing the need to keels faverall c *of care at or below its current rate of growth; • Payment for services ctt rift not rou ] r Y � ,y tt�te.,y eAturire4an a FF5'system,such as care coordination, ib ttxlation rnanagcrnent triage•pare,phone Con sultation,virtual visits,and bi- 1 directional beha io rat health;at egration, .;..;.- • Movement of Y� P a etrt models to risk adjusted global payment for primary care and behavioral health.smites for pa40 i f pents; • ,40541erkthil4041,th care tin isforrnation,tto Learn used care models,particularly uniform miplenrentatton i! e PatieiatCentered Prima y Care Medical Ilome • 'Tn4ease training apps stunitiet f aj_,physicians,nurse practitioners and physician assistants in Oregon' • Expat4iiag loan remibui*pent programs and other financial incentives to include all Oregon countieslt,documentedplrovider shortages;and • Address harms,for Forei' 1Vledical Graduates in primary and behavioral health tare settings to practice in Oeon. d 'a The Health Care Workforee%ifimittee,Oregon Health Policy Board(OfTPB)is currently evaluating and charged to:coordinate efforts in Oregon to recruit and educate health care professionals and retain a quality workforce to meet the demand created by the expansion in health care coverage system transformation and an increasingly diverse population.The Health Care Worlorcc Committee focuses its work on identifying resources,needs,and supply gaps,and ensuring a culturally competent workforce that is reflective of Oregon's increasing diversity.The Corrnnittee advises,develops recommendations and action plans to be presented to the OHPB for consideration.In addition,the Health Care Workforce Committee receives senior-level staff support from the Oregon I lealthcare Workforce Institute,as well as from the Office for Health Policy and Research.The duties of the Committee are to: • Coordinate efforts to recruit,educate,retain quality workforce; 4 42 • Conduct inventory of all grants and other state resources available for expanding workforce;and. • Establish goals to guide grants awarded from the Healthcare Workforce Strategic Fund. Recommendations::Provider Workforce Support for Primary Care and Behavioral Health The Task Force recommends that the 2015 Oregon Legislative Assembly: 1. Support all current work of the Oregon Health Authority and the Health Care Workforce Committee,OHPB,as well as other statewide initiatives in tracking provider shortage areas and offering options to address issues influencing the shortage; 2. Should develop options for strategic funding partnerships_rith health systems,insurers, and communities to provide economic incentives for prinialyare and behavioral health providers to practice in Oregon; 3. Expand and fund loan repayment programs to include Oil co innunities with provider shortages in primary care and behavioral bcalth; !'`' 4. Increase funding for residency training programi across Oregozn'fnt,;physicians,and primary care/behavioral health training prcgns for NPs and PA.' §;16%:, 5. Investigate through the Health Care Wor7r(~e Couunittee,OHPB ifi ,significant barriers exist for Foreign Medical Graduates`, 'MGs)to practice priniaOlMe and behavioral health in Oregon and 6. Support efforts for technical assistance to help provi;det' an primary care and—r40ital health-focused clinics to adoptVetrimdels of teats= scd care,integrating behavioral health and physical health,such`as.Peat cs*.Centered Primary Care Home. Findings Related to Alternative Payment'Models: ' ins =:_ ,:,_:,................... Many of the models l,*tog studied rt tither states;a well'as Oregon include payment for defined disease states or certainpecialty pre cedures,whiOhigiOdgh not in Elie Task Force scope,are important to consider when.lookin 44n overall`,payment reform.The Task Force scope includes primary care and mental health services anrlreceryed tirnony relating to multiple alternative payment models (A PMs)currb*itlyhe g piloted iy s the(3 S Testrmo y outlined a progression of payment mecharrtnip5•from our et ent FFk.,syst nt toward s ; :lobal payment model,specifically: • ' ` for Service(FTS;;';paymeints';for visit encounters • CareCoorditration • Practrt Transformation r pport(PTS)(Triage,Registry,Virtual Cate) +-CC+FFS • Shared Sa'pitgs+PTS+0 n ITS • Global Paym t(.SS+P %-CC+FFS) Global.payment stnuctures''woul i'be paid as per member per month(PMPM)with a portion of payment tied to quality outcomes,patient experience,and cost control(Triple Aim)_Patient populations would. need to be risk-stratified based on historical utilization data in order to fairly compensate providers for the complexity of their patient panels.Data systems with capability to track populations,monitoring for multiple variables,would be essential for the payers and providers.Provisions of the Affordable Care Act(ACA)related to technology have been intentional with respect to creating this level of data exchange,but,at this time are not uniform across Oregon's health care settings. The Task Force acknowledges the early successes of Coordinated Care Organizations(CCOs)across Oregon in cost containment,emergency services utilization and quality improvement during the first year of operation.It remains unclear as to whether this can be sustained over time,but the lessons 5 43 learned during this experience over the next 24-36 months will be telling.Proof of a sustainable model in the Medicaid delivery system will help inform the future direction of the insurance marketplace. Total cost of care for health services continue to escalate nationally,and in Oregon as well.The Oregon Health Authority has targeted a reduction in the rate of cost growth from 5.4 percent to 3.4 percent for the CCOs.Control of the total cost of care is critical for a sustainable payment model for Oregon. Consideration for a state-wide,all payer,capitation to growth has been considered in several states, including Massachusetts,where state-sponsored insurance was put in place prior to the ACA.Thus far, investments in primary care and behavioral health have shown savings in emergency room,hospital, specialty care and pharmaceutical costs. Recommendations:Alternative Payment Models, The Task Force recommends that the 2015 Legislative Asse: hl 1. Utilize the OHPB's Sustainable Health CareS0nditures Work 't0up(SHEW)to set a target i for total health care cost growth reduction, mutative for all pay rs*l cross Oregon; 2. Develop a multi-payer consensus agrceaMrii 4b institute alternative p i'y't ent methods for services delivered in a Primary-Care Medic `l;: ome or other team-base _`re models,that are not cun-ently reimbursed including care coti iration,re istry manageititx* triage services and phone consultattorx and 3. Instruct the OHPB to establish 0iaeltne for a phased trdnsition to a state-wide,all payer, risk-stratified global payment niMiaiiy41'for primary 4teMand integrated behavioral health,provided that experience in4hese itiii4els,:in Oregon Arad across the demonstrate sustainable success. Additionally,the Taskl~iitee reediiiizes the imputes ofintrotlricrng alternative payment methods for specialty care service,notably fttr;episodes of eare,'handled p • riients for certain procedures, hospital services and trap?loons of care":Continued i*Mership with the OHPB will be critical for successful acceleration of payMent.,molIei eform. 44 MEMBERS The task force is made up of 15 members appointed by the Legislature, Governor, director of the Oregon Health Authority and director of the Department of Human Services.Task Force members are: Governor appointees Tammy Baney—commissioner, Deschutes County Liz Baxter—director, Oregon Public Health Institute Carrie Brogoitti—public health administrator, Union County Carlos Crespo—professor of community health and director, School of Community Health, Portland State University Charlie Fautin—public health administrator, Benton County Nichole Maher—president, Northwest.Health Foundation John Sattenspiel—chief medical officer,Trillium Community Health Plan At-large members Jennifer Mead—healthy aging coordinator, Department of Human Services Gary Oxman—former Multnomah County public health officer Alejandro Queral—director of systems planning and performance, United Way of the Columbia- Willamette Eva Rippeteau—political coordinator at Oregon AFSCME Council 75 Legislators Rep.Jason Conger(R-Bend) Rep. Mitch Greenlick(D-Portland) Sen. Bill Hansell(R-Pendleton) Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson(D-Gresham) • 45 Future of Public Health Task Force Implementation Work Group IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (August 29,2014) The focus of this draft implementation plan--in combination with the foundational capabilities&programs--is establishing a new approach to providing Governmental Public Health(GPH)services in Oregon within the context of health system transformation,early learning reform,and community partnership. This requires taking a"public health system"perspective-that aligns approa' es and bridges differences in state/local,public/private,health care/population h0:41 ,and interdisciplinary perspectives.The proposal promotes appropriate;ar ef& ent integration and ...::...:: coordination of GPH,medical care systems,earl childhood'ix stems,community goals, activities and leaders to improve the public,shcal"t:h for pcople of[alll ages. This draft plan provides guidance to inform theadditional work that to he completed before the Foundational Framework an be implemented Giv . the high level at which the Task Force has been working them are details that will heed to be addressed prior to a state-wide imp)eit+ ntat:ion of the'foundational framework.The areas that need additional details and„research include,,but are not limited to • How or will there be a restructuring of•te Oregon Public Health Division? • How will the r,elat(onship between the Ot a on Public Health Division and CI_HO 2.0 change? = • What is theh thority ofl l�Al3 L 0' • What is the iiiiiiternentatitin timeline`laid targets? • What4 the incentive st�'i,� itE,:p ? ,, • How will .y: partrct tits be selected These?0 additional details are critical and must be worked out prior to impleri entation of the`'fo ndational framework: See Figures 1,2,and! , thes`-; d of the document for schematic representations. 1. For GPH transformation to succeed and to maintain a public health system perspective,appropriate sharing of governance is necessary. Inclusion of three perspectives is essential: 1)Community which includes medical care community, community members and organizations,and early childhood community; 2)State Governmental Public Health,and 3) Local Governmental Public Health 2, There are two underlying governance needs: a) To embrace a PH system perspective that is statewide in its scope,and 46 b) to address local governance challenges that arise from the differing implementation pathways described below.Adoption of a given pathway by a county or region will occur in the context of differing community situations with regard to operational approach,local political culture,history, community resources,and other factors.As a result,it is appropriate to offer flexible governance approaches that allow for some variation while maintaining overarching commonalities across all localities to ensure a strong statewide public health system. State-Level Governance Needs The main tasks of state-level governance are: • Participation in and adoption of a statewide conntriunity_health assessment(CHA) • Approval of Community Health Improvement.Plai'i`inchidi g prioritization of health improvement outcomes arising from the statewide ClIA • Approval and policy-level oversight of plans to address statew _.e.,health improvement outcome priorities • Monitoring of progress towards meeting a)health improvement outcome targets,and b)foundational capability targets • Approval of funding/resource distribution proposal • Advocacy for and actively pursue.filinding/resource support with the legislature,the governor,and external funders incl mdirig federal funding';;._. • Coordination and collaboration with federal � partners • Foster innovation provide visionary,leadetslttp an collahciration with other statewide reform peorities itch as early learning and health system transformation Assure appropriatg!demograp is represei t tilon and diverse expertise,including representation frorntfival and= ontier co4Oes on PHAB 2.0 state I:t vel Goverrkaic Strtt ire Central io the approadi,is an'6 ansion acid purposing of the Public Health Advisory Board` ereinafter l. Expansion. a)' Group size as spcifed in OILS 431:195 (n=15)seems adequate.. b) Pl ll- .0 Membership must include appropriate demographic representation and diverseexpertise,including representatives from rural. and frontte'co.0 sties.Additionally,PHAB 2.0 should have representation from the foliiiiktiig groups: - At least one CC0 representative - At least one non-CCO health system representative - Local public health administrator - Local public health association(CLHO) - Academic PH representative - State PH technical expert staff - State Health Officer - A local Health Officer 2 47 - Population Health metrics expert - Representative of front line public health worker - OPHD Director,ex-officio - Remaining to be determined by governor 2. Repurposing: Address"State-level Governance Needs"identified above Local Governance Structures Notes 1. It is assumed that local governance approaches willbe customized to address a) the challenges of the chosen local implemeiitatiathway,and b)the unique circumstances and arrangements of the corn Vi4ui ;- 2. Local governance has some tasks that parallel thosd:Astate-level governance. It also has some distinct tasks,largely relatewi to implcrri'c;nittion,and related monitoring and modification of impl ifentation. 3. The Conference of Local Health Offi als(CLHO) (hereinafter;-';';CLHO-2.0")will be repurposed to improve collaboration bet ween State.and Local authorities.CLHO- 2.0 will help support: -_ -' - i. 1mplcmenta on and spread o : ie. 'oundational Capabilities Frameworkj' ii. Ensure that outtometa.rgets and benchmarks are attainable statewide; iii iinreequity of resource avai.ability stat'ewide; iv- Pi ornote;idear comrriunii�atioii aniong_:;lpcal authorities and 'between them and state authorities. Local Governance Tasks - Partiripatinn�iiri and adoption of a k cal corrin'lunity health assessment(CHA) Prl'oiitization ofliical healthimprovenent.outcomes (i.e.,beyond common statewide outconriesE). - Poll and operational.level ov eisiight of plans to address statewide health improvement outcome: riorities' - Approval' d both poli ;;and operational-level oversight of plans to address local health improtement outcome priorities - Monitoring of'progress wards locally meeting a)health improvement outcome targets,and b)f'ounfional capability targets - Acceptance and policy-level accountability for funds provided by the state,local government,and other funders - Advocacy for and actively pursue funding/resource support with local government,and other local external funders - Involvement of a local entity with knowledge of public health issues in the community that can serve an advisory function - Actively coordinate with local CCOs(CACs)and Early Learning Hubs 3 48 IMPLEMENTATION PATHWAYS Assumptions: Technical assistance will be available to help determine current gaps in foundational capabilities and to ensure localities are able to implement the foundational capabilities and programs within an established timeline. All implementation pathways mandate coordination and planning with community partners as outlined in the Foundational Capabilities Fraln Ork These partners include, but are not limited to:CCOs,community health NGOs,earl-learning hubs,Aging and Disability Resource Connections,academic institutions—and":community based organizations,medical care providers,etc. I.HAs and their LHDs will submit an application to determine their thelii4igibility to receive funding and assistance to support implementation of the foundatibnal;,capabilities and programs.'f he goal of the implementation plans;vill be to; chieve P1 14..0 determined population health outcomes.LHAs.,and Lillis wtllaeceive-funding and technical assistance for implementation The3re;are three primary pathways that localities could propose to implement the foundatrori`al;capabilities arl programs.All of these pathways are intended to allow for significant loc_aI fle ihllity. L .Single County.A single county may implement i=re i oundational Framework approach in a way that thc;local health depa-tmnent l U;D)is solely responsible for assuring that foundational capabilities an'dfoundational program services/activities are available within that jurisdiction.While.community partners are still critical in this pathway;lurisdic:{i5nal governance rests°with a single Local Health Authority LIIA(e,g,'boariofcounty'commissiotiers county judge). Program services/activities for-rtihich the state'; as beetticlentified asihaving primary responsibility will remain und ;state assurance,,,_, 2. Single County with Shared Features`A single county may implement the Foundational Framework°approach in way that the Lull is primarily,but not solely responsible for foundationiNapabilitI e and foundational program services/activities.However the I.I-ID shares respaon0iblity for certain operations(e.g.,communicable disease control program,tobacco control program) or supports(e.g.,epidemiology,health officer,health education)with other jurisdictions(state/OPHD or other I.HDs)or other organizations. Jurisdictional governance rests with the LHA with participation of other entities in governance as specified in intergovernmental agreements(IGAs) or other contracts. Multi-County District.Two or more counties may implement the Framework for Governmental Public Health Services through forming a legally binding partnership (e.g., IGA or similar mechanism). The operating organization("district") created by 4 49 the IGA is solely responsible for foundational capabilities and foundational program services/activities in all participating counties. The operating organization may rely on a variety of approaches to sharing responsibility for services and supports-e.g.,a single district structure,a consortium with certain services and supports provided by one or more specified counties,or other structures as determined by the participating LI-lAs. jurisdictional governance is shared among the LHAs of the participating counties with terms of sharing defined by the negotiated intergovernmental agreement. CRITERIA:Choosing participants firstjmpletnentation'wave • Desire one or more qualified applicants ffr'ech In146ilentation Pathways • Balance of sizes of jurisdictions: - _- • Balance of rural and urban jurisdictos''xr • Varying levels of current availability if foundational capabil*s/programs and a spectrum of current/historical comprehi nsiveneSs of GPH series, o Basic services only o Basic plus limited additi_.onal setvices _- F o Comprehensive services • Geographic balance: • A spectrum of cgruit/historical local investment levels, o Low o Medium o High``=ri°!'':4:: -[ • Existence of a local group that will serve.an advisory role for implantation and continued delivery of fin ndati anal capabilities and programs. FUNDING AND INCENTIVES; Goals of fundiii approach ale to: 1. Develop an accountable public health system that encourages shared responsibility by non-governmental naggers in order to achieve health improvement goals 2. Maintain current`I al f+ins and policy/political investment 3_ Increase state fundin -`6 support GPH with an emphasis on measuring and paying for performance 4. Maintain or increase current federal funding and promote flexibility on how federal funds can be used Incentive-based Approach to Funding 1) Establish an equitable baseline state investment in GPH 2) Establish an equitable baseline for local investment in GPII while maintaining existing LPH investments 5 50 3) Establish a state match for local investment above the established baseline 4) Using PI{AB-2,0 governance structure,establish consequences for inadequate operational performance,while continuing to assure the public's health through continuity of services.Options could include: a) Payback of state funding(base and/or incentive match funds) b) Decreased eligibility for state funding for a defined future period c) Establish a quality pool and hold back a %of state funding to be paid out based on achievement of defined outcome metrics. • d) Develop corrective action plans that include technical assistance. 5) Utilize global budgeting approach to avoid fragmentati /siloing and promote a focus on achieving Foundational Capability and I-iealitilmprovement outcomes ASS M "' DEFINITQNS: ±.. This implementation straw proposal develo i? ''by the workgrdi was guided by the sc following assumptions: I Regardless of implementationepathway chosen;by,a coiziity or district;'if:is desirable to deliver most GPH services locallyto achieve`effectiveness and efficiency through: responding to commumty context,character tics and needs,and 14 engaging local communities,and'th'eirleaders<pticipating and investing in public health 2, All implementatiO pathways must incorporate''fearning organization"principles and mechanisms ce g, continuous impro ernc nt cyclesi_and structured approaches to learning/improvement) - = All implementation p athways must incorporate accountability through j c)eaping articulating community health problems and plans to address them liicliidtr� �eclfio fi lth outcome goals;utilizing quality improvement techniques`th at involve.monitoring and improving process,programs and 1= ntetventions _ `nd reporting to the community and its leaders on progress arl,d shortcomit g% b) d`cfping financial i nd organization incentives for successes and mechanism for addressing shoi1talls/failures, embra:citikan epi etiologic approach to planning-one that features robust health datai3rkajyss and clear expressions of the causes and potential interventions-t address health problems, i using SMART capability and health improvement objectives(Specific, Measurable,Achievable, Relevant,Time-bound) 5, Initial implementation wave will test and evaluate multiple implementation pathways so that future waves can benefit from the lessons learned Cam, Initial wave will: al he substantial in scale(e.g., 10-30%of state's counties and/or population), b,) embrace the diversity of Oregon's communities-rural/urban, small/medium/large populations,etc.) 6 51 'ON be organizationally and financially sustainable through a period long enough to allow implementation at the chosen scale,and evaluation of process and Outcomes 7. Definitions: Local Health Authority(L11A}:The entity with political authority and responsibility to provide GPH services in a given county • Local Health Department(LHD):The operating department that is responsible for providing GPH services under the direction of the LHA _814i.1s_ir'0 i'6:. tw_j;ti. %.fir. - ---_ "a .-`' - -Fit. 7 52 •. ■ i . arzar2014 raraen • Figure 1:PH System Governance- Overview Oregon Legislature/Governor I Oregon Health Policy _ _ _ _.,.;.•,. ). Board ' i:ii,:. OHA Director .4:14. System authorizatOdAeridOtf:1, direction finding PitOtities -................ OPHD Director - • PHAB-2.0 •-•':''.1';P:.•——-– -2 •–-> '''0;E?.... • •••;:3.7:Lti:- "ZN=A,.,.1.::. . .:i.,-;;•4.7., , Sta feWidi.1614 direction ,.:1. ,outcome priorities oy4401 of 0Oyes& , r. distributkm of fiiiidirigc.fe#04tron of rooridotiorrai capaPiirt0#".0Progratiis , . .s, 1 CLHO 2.0 OPIlk ':::: !.::-7,F:... I Paitrwshfp ,F,•_iD.,.. •,..',--„:;g•;.,,:••• •• • ,:-:.,:::::,,.,„' ....,::i,. "1,:ig'0::::L ''''-AN•:':.:71.„, /1 r errerSight and : .,,, ,,,..„, .41:;1illni.,,.. '..ii!'.]4 .'I •"=:,ii.,ip:1,..fil. 7.:3,1ffill Vutiabc"f'idic'n P°11C31 ==' affin , ' :',".,—. •=,''''':Z"'''''',.!:;T.'.A.:. /'ii 1 , le4aclemhip;Shilf8 and _.:;;IT. poky,owation.,0 • ,-, ,.,z. .,, / r Sr:emit:Poe:I inptit ' developmental direction 4.: '••3: i tappott:sliaied / / : resportsibitityfir , / / I ,7'''- ,? foondationaicapatrAtieS „,," ii ,,!.,,. ,:. ..,...,• . ..: tor,prop rams I: .,.' / / I,,.!.: / -.:1.:.7":'':',:., .;!;i:i::!■?iZi. '''i'#''''''',,. 'aq:ii, :F.F:■:::=FF ..7.7.A.,.. / ':'.1',K:i•75.;.,. -".' ,;,:.. "•=:lif;;4,2:,„, '''•.., • ""....:1; . ......... / 7 ".Alii'i •.,z.; ',i, / // -..1 ',:*97._„..,-,1-. ,!.::'-';..'.. ./ Local/Regional P$itl. IF'.1..''; Local/Ragronal PH .-=-... 1 LocaURegional PH Governance 1 '-'•:`tc: •..,,. '...-: .':f:. Goydroartce z // Governance / P-- W:= 2 //, / / Local/Regional PH Local/Regional PH Local/Regional PH Administration i Administration 2 Administration 2-- 8 ,. 53 -*4 ) . ..._____..„. * 8/2912014 version Figure 2: PH System Governance- State Components PHAB-2.0 Membership - CCO representative - non-COO health system representative - Local public health administrator - Local public health association(CLHO) - Academic PH representative - State PH technical expert staff - State HO - A local HO - Population Health metrics expert Representative of fmrd line public health worker - °PHD Director is ex-officio .NT=i;'''Tlii„ :F=!;;.i,5ii- 'Ttli::',:_;1;„. - Remaining to be determined by governor *:,,:i7, 'iii:i,:iT, i.i:1,.. Products/Functions Advise on statewide CHA - Advise on statewide CHIP .i1r;i7':! -.0i.-,,, Approve statewide CHIP .::,,,: .4::_:: - Establish and monitor progress on population health outcorneggapabilities andtlealth Improvement Approve statewide funding distribution plans k.:,: ,, ,,', ..1 .::., , Reports to OHPB ';i, !, Ri :3,:ic.:, '-' Can form committees and joint subcommitt4k,:as.:needed '',!,513............................., „:,:::;:— 4.;,Statetviii6.0o/icydriecifon,outcorri600:Irities, .-=.:- oversigh0 progresslett4H*q'' pen orriiihOrig 1 --,;H:1;;, I OPHD114:. 74;ducts/Functeifis .gi,. Staff support for PHAE40 Alik CLHO 2.0 CoortlinateAtotewide iii,,C1it,544,115)44ifrsp?,rships111:ili.. 4----b- [ --..„-..,. Partnership i OveitififitIONAtewide PH system operatiopF l'1;i'ii : 1 . Out siaQi*C17111, 11Tnplement statewideld.up Oi*ipg progress evaftqfion andi*wide CHIP _ modification ',7iiIiiil, 'T........ '■`!,°'"_;9'- Policy,op.erational and j developmental direction& support '''tIii1"- All" •,m,",„„ Local/Regional PH Governance I I Policy and priority direction re: local/regional products/hinctions 1 Local/Regional PH Administration 9 54 At Oie 11,2G20I4 r.rram Figure 3:PH System Governance- Single County Implementation Pathway Components Oregon LegistaturelGovernor 1 Oregon Health Policy Board {I L._._.,....-_ P11A8-2.0 I ..•. OPNO r imr CLHO 2.0 1 Fertnershrp FPUliey,opatro e{ar d .................. d*resin neural tirrect,on a st+lpriarr . I -- _,_,,,_Local Jud ction DY"eozrd/Jndge)n,i,....:.... Per :.:. <- ''s�•;,, - 'State,, tatute and!rscal charter/ordinances ProdycJ/F ncttons _ - Approve locaI CHIP and set addidonai/lacaloutcome pndrhies(l abilities and Health Improvement) Oversights irlhitonng progress on outcomes '::.Y'.:`;:,Approyeeal funding distribution plans ... PaYcrarxd p`io>.nfy[d1.' k64!re,. County LHU Administration Produc lFuncticng Staff support for local PH advisory process Coordinate local partnerships Cony out local CI-IA Implement local CHIP Ongoing local progress evaluation and modification of local CHIP 10 55 a Clean Diesel Contracting Proposal Summary: State,county,city and regional governments would be required to specify clean diesel vehicles and equipment in contracts for public works projects as well as for goods delivered to government agencies. Clean diesel requirements would be met by any fleet in compliance with the LEED phase-in schedule or operating with alternatively fueled vehicles and equipment. • Requirements for clean diesel would apply to state agencies after July 1,2016 for contracts over $2 million,and clean diesel preferences would apply to all other contracts. • After July 1,2017 comparable requirements apply to any project for which state funds exceed a certain percentage of overall project costs undertaken by county,city and regional governments in Benton,Clackamas,Columbia, Deschutes,Jackson,Josephine, Lane,Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk,Washington and Yamhill counties. Detailed description: By clean diesel we mean: a. any diesel powered vehicle with an USEPA certified model year 2007 or newer engine,or b. non-road diesel equipment certified as USEPA Tier 41,or c. any diesel powered vehicle or non-road diesel equipment that has been retrofitted with a diesel particulate filter verified by USEPA or the California Air Resources Board,or d. any medium-duty or heavy-duty vehicle or non-road equipment powered by alternative fuels like propane, natural gas,electricity or biodiesel blends greater than 20 percent. Contracts include public improvement projects and/or the final delivery of goods and services secured through procurement by a state or local contracting agency. State contracting agencies For all state agency contracts over$2 million and awarded after July 1,2016: • Require 95 percent of all diesel powered on-road vehicles used in the course of contracted activities to meet the clean diesel standard. • Prohibit the use of Tier 0 and Tier 1 non-road diesel equipment. • Require non-road equipment to meet the clean diesel standard for the specified horsepower outlined in the table below. 1 Federal new engine emission standards have become progressively more stringent since first adopted in 1988 for heavy-duty highway vehicles and for non-road equipment in 1994.Emission standards for trucks are designated by the model year of the engine and by"tiers"for non-road engines. 1 56 Percent of Engines that Must Comply with Clean Diesel Standard Contract Awarded After 25-74 hp 75-149 hp 175 hp and above July 1,2016 25% 50% 95% July 1,2017 50% 95% 95% July 1,2018 95% 95% _ 95% For contracts less than$2 million,beginning on July 1,2016,all state contracting agencies will provide a contracting preference for diesel vehicles and non-road diesel equipment that meet the clean diesel standard. Local governments' When the state offers funding for local government contracts,the contract's value exceeds$2 million and state funds represent at least XX%of total costs,the following conditions apply: • Require 95 percent of all diesel powered on-road vehicles used in the course of contracted activities to meet the clean diesel standard. • Prohibit the use of Tier 0 and Tier 1 non-road diesel equipment. • Require non-road equipment to meet the clean diesel standard for the specified horsepower outlined in the table below. Percent of Engines that Must Comply with Clean Diesel Standard Contract Awarded After 25-74 hp 75-149 hp 175 hp and above July 1,2017 25% 50% 95% July 1,2018 50% 9_5% 95% July 1,2019 95% 95% 95% For contracts less than$2 million,beginning on July 1,2017,local government contracting agencies will provide a contracting preference for diesel vehicles and non-road diesel equipment that meet the clean diesel standard. State of Emergency The requirements do not apply to contracts awarded during a declared state of emergency that are intended to prevent or alleviate actual or threatened damage due to the emergency. Procurement Guidance DEQ is requesting new staff in a policy package to identify vehicles and non-road equipment that meet the clean diesel standards.This list would be updated continuously and would make it easy for state and local contracting agencies to identify fleets that comply with the requirements. 2 Counties and local governments in Metropolitan Statistical Areas,which are more heavily populated and developed areas.As of July 2014,this includes Benton,Clackamas,Columbia,Deschutes,Jackson,Josephine,Lane, Linn,Marion,Multnomah,Polk,Washington and Yamhill counties. 2 57 4 • Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Businesses certified by the state of Oregon as a Minority Business Enterprise,Women Business Enterprise and/or Emerging Small Business may meet the applicable clean diesel standard with the use of petroleum diesel fuel blended with at least 20 percent biodiesel fuel. Sunset The provisions of this bill are in effect for contracts awarded before July 1,2035. 3 58 4 4 • • SB 839 Task Force Ground Rules Principles for Cooperation • Members should bring concerns from the interests they represent to the attention'of the group,so that later surprises are avoided. Members should also work constructively to understand the concerns of others,and help to find ways to address those concerns. • All meetings of the task forces will be open to the public. At the close of each meeting,the facilitator will typically allow time for public comment,taking into consideration the length of the agenda and the opportunity for Task Force members to speak on all issues. • Members will treat each other with respect throughout the process process Ab will listen to each other to seek to understand each other's perspective, even if they disagree_ • One person will speak at a time and stay focused on the sco• ;; •rk. To indicate an interest in speaking, members will turn name tent cards vertical. Members will .n,Yjj1< r lly in letting the group know their perspective on issues,their concerns,and their diffenn• of via -, an effort to achieve a shared understanding and find common ground.At the same 9 . embers pect time constraints,and will to resolve di'"imi'a: s and reach consensus_ share the speaking time with others. Members sho�;��4r+: • All members will act in good faith in all aspects ;, "discussions_This inN being honest and refraining from undertaking any actions that will �: mine or threaten this pro • All task force members agree to maintain the resp'twit one of the meetings out s e formal meetings, including all email correspondence.Any reporting to Ti -;r;cents, taj ,ciedia,or oth '1-:c.,les will focus on r_r.. issues and not individuals. - �� .� • Members will refrain from generatin ; ; rsy in the pr--k , om publicly criticizing nsitions taken by other participants during the process • t � • Members will not characterize or descriit-PA e a e jtre s of other '-orce members to the media or others, but will refer questions about others post " to t = Y Page 1 of 4 Senate Bill 839 Summary A Reference for Task Forces Purpose The purpose of Senate Bill 839 is to establish a means for the state to support water supply development projects that provide economic,environmental and community benefits[Section 2(1)]. The bill establishes the Water Supply Development Account[Section 3(1)]which can be used by the Department to carry out the Act. Loans and grants may be made to persons,Oregon tribes,as well as nonprofit organizations [Section 4]. The requirements and conditions specified in the bill apply only to projects that receive grants or loans from the Water Supply Development Account[Section 2(2)1. Use of the Water Supply Development Account—Types of Projects and Costs Funds from the account can be used to make loans and grants to evaluate,plan,and develop both instream and out of stream water development projects that:increase water use efficiency;develop new or expanded storage;allocate federally stored water;promote water reuse or conservation;or protect or restore streamflows[Section 3(2)]. Also eligible are projects that improve operations of existing water storage facilities;create new or improved water distribution,conveyance or delivery systems;provide for water management or measurement;or determine seasonally varying flows,when that project is developed in connection with newly developed water[Section 3(2)]. Newly developed water is water that results from(1)new or expanded storage,(2)allocation of un-contracted USACE stored water,or(3)the allocation of conserved water[Section 1(1)]. Other projects that are eligible without meeting the scoring or ranking,or grant and loan procedures are comprehensive basin studies done by BOR,or ongoing studies by USACE to allocate stored water[section 3(3)]. The Department may also spend funds from the Account to pay the technical and administrative costs of the Department to carry out the bill[Section 3(2)],as well as to pay the cost of establishing a seasonally varying flow,and to pay other costs directly related to project development[Section 13]. Prior to July 1, 2017,the Department may also use fund moneys for the task forces and SVF rule development[Sections 27 and 28]. Moneys not expended during a funding cycle are carried over to future cycles[Section 7(4)]. Application and Approval Process Application Requirements-Section 6 of the bill prescribes the information that must be included on the application form. For applications involving physical changes or monitoring on private land,the landowners must agree to the project and aware that information is public. For grants,there must be a 25 percent cost match,whereas loans must submit evidence of the ability to repay the loan and provide collateral. Tribes must be consulted,if required by the Department[Section 6]. Projects must be approved by the Water Resources Commission[Section 3(2)]and the Department must determine that the transfer of water rights will not injure existing water rights[Section 3(4)]. In addition,applicants that are required to have a water management and conservation plan must have it approved prior to submitting the grantor loan application [Section 4]. 8/8/2014 60 'f1 Page 2 of4 Pre-Application-A prospective applicant can engage the department in a pre-application conference to. review the requirements of the application and the scoring system,and identify issues that may affect project eligibility. The applicant must provide the Department with project information at least 14 days before the conference,and can ask for additional consultations with the Department[Section 51. .. Application Acceptance and Funding Approval-The Commission is required to make the funding decisions once each year. Applications will be accepted year round,but a yearly deadline will be set to receive consideration for that grant cycle[Section 7(1)]. Upon receiving an application,the Department will check for completeness and eligibility. Incomplete applications must be returned. The Department must then post new applications on the Department's website for 60 days and accept public comment. The applications and public comments will be reviewed by a technical team(WRD,DEQ ODEW,ODA,OBDD, affected Tribes,Regional Solutions',and Experts),which will score and rank projects,and make recommendations to the Commission. The Commission will allow an additional opportunity for public comment,and then make the final decision on scoring,and awards of loans and grants[Section 7(2-3)]. After,the Department will make all rankings and funding decisions publicly available[Section 7(5)]. Evaluation of Projects--Outcomes,Criteria,Scoring and Ranking The Water Resources Commission is directed to adopt rules for the scoring and ranking of projects. The Commission must base its funding decisions on the evaluation system of public benefits,selecting projects that have the greatest public benefit,and achieve the outcomes outlined below[Section 8(1)]. This scoring and ranking should include minimum criteria,which shall be based on the public benefits of the project and to achieve the following outcomes[Section 7(1)and 9(1)]:to only fund projects that provide public benefits in all three categories;give preference to partnerships and collaborative projects;fund projects of diverse sizes,types and geographic locations;give preference to projects that measurably improve streamflows if diverting water;and give preference to projects that measurable increase water efficiency,if the project proposes to do so[Section 9(1)]. The Department is required to report to the Water Resources Commission biennially to assess whether these outcomes are being achieved,and the Commission will modify the project selection process if necessary[Section 9(2)]. Public Benefits-Economic,environmental,and social/cultural benefits are given equal importance in the evaluation of the project[Section.8(1)]. To demonstrate social/cultural'and economic benefits;,the project must provide social/cultural and economic benefits in a sufficient amount to qualify under the 'The Department believes"any collaborative body established by the Governor to address challenges,opportunities,and priorities for the region affected by the project'[Section 7(311 means Regional Solutions. According to the Governors website Regional Solutions work"at the local level to identify priorities,solve problems,and seize opportunities to complete projects." 2The evaluation of the social or cultural benefits shall be haled on the changes in social or cultural conditions expected to result from the project,including the promotion of:(a)public health and safety and of local food systems;(b)measurable improvement in conditions for members of minority or low-income communities,economically distressed rural communities,tribal communities or other communities traditionally underrepresented in public processes;(c)recreation and scenic values;(d)contributions to the body of scientific data publicly available in this state;(e)state or local priorities,including the restoration and protection of native fish species of cultural significance to Indian tribes;and(f)collaborative basin planning efforts,including efforts under the state integrated water resources strategy.[Section 8). 3 The evaluation of economic benefits shall be based on the changes in economic conditions expected to result from the project, including:(a)Job creation or retention;(b)Increases in economic activity;(c)Increases in efficiency or innovation;(d)Enhancement of infrastructure,farmland,public resource lands,industrial lands,commercial lands or lands having other key uses;(e)Enhanced economic value associated with tourism or recreational or commercial fishing,with fisheries involving native fish of cultural significance to Indian tribes or with other economic values resulting from restoring or protecting water in-stream;and(f)Increases in irrigated land for agriculture.[Section 8]. 8/8/2014 61 4 Page 3 of 4 scoring and ranking system. To demonstrate environmental benefits,a project may dedicate 25 percent of the new increment of water to instream use,or by demonstrating environmental benefits to qualify under the scoring and ranking4. However,these requirements do not exempt a project from meeting the minimum criteria [Section 11]. Protection of Water Instream As noted above,any project may demonstrate environmental benefits by dedicating 25 percent of the new increment of water to instream use[Section 11]. In addition,for grants to new or expanded above-ground storage facilities that impound surface water on a perennial stream,divert water from a stream with listed species,or divert more than 500 of per year,the project must provide 25 percent of the new increment of water for instream use. The applicant may include water dedicated as a result of conditions on federal,state or local permits in this amount[section 101. In both of these instances,water dedicated instream must be protected by the Department according to its priority. Water for instream uses may come from the new increment of water,or other sources,and may be put in other locations in the tributary,if those other locations would not injure existing water rights,and the alternate location,in consultation with ODFW,provides greater or equal environmental benefits. WRD, in consultation with ODFW,will determine the timing of flows to maximize instream benefits[Section 12]. Seasonally Varying Flows(SVFs)and Task Force When a project requires a new water storage or aquifer recharge permit or license to store water outside the irrigation season,and it impounds surface water on a perennial stream,diverts water from a stream with listed species,or diverts more than 500 of per year,seasonally varying flows must he protected [Section 13]. SVFs are the duration,timing,frequency,volume of flows,that must remain instream outside of the official irrigation season in order to protect and maintain the biological,ecological,and physical functions of the watershed downstream of the point of diversion,with regard for the need to balance functions against need for water[Section 1(2)]. The functions are outlined in Section 19(4)and the economic considerations are outlined in Section 19(5). If the applicable SVFs have not been established,the Department must establish the flows in consultation with ODFW and affected Tribes,before issuing a grant or loan for the project. If SVFs are established for the stream,subsequent storage or aquifer recharge permits or limited licenses must be conditioned for the SVF if the project receives a grant or loan from the account and the water is for storage outside the irrigation season,and has a diversion point subject to SVFs. Applicants can request that the SVF be altered based on new information. However,the Department must condition the new permit or license to protect the SVF that is in effect at the time the grantor loan is issued.The SVFs do not alter other Department processes for determining water availability for a permit or license[Section 13]. 41 he evaluation of environmental benefits shall be based on the changes in environmental conditions expected to result from the project,including:(a)A measurable improvement in protected streamflows that:(A)Supports the natural hydrograph;(8) Improves floodplain function;(C)Supports state or federally listed sensitive,threatened or endangered fish species;(D)Supports native fish species of cultural importance to Indian tribes;or(E)Supports riparian habitat important for wildlife;(b)A measurable improvement in ground water levels that enhances environmental conditions in ground water restricted areas or other areas;(c)A measurable improvement in the quality of surface water or ground water;(d)Water conservation;(e)Increased ecosystem resiliency to climate change impacts;and(f)Improvements that address one or more limiting ecological factors in the project watershed.(Section 81 8/8/2014 62 Page 4 of 4 The SVF Task Force shall consider the economic and science subgroup reportss and develop a recommended methodology for determining seasonally varying flows that optimizes the functional benefits to watersheds while also recognizing that many functional benefits will not occur unless a new water storage project is financially feasible and that new storage projects will not be appropriate or feasible in many locations. The method must use the best available science. The method recommended shall be by consensus;however,any member that objects may provide a separate recommendation fora methodology [Section 19]. The SVF Task Force report will be considered by the Water Resources Commission in adopting rules to establish a methodology for determining seasonally varying flows. The task force will serve as a rules advisory committee for the rule adoption.The rules will be adopted in time to take effect on January 1, 2015[Section 20]. The provisions requiring SVFs for storage projects(in section 13)are operative January 1,2015. [Section 21]. Moneys cannot be expended for certain projects until January 1,2015[Section 25 and Section 26]. Reauirements for Approved Projects Before loan or grant moneys are expended for project construction,all applicable local,state,and federal permits must be obtained. Loans or grants may contain conditions to require the project to be completed and operated as described in the application. The Department may require that before project operation, the recipient demonstrate that identified public benefits will be realized in a timely fashion. At regular intervals and upon project completion,the recipient must submit updates to the Department describing the work completed,public benefits achieved,and expenditures. Water diverted and used from the project must be measured and reported regularly. The recipient must monitor,evaluate and maintain the project for the life or the loan,or as specified for the grant and provide annual progress reports to the Department. The Department may impose other project conditions. Funding can be terminated,reduced,or delayed upon failure to comply[Section 14]. Loan Standards for Borrowe The Commission is directed to adopt rules establishing the standards for borrowers. The standards are to ensure a high probability of repayment,and adequately secured in case of default. The Commission,DAS, and the State Treasurer's comments shall be solicited when designing the standards. The standards may require the applicant to enter into a loan contract,secured by a first lien or other collateral[Section 15]. Governance Task Force Governance Task Force directed to review the structure established in sections 1-15 for grants and loans. The task force may develop proposals for changing the structure,which may include changes in the long- term structure of the decision making process regarding:(1)the role of the state in providing loans and grants for water development under sections 1-15(2)the process for allocating newly developed water from projects for which the use was not specified in the funding application[Section 18]. s Science Subgroup—Shall consider the biological,ecological and physical functions in watersheds during periods that are outside of the official irrigation season,including:(a)Stream channel development and maintenance;(b)Connectivity to fioodplains;(c) Sediment transport and deposition;(d)Migration triggers for upstream movement of adult fish and downstream movement of fry and juvenile fish;(e)Fish spawning and incubation;(f)Juvenile fish rearing;and(g)Adult fish passage. Economic Subgroup—Shall consider the practical aspects of developing and operating new water development projects,including: (a)Practical engineering methods and applications;(b)The costs and benefits of the methodology and alternatives;(c)The economic feasibility of water storage development;and(d)The cost of complying with environmental benefit standards. 8/8/2014 63 r SB 839 Governance Task Force Participants Purposes and Outcomes Schedule Resources Participants Katie East Oregon Farm Bureau Dave Filippi Stoel Rives Patrick Griffiths City of Bend Teresa Huntsinger Oregon Environmental Council Mark Landauer Special Districts Association of Oregon Janet Neuman Tonkon Torp Kimberley Priestley WaterWatch of Oregon Eric Quaempts Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Amanda Rich The Nature Conservancy Gil Riddell Association of Oregon Counties Tracy Rutten League of Oregon Cities April Snell Oregon Water Resources Congress Jeff Stone Oregon Association of Nurseries Brad Taylor Eugene Water and Electric Board Chris Taylor West Coast Infrastructure Exchange 64 Monthly Meeting with Board of Commissioners Finance Director/Treasurer AGENDA September 15, 2014 (1) Tax Payments collected by Local Banks (2) Financial Policies (3) Monthly Investment Report — August 2014 (4) August 2014 Financials • DESCHUTES COUNTY Finance. Department MEMORANDUM Date: September 8, 2014 To: Board of County Commissioners Tom Anderson, County Administrator From: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director/Treasurer Re: Tax payments collected by Local Banks Background For many years, branches of ten or so local banks have accepted property tax payments due on November 15th on our behalf. Bank customers are able to go into their bank and make their property tax payment by writing a check and giving the tax coupon to the teller. The teller deposits the check in a County bank account and puts the tax coupon in an envelope for the County to pick up. Every couple of days during the high volume tax collection period, someone from Finance goes to each participating branch and picks up the coupons that have been collected by the bank and brings them back to the office for processing. Years ago when the only options for paying property taxes were by U.S. mail or coming to the county tax office, this was a convenient alternative for our taxpayers and in the interest of customer service, it made sense. However, with the evolution of technology and the additional options now available to our taxpayers, the bank option has become more burdensome to the tax office and less customer-friendly for the taxpayers. Recommendation I propose that we discontinue the option of allowing taxpayers to pay property taxes at the local banks. Analysis Lender payments account for nearly 29% of our transactions and those are handled electronically. The remaining 71% of tax payments are made directly by citizens through one of the payment methods shown in the table below for last years first trimester tax collection period. Payment Method Transactions Amount % of Citizen % of Levy Collected Transactions Collected Lockbox/ELockbo 37,147 $91,045,625 51.93% 56.44% x Credit Cards 1,181 $2,021,633 1.65% 1.25% Banks 4,491 $9,802,396 6.28% 6.08% Other Methods 28,708 $58,452,542 40.14% 36.23% Total 71,527 $161,322,196 100.00% 100.00% ELockbox is when citizens make their tax payments through their banks online payment feature directly from their account. For this discussion, we have included them in the Lockbox category as we receive these types of payments electronically. "Other Methods" includes paying here at the County building either in person, through the drop box or by mailing payments here. As you can see, citizens making payments at banks accounts for just 6.28% of all payments made directly by citizens. There are a number of reasons why we recommend the elimination of this payment method. 1. Our cost of collecting each account through the lockbox is about $1.34 per transaction. The cost of collecting accounts through the banks is estimated to be $2.83 per transaction due to the manual nature of processing the payments. 2. In addition to mailing their payment or coming to the tax office, taxpayers have several additional convenient options that were not available when we started the bank payment option including paying online through their bank or the County's website and through credit card transactions either by phone or online. 3. Posting the payments made at the local banks can be delayed by up to10 business days or more resulting in many phone calls from citizens wondering why their payments have not been posted to the County's payments records. 4. Payments made by citizens at banks must be manually posted to the accounts requiring extra staff time that could be eliminated if the payments were mailed to the lockbox or paid via phone or internet. We currently use temporary help to perform this task. 5. When payments are made through the banks, we do not get electronic images of the checks making it more difficult to answer customer questions and to determine who overpaid when duplicate payments are made. 6. Based our conversations last year, we put the following statement in with our tax statements last year. "Please note: Next year the pay-at-the-bank option may be modified significantly. Information will be included with your tax statement next year". Summary We believe it would be more cost effective and efficient to eliminate this option for tax payments. We could decrease our temporary help by one person during tax season, eliminate the phone calls inquiring about why the taxpayer's bank payment hasn't yet been posted to the tax account, and if an overpayment occurs, we won't have to "guess"who should receive the refund. While we may expect some negative feedback from a few taxpayers, we believe explaining our reasoning for doing so and pointing out the other options available will minimize their concerns. The alternative method of payment by those who previously chose to pay at the banks is difficult to predict, but any other method they choose will result in a more efficient and timely posting of their payment. 2013-2014 PROPERTY TAX PAYMENT INFORMATION 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 203 OFFICE HOURS—8am—5pm; Monday-Friday* Bend OR 97701 *Closed Monday, November 11th in observance Phone: (541) 388-6540 of Veterans'Day. (Closed on all other major holidays as well.) Website: www.Deschutes.org/Dial Payment of Property Taxes via U.S. Mail Mail your payments in the envelope provided or to Deschutes County Tax Collector, PO Box 7559, Bend OR 97708-7559 pa'lints must, y, lag K, 'rmAR1CeD dropped tiff at:the Tax Office r>Bo'later Om,Fl-id4'iNoriiber in Order to be eligible for discount and to avoid late penalties (ORS 306..g40;',05311:505), 05,311:505) Important Information about Postmarks With the consolidation of Post Office locations and closing of Post Office Sorting Facilities, please be aware that mail deposited at some local postal facilities can take 2 to 4 DAYS to be postmarked. Deschutes County is not responsible for postmark delays. We strongly recommend any payments made on or after November 12th be taken to the inside counter at the Post Office and the postmark to be hand stamped on the envelope to avoid any postmark delays. Other Options for Making Your Payment • On the website: Make your payment via the website at www.Deschutes.org/Dial;. Access your account, click on the blue "Pay Your Property Taxes" link and go the "Online" section. Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover credit cards, Visa debit cards and electronic checks are accepted. NOTE: Payments via the website are processed by a third party which charges a convenience fee for using this service. See the back of this sheet for convenience fee details. Deschutes County does not collect or retain any portion of the convenience fee. • By phone: Make your payment by calling 1-877-309-3933, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week using a credit or debit card or electronic check. The same fees apply as payments made via the website, as described on the back of this sheet. • At the bank: Through November 15, 2013, take your payment to any Deschutes County branch of the banks listed on the back of this sheet. • In person: Make your payment in person at one of the Tax Office windows at 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 203 or use the convenient drop box located near the east entrance of the County Offices (available 24 hours a day). Online Bill Payments: Payments made through online banking services often take 2-3 days to be processed by the bank and arrive with no postmark. These payments are posted to your account with the date the funds are received_ If t , .syou M , : of p i✓t en, e s d, 0 Escrowed Property Taxes It is the Property Owner's responsibility to know if the lender will be paying the taxes Generally, if you received a yellow statement from the County, this indicates that a lender has requested your information and will be making payment. If you received a green statement, no lender has requested your information. If in doubt, please contact your lender. 3 Debit/Credit Card & eCheck Convenience Fees * Debit Cards: Payments via Visa debit cards will be charged a flat fee of$3.95 per transaction. For all other debit cards a convenience fee of 2.50% of the payment amount will be charged.There is a minimum fee of$3.95 per transaction. Credit cards: A convenience fee of 2.50%of the payment amount will be charged.There is a minimum fee of $3.95 per transaction. eChecks: A convenience fee of$2.00 per transaction will be charged on payments up to $10,000. eCheck payments greater than $10,000 will incur a fee of$15.00 per transaction. *Payments are processed by a third party processor, Official Payments Corporation. Deschutes County does not collect or retain any portion of the convenience fee. Bank Locations for 2013 Tax Payments DESCHUTES COUNTY BRANCHES ONLY -Accepting payments through November 15th, 2013 Bank of America (all County branches) Umpqua Bank (all County branches) Bank of the Cascades (all County branches) U. S. Bank (all County branches) Columbia Bank (Bend and Redmond) Washington Federal (all County branches) Home Federal Bank (all County branches) Wells Fargo Bank (all County branches) Sterling Bank (Bend and Redmond) When making payment at bank locations, please take your check and the entire property tax statement with you. The bank will retain the remittance portion, located at the bottom of your statement, and will date stamp the upper portion, which you should keep for your records. Payments will be posted with the date on your receipt. Please allow up to 10 days for the payment to be posted to your property tax account. Please note: Next year the pay-at-the-bank option may be modified significantly. Information will be included with the tax statement next year. Address Changes All address change requests must be made in writing. Address changes can be noted on the remittance portion of your property tax statement or made online at www.Deschutes.org/Dial. If using the online option, access your account and click the blue "Change of Mailing Address Form" link. You may also call the Tax Office for other options at (541) 388-6540. The back of your Tax Statement contains additional important information about Payment Instructions, Delinquent Taxes and Liens, Foreclosure, and Property Value Appeal Rights View your c twww.Deschutes.orq/Dial 4 DESCHUTES COUNTY Finance Department: MEMORANDUM Date: September 8, 2014 To: Board of County Commissioners Tom Anderson, County Administrator From: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director/Treasurer VI( Re: Financial Policies During the 2015 Budget Committee process, an updated set of Financial Policies were included in the proposed budget document with the understanding that those updated policies would be reviewed with the Board of County Commissioners and presented for approval. At the September 15, 2014 work session, the Board will have the opportunity to review and discuss the draft financial policies that were included in the proposed budget. The draft policies are attached with additions to the policies indicated by shading. As we move forward, the updated financial policies will be included on a consent agenda for approval. If you have any questions on the policies prior to the 15th, please give me a call. Deschutes County Financial Policies Introductory Comments Deschutes County has an important responsibility to its citizens to carefully account for public funds,manage municipal finances wisely,manage growth, and plan adequate funding of services desired by the public, including the provision and maintenance of public facilities. Deschutes County insures that it is capable of adequately funding and providing County services needed by the community on a sustainable basis. The following Financial Policies are designed to establish guidelines for the fiscal stability of the County. The scope of these policies generally spans, among other issues, accounting, auditing,financial reporting,internal controls,operating and capital budgeting,revenue management,expenditure control, asset management,cash and investment management, and planning concepts,in order to: • Demonstrate to the citizens of Deschutes County,the investment community,and the bond rating agencies that the County is committed to strong fiscal operations and to the preservation of its ability to provide the financial stability to navigate through economic downturns and respond to the changing needs of the community; • Provide an adequate financial base to sustain a sufficient level of County services to the community delivered in a cost effective and efficient manner; • Present fairly and with full disclosure the financial position and results of financial operations of the County in conformity to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles(GAAP);and • Determine and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal and contractual issues in accordance with provisions of the Oregon Revised Statutes and other pertinent legal documents and mandates. These financial policies are recommended to enable Deschutes County to meet the priorities of the Board of County Commissioners and maintain its financial condition so that it can continue to provide the appropriate high level of service to its citizens. Financial Planning Policies l' 3 4e 'linty a `et,process conform,to existing and local regulations includingl ` et�lat. � a i, so that mt 'r po cy goa 1, objectives i, ed ss � 'coardutet h d��'and Board ] incorporated ;40 the budget. Balanced Budget Deschutes County's accounting and budgeting systems are organized and operated on a fund basis. The budget for each fund is balanced,meaning total resources, consisting of beginning net working capital, current year revenues and transfers-in,are equal to total requirements and transfers out, contingencies, unappropriated ending fund balances, and reserves for future expenditures. la et ;A ',._..t'..16%.nts requests ,?udget ha' rafter adoption will be submitted to the Fa''',`' Director fir a'' 'l ,'the finance ■ ;� r'yin de a s¢ r+ the need F the adjustment, ,,F and the p • ,: '', be followed toy k Fs ' roval for the recd ',.ti.,....* � o cations sing a the ad'a� budget will be r'a by the Finance 1 g ®a5 nt placed on" hf,BearcS agenda by°Finance:'* Board approval to ,et e etd et'Diewc The Cou > : «pate i GFOA A for Distinguished Budget Pr 'cation program g cl tinue to ,,,,p mit its an, .... t to the'tmogram Financial Reporting Policy The County's accounting systems and financial reports will be in conformance with all state and federal laws, generally accepted accounting principles(GAAP)and standards of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board(GASB)and the Government Finance Officers Association(GFOA). An annual audit will be performed by an independent public accounting firm,licensed as a municipal auditor,with an audit opinion to be included with the County's published Comprehensive Annual Financial Report(CAFR). The County's CAFR will be submitted to the GFOA Certification of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Program. The financial report should be in conformity with GAAP,demonstrate compliance with finance related legal and contractual provisions,thoroughly disclose sufficient detail,and minimize ambiguities and potentials for misleading inference.The County's CAFR will also be provided to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board via electronic submission to the Electronic Municipal Rulemaking Board(EMMA), a continuing disclosure requirement,to enable investors to make informed decisions. Financial systems will maintain internal controls to monitor revenues,expenditures, and program performance on an ongoing basis. Budgeting for Operating Working Capital and Contingencies Operating Funds In order to maintain a prudent level of financial resources to protect against the need to reduce service levels or raise taxes(ie.voter-approved local option levy)and fees due to temporary revenue shortfalls or unforeseeable one-time expenditures,the County will establish and maintain certain working capital balances.The County will strive to maintain a working capital level in each operating fund,other than the General Fund, of 8.3%(1/12th)of that fund's operating budget.The County will establish operational working capital within the General Fund of approximately four months of estimated annual property tax collections. Other funds that rely heavily on property taxes,which are not received until the month of November each year, should have an operating working capital level at or near the level of the General Fund,and include the Sheriffs Funds,9-1-J,Extension/4-H, and the Sunriver and Black Butte Ranch county service districts. T ;e ...v t .fun g p t4 K ° t N nt , Ge a �� ,sh� fi v�:the''. � a arl s Ow t ae t1.Qn$� § r 1011Cy 118 _ . an' A, , • '`de tees 10.'4 ® �� ® ® t . 3 "' p„ '..... rev . Reserve and Insurance Funds The following funds, due to their specific purposes,require reserve working capital balances above 8.3%: - PERS Reserve Fund - Insurance(general liability,workers'compensation,unemployment, and property damage) - Health Benefits(medical,pharmacy, dental and vision) - Various Community Development Reserve Funds,when applicable GIS Dedicated Fund - Road Building and Equipment Reserve Fund - Vehicle Maintenance and Replacement Fund Public Health Department Reserve Fund - Sheriffs Capital Reserve Funds - General Capital Reserve Fund - General County Projects Fund - Project Development Fund - County Clerk Records Fund - Solid Waste Reserve Funds - Fair/Expo Center Capital Reserve Fund - County Service District Reserve Funds Wor CSpI a Ian C e ° c be t rrairued ea by 1 h %s m w i i�s n d the De lit given :Oki* , each af, and the,a ,' ' ,atedl2 ? 8 $11 fluff,) ®cure ye Lona Range Planning Each year,the County will update resource and requirement forecasts for major operating funds for the next five years and annually develop a five-year Capital Improvement Program(CIP)for major projects related to the acquisition,expansion or rehabilitation of the County's buildings, equipment,parks,streets and other public infrastructure.These estimates will be presented to the Budget Committee in a format which is intended to facilitate budget decisions and strategic planning,based on a multi-year perspective. Capital Assets Deschutes County will perform an inventory of its capital assets and controlled capital-type items on an ongoing annual basis.This information will be used to plan for the ongoing financial commitments required to maximize the public's benefit in a, , , , ,„„ fi p ,w” e'W tofa0; •. °, , ' Grp . R t 9 t`% w ltis fAA.40;i�q " ... �. Revenue Policies Revenue Diversification Revenues estimates will be established each year in a realistic and prudent manner using objective and analytical approaches.Revenue forecasts will assess the full spectrum of resources that can be allocated for public services. To the greatest extent possible,the County's revenue system will be diversified as protection from short-run fluctuations in any one revenue source. Fees and Charges User fees and charges will be established for services that benefit specific individuals or organizations. The County will annually review all fees,licenses,permits,fines and other miscellaneous charges in conjunction with the budget process.User charges and fees will be established based at a level related to the full cost of providing the service,unless otherwise provided by statute or regulation.Full cost incorporates direct and indirect costs,including operations and maintenance,overhead,and charges for the use of capital facilities. Other factors for fee or charge adjustments may also include the impact of inflation,other cost increases and current competitive rates. Use of One-Time Revenues One-time revenues or resources shall not be used to fund ongoing operations,unless in the context of a multi- year financial plan to balance expenditures and reserves.One-time revenues should not support ongoing personnel and operating costs.Use of one-time revenues is appropriate for non-recurring capital outlay, debt retirement, contribution to capital reserve,and other non-recurring expenses. Use of Unpredictable Revenues Revenues of a limited or undefined term will generally be used for capital projects or one-time operating expenditures to ensure that no ongoing service programs are lost when such revenues are reduced or discontinued. Grants Grants are generally contributions from one government to another,usually for a specific purpose. Grants can be recorded in any type of fund and should be recorded in an existing fund whenever possible. Grants sometimes come with matching fund requirements. It is important that matching requirements be well understood before grants are accepted by the County to ensure that services being provided through grant funding are sustainable. It is also essential any staff hired to carry out grant funded services are hired subject to the amount and continuation of the grant funding. a' "litnty t� 3 a .pond tog a Y W! re"`e btu r 9.1t alls 3 °4 0a: g op t 04,f once way a tal ba t ,ave reacj e g a R tevels,e a ` t a duce4 to r rkailitin'to 10nitpijea4.evenue ft k t ,and/or a, e aucreases R k nsidered. Expenditure Policies Debt Capacity.Issuanc and Management • "t a a'r e Ihrk g)'pons a,,+ ieture all de t finances and o 'eon gang p ma Wa :4Qf of a a a :debt '4I:°!`3.'' a a a e a r 0:0! •'ease v t, revr ° fith ad ds, aeasmen a®hpssooy a s : e a' 'd`u A*a' a a x o& 5, ,'Rt ual ;:givnents that o d tathe goat& a �r � 'H�.� pp a� y��n,�Wa a d � eY,s /. �'i1 .,y ,1.Yo. l..p G4 ` dfo;!4 a MY a ty a..A nN.i a U,4�. ffiH Htpp agE aa; id A 91 N 4k a r d..', a ®O e.h 'A,, �" '# C,, x 44, a�# v '4 'n' a.a �.4.1. ,,r"me- a .e! Aa W p aA a 441.^Y W ,1 :mN & �',..,.....W 2+ra } p. �tL",.,,. b `"'k=a Seaac a + •. sr '..:� $ 1,, ' €3 a a & ,.fi't•..' r;��. $ �s... rpA i 9 r i 44, a t a a ® a k H W:1'4132' N a a = N 1 A Ala,11 e bey a s W,.0.1 a a 1'114.1°,1%1i. a e� „ •�.„ Aeb ... • The County will manage and administer its long-term debt in compliance with the restrictions and limitations of State law with regard to bonded indebtedness for counties as outlined in the Oregon Revised Statutes.These statutory restrictions establish legal limitations on the level of limited tax and general obligation bonded debt which can be issued by the County(1%and 2%of the real market value of all taxable property,respectively). The statutes outline the processes for public hearings,public notice and bond elections, as well as provisions for the issuance and sale of bonds and restrictions on the use of those bond proceeds. •� r �4 a' 0::fiis& s 4 ', ( a't �a e s e bh crt P a ka tb W $ 4:v44 N a a Y ,3 1�r�.' 'N @` H9 ,' $i •�, $ $ .J Aaa N'. a 4 yam: A$w�4A k f„' vfie#a A N Y '�� a4 f 0r. .4M„• 8 & �j3 Y oF � � yt�"s 41744 er $44„1-0',,/114 ! N ces r..a u`®0r �zN b �. _nW A II� € a,. :s $ a r• a WaaW4 at*iers, Co, bu Rffia , a C,s ":11'1.;.`i.„; �& ! A: ,((Rd.a! S 9 r',G1 �a� a �ei�� 4r la$S T {„ s�. 8,t, ntI3 ..., t de 2 i "$ ku to tires (* Iace to - W .past'i4 a j a w� t�that � a p �, � +W� borrow' ..-'®,repo' 'p'W c,fir;El in and' ditsose ce ,• as- xs Of 411 ,r bop bald . r. _ irueT' Operating/Capital Expenditure Accountability The County will maintain an accounting system which provides internal budgetary controls.The County's budget documents shall be presented in a format that provides for logical comparison with prior fiscal periods wherever possible.Reports comparing actual revenues and expenditures to budget for the County's major operating funds shall be prepared monthly which will be distributed to the Board of County Commissioners, County Administrator,Department Heads/Directors and any interested parties. The County will strive to fund minor capital improvements on a pay-as-you-go basis to enhance its financial condition and bond rating.The County shall annually contribute to certain capital reserve funds to the extent possible given cash flow limitations and projected capital improvements. Internal Service Funds Internal service funds are used to account for services provided by one department to other departments on a cost-reimbursement basis. The goal of an internal service fund is to measure the full cost of providing services for the purpose of fully recovering that cost through fees or charges to user departments. Deschutes County internal service funds are as follows: Building Services,Administrative Services,Board of County Commissioners,Finance,Legal Counsel,Personnel,Information Technology,Information Technology Reserve, Insurance Reserve and Health Benefits Trust. Cash Management Policies Investments County funds will be invested in a prudent and diligent manner with emphasis on safety,liquidity and yield, in that order.The County will conform to all state and local statutes governing the investment of public funds and to the County's investment policy.The County's investment policy shall be approved by the State of Oregon Short-Term Fund Board and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners at least annually. Additionally,the County will have an Investment Advisory Committee to review the County's investment ■ policy,its investments, and its investment strategy and philosophy. The Investment Advisory Committee will consist of financial experts who are citizens of Deschutes County,and will meet twice each year. Banking Services The County will seek competitive bids for its banking services. Requests for proposals will be comprehensive, covering all aspects of the County's banking requirements. The award to the successful bidder will be for a five-year period with two one year extensions. Annual Validation of County Bank Accounts Each year a letter is to be mailed to all banking institutions operating within Deschutes County to validate that the only Deschutes County accounts,listing Deschutes County or a Deschutes County department as the owner of the account and utilizing the County's federal identification number,are those accounts that have been approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The letter will state which bank accounts have been approved by the Board of Commissioners and request that each bank notify the County of any accounts in operation within their financial institution that are not on the approved list. 4Y H ..,. ffi .. as $M :,,,":rf,et ;0474 , f &9'i�® i a :'5''.."t; 6 nm`Teh , A$ s :., i.a ' a' i`rrn a cre s 8fu ®® ffi. ^,",°.as , a .a .,, a e s� ® nankin yy p' yr� ®� py�,d At94=�•88 Y t ,.:.�.;w (f� A�� "A tintyl Internal Controls and Performance Auditing Policies Employees in the public sector are responsible to the taxpayers for how public resources are used and must perform their duties in compliance with law,policy,and established procedures.The following County activities are essential and are consistent with providing citizens with an objective and independent appraisal of County government. • Maintain an independent internal audit program to evaluate and report on the financial condition, the accuracy of financial record keeping,compliance with applicable laws,policies,guidelines and procedures,and efficiency and effectiveness of operations. • Maintain a County Audit Committee comprised mostly of public citizens to oversee audit services, both external and internal. • In coordination with the Audit Committee,the County Internal Auditor and the County's external auditors shall periodically review internal controls in County departments and report findings to the Audit Committee regarding these reviews. • At the direction of the Audit Committee,the County Internal Auditor shall conduct performance audits to ensure departments and agencies funded by the County are operating in an efficient and cost-effective manner. turchh ,lpurch good V:3:1 M _ must ar 1Syo1 t with 4tlh$ +fir s'purc`,''t a a r 1 ,uidtas g r d n �edCtsrdai a StateIa kk atip: ther r; r w' x anya and «,y�� ^ apital; a ": ents"tb =ate fixed cos a ffi a c a a t e erational a3 a �y7� the imtp'' �Wis! `ofslT�xa ffi. 7 �° deterzni'n 1ur. �'i„urre %94°!1, ",are Approved by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners on September XX,2014. r N in ao co co lo a a .7 LU) hl- mina) ±+ - is w, N O t1 t4 J z CU RC m u) aoi 0 CD G O L 7LL 1.- l- c a' O O O O MW,.. C r 0 CD c V o 0 0 d^°c. 4X CI CI CI 64 6<► N J M , . n n 111. N 0 oO 0 c J M co E 1 >3) O +� v U N c , y c N ~ 7 N c �. c o as: o d e z c a o 1n •a o in in o in 0 N C a 0 1- N 4/ N N T N 0 r T r m CO aj aw) 'vi ci) N 7 S W Ll.. 7 N CD r-0 U) 7 E to a) O. ) z, In E N o Q) G YC v CC 7 U) N C ~ 2 y ¢ w a 0 E , N CO o> �' a) y N Ti cC p r in � , o co I- � YU3o o `' t m i- a) Uj0. a a) •° Q E M c c E ° C� O D u.. cD - O H O D / dr v e T Q e ° e e .1g 6-Z a o r r N CD 7+ Co N O I O O • 0 t7 N •Lt to N M C Cl a) u) n • QQ E m N N D 2 0 CD CO a) 000001- f` y Ewo ~ 000000 o O. '— y+ C 00000a 0 D., ii _ �, r- 0) a a) rn Cr; ep .0 0 ao a)o cn CO M C o� O _ r U p,0 `� H U 7 a Ll CO c o r�(y'y N ai CD t O C a =Na0 u_ CO N M CL o a "' ° t C w+ v, N a�i a Cl)C-) cu tti Z N CO b rn ~'. ❑ 7) 7" .- UF- � m C �Uc`nn Z t •E D_ a) U7 0_ :1 ZCI O . F- 1 -t -- - Deechutes - .._.. _y estmenta T Portfolio Management x . - - _ ... . __._..- ......... Portfolio Details-Investment i - _- -.. � August 30,2014 Purchase Maturity Days To Ratings ___ _y_ .... ngs Coupon' Par Market Book Call ! -. - Value Value Value I Date CUSIP Broker Date Date Matunty Moodys; -1� SYS10321 Home Federal Bank CD 9/19/2013 9/19/2014 18 - .58P 0.130 YTO 132', 100,0001 100,000' 100,000, ._ 9 Savings 140,0001 - - 0.203 2 000,000 2,000 000 III 2 000000_ - 8941748454 Sterlin Savin s Bank CD 7/1/2013 1/1/2015 122 0 2001 4001174329 Columbia State Bank CD 12/5/2013 12/5/2014 95 0 _ j 0.2031 140,000 140,000 1 140,000 - HFBCD US B Federal Bank CD ,CASTLE 1 22/2014 13/42015 184 A+ Al- 3.1501 1 -__- a _-�._ 91159HGU8 US Bancorp __..._t 0 401 500,00 507 1401 506,9fi3 4001154309 Columbia State Bank CD 4/1/2013 3/30/2015 210 0.150 4152 100,000 100,000 100,000 - T -- - 200,000 UMP 7 -.._ 0- 0.406 240,000 UMP972002570 !Umpqua Bank 6172014 6/7/2015 279 0.400 D 200,000 273-150017-5 South Valley Bank CD 5/20/2013 5/20/2015 261 P 302 AA+ Al 2.375 240 n00 240,0001 L. - T_._. 0.865 1 1,423926 C 1/10/.. /30/2 .. 1 302'AA+ Al 2.375 0.501 545,000 554,314 71 p : 7/9/2 553,443 3692GSF7 ,General Electric Corporate N CASTLE 9/17/2013 6/30/2015 SY5103167 ,Umpqua Bank lc Corporate N CASTLE 17/9f201a 6/30/2015 311 0.500 0.507' 2,000,000 2,000 000 94985H5F7 Wells Faro Corporate Note 1 CASTLE 1 9/30/2013 7/20/2015 322 AA- AA3 0.750 0.541 1,000,000 11 1,003,680 I - p4 2,000,000 1 - - 9.-. P 1001840 91159HGX2 SUS Bancorp ,CASTLE 1 4/2/2014 727/2015 329 A+ Al 2.450 0.501 1,180,0001 1,202,361 1,200,732 - - p 0.500 1 573,000 1,602,608 1,600,644 l- -t .- �.... 3 1,000,000 ,0 0 9.... 10/9/2014 91159HGX2 U S Bank-Cor Note CASTLE 3/26/2014 _7/2 / A+ 0.450 1,Otl0,000 541,998�, 1 000,332 3135GOPR8 Federal National Mt Assn CASTLE 10/92013 10/9/2015 403 A+ Aa2 D 750 3134G4HZ4 Bank Fede al Home Looan Mtg Corp CASTLE 10/28/2013 710/28/2015; -422'AA+ Aaa - 0.500' 0.621 000,000' 540,768 064159BA3 {. General Electric-Corporate N CASTLE 7/24/2014 11/9/2015 434 AA+ Al 2 250' 0.500 2 000,000 2,039 920 1 2 000,000 10/28/2014 0.500 2 000,000 2,001,1401 36962G4T8 T 2 041,418 742718DS5 -r 1,017 050 1 016,4291 - SYS10368 Royal l Bank of Canada VINISP 3/27/2014 12/15/2015 470 AA- Aa3 2.625 0.600' 1,538,885 I - - Procter&Gamble CASTLE 12/6/2013 11/15/2015 440 AA- AA3 1.800 0.430 1,000,00071 532457AN8 'Eli Lilly&Co. : /2-- . - rt. 1,500,000 1,540 020 -- 487 AA- A2 6.570 0.500 1,408,000 1,517627 1,521,291 - 528 AA Aa2 0.800' 0.500 1,000,000 1,003,700 1,004,306 - - 17275R C6 'Cisco Systems Inc Hathaway Inc CASTLE 3 27/2014 2/22/2016 5-- _ 539 AA- Al 5.500 0.550 1,874,000 2,010,427, 2,009,889 06406HCG20 Bank of New York Mellon Corp CASTLE 4/4/2014 3/4/2016 550 A+ Al 0.700 0.681 1,000,000 1,001,530 I 1,000,283 2/3/2016 I 3133734F6 Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 5/2/2014 4/15/2016 592 AA+ Aaa 0.772 0.600 650,000 650,397 651,804' - - 478160AY0 Johnson&Johnson CASTLE 1/7/2014 5/15/2016 622 AM Aaa 2.150 0.620 r 1,529,000 1,571 552 1,568,544 949746QU8 go-- ...t VINISP _ / 0.759 3,000,0001 1,051,460 ,055,460 . .._ 1,051,790 - 2,9 50 2,945,944 - 912828QX1 U.S.Treasury Corporate Note MBS 6/29/2014 7/31/2016 699 AA- Aaa 1.500 0.548 1,000,000_ 1,019,220 1,018,085 - 686053CF4 Oregon School Boards Assoc CASTLE 3/7/2014 __ ry 6/19/2014 _ -.. Aaa 4 _ _-. 1,998,047 11/26/2014 L. 912828RF9 1 U.S.Treasury CASTLE 12/27/2013 8/31/2016 730 AA+ Aaa 0.580 0 fi29 2 Otl0,00D 1,995,100 AA+ Aaa 1.000 0 646 1 tl00,00D 1,009 610 1 1 006,998 3134G568fi Federal Home Loan Mt Corp BS 7/7/2014 8/26/2016 725 _Mtg 9 p--- _ --- 661,175 672,000' 661,927 31359YL54 Federal National Mt Assn PJ 3/5/2014 9/15/2016 745 �+ _Aaa_ 0.690 0.686 _ 3,000,265� - AA+ Aaa 0.778 ._ 758 AA+ Aaa 1.125 0.728' 01 /2015 3 000,000 9/2812015 3131AACD8 Federal Home Loan Bank Corp —CASTLE 7/17/2014 9/28/2016 756 3,015,000 3,0106 01106' 3,015,772 11 10/24/2014 912828RM4 :U.S.Treasury Home Loan Mtg CASTLE 12/27/2013 10/31/2016 791 1,008,440 1,005,829 - - AA+ Aaa 0.500 1.119 Mfg Corp / - AA+ _Aaa 0 800 0.800 --,0 .1- 1 000,000 2 000 000 11!7120.14 06050TLR1 !Bank of America-Corporate CASTLE 5/13/2014 11/14/2016 805 A A2 1 125 1.05011 Bank 1,903,077 3134G4K98 Federal Home Loan Mt Cor CASTLE 2/20/2014 11/7/2016 798 AA+ 1,800,000 1,902 204 2 107,511 AA+ Aaa 0.875 0.722 2,100,000 2,110,038 - ... 1,800,000 1,805012' 1,807,693 - - 3133ECWV2 Federal Farm CredR Bank CASTLE 12/17/2013 12/7/2016 3136G1XP9 Federal National Mt .Alss Corp ASTLE 4 2/6/2014 12/19/2016 840 A+ Aa2 1 800 0.788' AA+ Aaa 0 800 0.788 2,000,000 1,997 440 2,Otl0 561;11/19!2014 0641590A1 Bank of Nova Scotia CASTLE 6/9/2014 06406 SC5 B Bank f New York M p CASTLE 1/16/2014 1/37/2017 _889 A+ Al 2.400 1.067 2,000,000 2,061,480 2,062,286 11 12/18/2016 -- --- ... AA+ Aaa 0.875 0.844 2,000,000 1 2,008 120 2,001,490 - - 064159D26 Bank of Nova Scotia CASTLE 5/1/2014 3!17/2017 928 A+ Aa2 0.800 0.906 1,000,000 1 999,330 997,347! 3/17/2016 912828550 U.S Treasury WF 1/17/2.014 4/30/2017 972 AAA Aaa 0.875 0.950 2,000,000 2,002 500 1,996,0731 - - pp _._ _ 2,000,000 2,002 160 1,999,6267- - Mtg 2 125,000 2,123 661 2,123,560 1- - 3136FPYB7 :Federal ai National Mt Assn VINISP 62/7/2014 5 2/3/2017 004 AA+ Aaa 1.061 1.115 1,505,611 - - 6!1/2017 1 995 AA+ Aaa 2.050 0885 1,000,000 971,160 89236TBH7 ,Toyota Mtr Cred Corp N CASTLE 7/29/2014 5/16/2017 988 AA AA3 1.125 1 150. 870,400, - - 31359MEL3 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 12/23/2013 - _... N -_ 1050.000 1,0119718 1,018,340 - - _._. ,CASTLE 1,034 AA- Aaa 1.081 1136. L __.--- 29270CYZ2 Bonnevil eaPower Admin stratio CASTLE 4/24/2014 6/1/2017 /1/2017 1,004,AA- Aal 1.197 1.171 670,000 671,018 670,495 - - 9 84247PHS3 :Southern CA Public Power Autho CASTLE 6/17/2014 7/1/2017 1,034 AA- 1.145 1.180 1,000,000� 996,68011 999,021 - - 3134G5FK6 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 8/21/2014 8/21/2017 1,085 AA+ Aaa 1.250 1.250 2,000,000 2,000,380 2,000,000 11/21/2014 1.250 1,000,000 1 - - 313600074 Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 2/3/2014 9/27/2017 1,122 AA+ Aaa 1.000 0943' 1,050,000 1'I 1,051,803 992,518 1 9/27/2015 9/27/2017 1 122 AA+ Aaa 1 A00 313383088 Federal Home Loan Bank VINISP 12/26/2013 3130A1ZK7 Federal Home Loan oan Bank MSS IN VINISP 5/28/2014 4/2/2014 - 1,507 950 r 1 504,305- - _ 11/28/2017 1/30/2018 1,184 AA+ Aaa 0.750 0.750 1,000,000 1/30/2015 31300N7.1 _ Federal Home Loan 1,500,00 AA+ Aaa-T 2.000 1.710' 1,000,000' 984,810 I Federal National Mtg - 993,470 985,696 10/30/2014 Federal Home Loan Bank MBS P 6/19/2014 6 1/9/2018 1,380 AA+ Aaa 1.000 1 026 4/3/2015 3130A25R3 Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 12/23/2013 14/3/2018 -1 240 AA+ 1.125 1 540 2 000,000 1,993,470 1,985,616x 94 3/2015__ Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 1/21/2014 12/27/2018' 1,578 AA+ Aaa 0.750 1.820 1,000,000 3136G106B04 986 570 974,400 9/27/2014 SYS10078 Local Govt Investment Pool 0.540 0.540 35,893,297 35,893 297 35,893,297 - - SYS10084 Bank of the Cascades --_0.540 0.540 4,505,712 4,505, 12 4,505,712 - - 122,916,889 122 882,113 —_..._ 122,360,009 ' Memorandum Date: September 8, 2014 To: Board of County Commissioners Tom Anderson, County Administrator From: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director RE: Monthly Financial Reports Attached please find August 2014 financial reports for the following funds: General (001), Community Justice—Juvenile (230), Sheriff's (255, 701, 702), Public Health (259), Behavioral Health (275), Community Development(295), Road (325), Community Justice--Adult(355), Commission on Children & Families (370), Solid Waste (610), Insurance Fund (670), 9-1-1 (705), Health Benefits Trust (675), Fair & Expo Center (618), and Justice Court (123). The projected information has been reviewed and updated, where appropriate, by the respective departments. Cc: All Department Heads GENERAL FUND Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 FY 2015-Year to FY 2014 Date (16.7% of Year) FY 2015 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection [ $Variance Revenues Property Taxes-Current 21,906,239 - 0% a) 22,736,401 22,736,401 - Property Taxes- Prior 704,120 167,867 29% 576,500 576,500 - Other General Revenues 2,116,386 601,982 27% b) 2,247,299 2,247,299 - Assessor 875,381 210,509 24% 876,137 876,137 - Cou my Clerk 1,276,019 225,452 19% 1,181,190 1,181,190 - BOPTA 16,097 3,712 23% 16,117 16,117 - District Attorney 226,973 18,395 10% 182,612 182,612 - Tax Office 236,278 60,312 27% 222,199 222,199 - Veterans 80,787 - 0% 101,986 101,986 - Property Management 91,900 4,000 16% 25,000 25,000 - Grant Projects 2,000 - n/a - - - - Total Revenues 27,532,179 1,292,228 5% 28,165,441 28,165,441 - Expenditures Assessor 3,559,750 616,922 16% 3,793,770 3,793,770 - County Clerk 1,293,531 178,771 12% 1,536,210 1,536,210 - BOPTA 59,895 13,183 19% 70,777 70,777 - District Attorney 5,382,874 862,913 15% 5,712,168 5,712,168 - Tax Office 796,232 107,417 12% 877,907 877,907 - Veterans 292,672 52,355 15% 354,989 354,989 - Property Management 248,054 41,915 16% 258,569 258,569 - Grant Projects 130,054 - n/a - - - Non-Departmental 1,432,177 122,361 11% 1,139,696 1,139,696 - Total Expenditures 13,195,239 1,995,839 15% 13,744,086 13,744,086 - Transfers Out 16,327,584 3,094,780 22% 14,076,394 14,076,394 - Total Exp&Transfers 29,522,823 5,090,619 18% 27,820,480 27,820,480 - Change in Fund Balance (1,990,644) (3,798,390) 344,961 344,961 - Beginning Fund Balance 10,371,843 8,381,199 109% 7,692,433 8,381,199 688,766 Ending Fund Balance $ 8,381,199 $ 4,582,809 -$ 8,037,394 $ 8,726,160 $ 688,766 a)Current year taxes received beginning in October b) PILT received in July-$500,941 Page 1 COMM JUSTICE-JUVENILE Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 FY 2015-Year to Date FY 2014 (16.7%of Year) FY 2015 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection I $Variance Revenues OYA Basic& Diversion 322,574 - 0% a) 359,149 359,149 - State Grant - - 0% a) 91,379 91,379 - Inmate/Prisoner Housing 47,550 25,800 65% b) 40,000 50,000 10,000 Jail Funding HB#2712 36,311 9,057 25% a) 36,568 36,568 - Food Subsidy 23,988 - 0% c) 24,000 24,000 - Interfund Grant-Gen Fund 20,000 - 0% a) 20,000 20,000 - Interest on Investments 7,611 1,420 20% d) 7,000 8,000 1,000 Leases 5,200 1,800 n/a e) - 7,200 7,200 SB#1065-Court Assess. 17,335 3,974 66% f) 6,000 20,000 14,000 Contract Payments 7,415 1,033 23% 4,500 4,500 - Discovery Fee 1,870 - 0% g) 3,800 (3,800) Case Supervision Fee - 782 n/a h) - 4,500 4,500 Federal Grants 9,434 - n/a - - - CFC Interfund Grant 125,429 - n/a - - - Miscellaneous 909 - 0% 1,025 1,025 - Total Revenues 625,626 43,866 7% 593,421 267,172 32,900 Expenditures Personnel Services 4,887,572 835,053 16% 5,146,491 5,146,491 - Materials and Services 1,035,701 154,664 15% 1,021,392 1,021,392 - Capital Outlay - - 0% 1,100 - 1,100 Transfers Out 3,660 - 0% 3,660 3,660 - Total Expenditures 5,926,933 989,717 16% 6,172,643 6,171,543 1,100 Revenues less Expenditures (5,301,306) (945,851) (5,579,222) (5,904,371) 34,000 Transfers In-General Fund 5,368,346 894,724 17% 5,368,346 5,368,346 - Change in Fund Balance 67,040 (51,127) (210,876) (536,025) 34,000 Beginning Fund Balance 1,177,566 1,244,605 100% 1,250,000 1,244,605 (5,395) Ending Fund Balance $ 1,244,605 $ 1,193,479 $1,039,124 $ 708,580 $ 28,605 a) Payments received quarterly b) Increase in projection due to out-of-County detention revenue c) Payment received within 60 days of service rendered d) Projection based on annualizing year to date e) Sub-lease of space to Rimrock not included in FY 2015 budget f) State payment will exceed the amount estimated for FY 2015 budget g) Agreement with District Attorney's Office no longer in effect h) Policy, requiring supervison fees, not anticipated at the time the FY 2015 budget was prepared. Projection based on annualizing year to date Page 2 SHERIFF-Consolidated Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 FY 2015-Year to FY 2014 Date(16.7% of Year) FY 2015 Actual Actual ( Budget Budget ( Projection I $Variance Revenues(Funds 701 &702) Law Enf Dist Countywide 20,635,256 372,408 2% 20,365,842 20,365,842 - Law Enf Dist Rural 12,526,331 546,744 4% 12,751,766 12,758,796 7,030 Total Revenues 33,161,587 919,151 3% 33,117,608 33,124,638 7,030 Expenditures(Fund 255) Sheriffs Services 2,308,182 426,739 17% 2,467,673 2,467,673 - Civil/Special Units 1,132,029 196,350 16% 1,192,980 1,192,880 100 Automotive/Communications 1,701,586 410,966 22% 1,886,365 1,886,265 100 Investigations/Evidence 1,418,744 281,655 17% 1,627,803 1,627,703 100 Patrol 8,247,222 1,351,220 16% 8,705,700 8,705,700 - Records 761,260 115,040 14% 798,805 798,705 100 Adult Jail 14,277,113 2,428,106 16% 15,144,157 15,144,157 - Court Security 294,563 53,253 18% 302,867 302,767 100 Emergency Services 194,888 26,854 15% 177,852 177,752 100 Special Services 1,352,528 221,792 13% 1,655,424 1,655,424 - Training 506,938 69,463 13% 551,318 551,218 100 Other Law Enforcement Svcs 801,895 135,552 17% 806,044 806,044 - Non-Departmental 81,701 12,134 17% 72,813 72,813 - Total Expenditures 33,078,650 5,729,121 16% 35,389,801 35,389,101 700 Revenues less Expenditures 82,937 (4,809,970) (2,272,193) (2,264,463) 7,730 DC Comm Syst Reserve 200,000 - 0% 200,000 200,000 - Transfer to Reserve Funds 200,000 - 0% 200,000 200,000 - Change in Fund Balance (317,063) (4,809,970) (2,672,193) (2,664,463) 7,730 Beginning Fund Balance 9,553,793 9,236,730 121% 7,658,937 9,236,730 1,577,793 Ending Fund Balance $ 9,236,730 $ 4,426,760 $4,986,744 $6,572,267 $1,585,523 Page 3-A SHERIFF-Fund 255 Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 FY 2015-Year to Date FY 2014 (16.7% of Year) FY 2015 Actual Actual [Budget Budget I Projection I $Variance Revenues (Fund 255) Law Enf Dist Countywide 20,817,324 3,601,208 14% 25,428,019 22,287,066 (3,140,953) Law Enf Dist Rural 12,278,716 2,127,913 14% 14,948,526 13,102,035 (1,846,491) Total Revenues 33,096,040 5,729,121 14% 40,376,545 35,389,101 (4,987,444) Expenditures (Fund 255) Sheriffs Services 2,308,182 426,739 17% 2,467,673 2,467,673 - Civil/Special Units 1,132,029 196,350 16% 1,192,980 1,192,880 100 Automotive/Communications 1,701,586 410,966 22% a) 1,886,365 1,886,265 100 Investigations/Evidence 1,418,744 281,655 17% 1,627,803 1,627,703 100 Patrol 8,247,222 1,351,220 16% 8,705,700 8,705,700 - Records 761,260 115,040 14% 798,805 798,705 100 Adult Jail 14,277,113 2,428,106 16% 15,144,157 15,144,157 - Court Security 294,563 53,253 18% 302,867 302,767 100 Emergency Services 194,888 26,854 15% 177,852 177,752 100 Special Services 1,352,528 221,792 13% 1,655,424 1,655,424 - Training 506,938 69,463 13% 551,318 551,218 100 Other Law Enforcement Svcs 801,895 135,552 17% 806,044 806,044 - Non-Departmental 81,701 12,134 17% 72,813 72,813 - Total Expenditures 33,078,650 5,729,121 16% 35,389,801 35,389,101 700 Revenues less Expenditures $ 17,390 - $4,986,744 $ - $(4,986,744) a)Annual payment for Deschutes County Communication System, $292,126, expended in July 2014 Page 3-B SHERIFF-Expenditure Detail Statement of Financial Operating Data • Through August 31,2014 FY 2015-Year to FY 2014 Date(16.7%of Year) FY 2015 Actual Actual I Budget Budget I Projection L $Variance Expenditures Sheriff's Services Personnel 1,342,795 223,315 16% 1,431,828 1,431,828 - Materials&Services 965,387 203,424 20% 1,020,745 1,020,745 - Capital Outlay - - 0% 15,100 15,100 - Total Sheriffs Services 2,308,182 426,739 17% 2,467,673 2,467,673 - Civil/Special Units Personnel 1,027,640 183,484 17% 1,073,870 1,073,870 - Materials&Services 104,389 12,865 11% 119,010 119,010 - Capital Outlay - - 0% 100 - 100 Total Civil/Special Units 1,132,029 196,350 16% 1,192,980 1,192,880 100 Automotive/Communications Personnel 400,169 65,781 16% 399,334 399,334 - Materials&Services 1,265,667 345,185 23% 1,486,931 1,486,931 - Capital Outlay 35,750 - 0% 100 - 100 Total Automotive/Communications 1,701,586 410,966 22% 1,886,365 1,886,265 100 Investigations/Evidence Personnel 1,277,983 236,548 16% 1,470,106 1,470,106 - Materials&Services 140,761 45,106 29% 157,597 157,597 Capital Outlay - - 0% 100 - 100 Total Investigations/Evidence 1,418,744 281,655 17% 1,627,803 1,627,703 100 Patrol Personnel 7,450,178 1,225,839 16% 7,728,332 7,728,332 - Materials&Services 547,770 110,316 17% 636,868 636,868 - Capital Outlay 249,274 15,065 4% 340,500 340,500 - Total Patrol 8,247,222 1,351,220 16% 8,705,700 8,705,700 - Records Personnel 659,297 109,023 16% 692,244 692,244 - Materials&Services 101,963 6,017 6% 106,461 106,461 - Capital Outlay - - 0% 100 - 100 Total Records 761,260 115,040 14% 798,805 798,705 100 Adult Jail Personnel 11,899,534 2,043,341 16% 12,675,178 12,675,178 - Materials&Services 2,069,651 248,765 12% 2,039,314 2,039,314 - Capital Outlay 63,176 - 0% 20,900 20,900 - Transfer Out-Jail(0/S&Cap Proj) 244,752 136,000 33% 408,765 408,765 - Total Adult Jail 14,277,113 2,428,106 16% 15,144,157 15,144,157 - Court Security Personnel 284,173 49,288 17% 292,715 292,715 - Materials&Services 10,390 3,965 39% 10,052 10,052 - Capital Outlay - 0% 100 - 100 Total Court Security 294,563 53253 18% 302,867 302,767 100 Emergency Services Personnel 169,170 23,757 16% 147,942 147,942 - Materials&Services 25,718 3,097 10% 29,810 29,810 - Capital Outlay - - 0% 100 - 100 Total Emergency Services 194,888 26,854 15% 177,852 177,752 100 Special Services Personnel 1,152,258 208,976 16% 1,273,721 1,273,721 - Materials&Services 183,769 12,816 6% 223,703 223,703 Capital Outlay 16,500 - 0% 158,000 158,000 - Total Special Services 1,352,528 221,792 13% 1,655,424 1,655,424 - Training Personnel 385,634 66,172 16% 416,955 416,955 - Materials&Services 121,303 3,290 2% 134,263 134,263 - Capital Outlay - - 0% 100 - 100 Total Training 506,938 69,463 13% 551,318 551,218 100 Other Law Enforcement Services Personnel 731,122 106,428 15% 717,594 717,594 - Materials&Services 70,773 22,275 27% 81,310 81,310 - Capital Outlay - 6,849 96% 7,140 7,140 - Total Other Law Enforcement Svcs 801,895 135,552 17% 806,044 806,044 - Non-Departmental Materials&Services 81,701 12,134 17% 72,813 72,813 - Total Non-Departmental 81,701 12,134 17% 72,813 72,813 - Total Expenditures $ 33,078,650 $ 5,729,121 16% $35,389,801 $35,389,101 $ 7Q0 Pwje 4 OM LED#1 -Countywide Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 FY 2015-Year to Date FY 2014 (16.7% of Year) FY 2015 Actual Actual I Budget Budget 1 Projection I $Variance Revenues Tax Revenues-Current 16,698,208 - 0% a) 17,292,244 17,292,244 - Tax Revenues-Prior 532,040 120,592 33% 360,700 360,700 - SB 1145 1,630,823 - 0% 1,628,947 1,628,947 - Sheriff Fees 365,577 58,016 28% 210,000 210,000 - Concealed Handgun License - 25,581 17% 150,000 150,000 - Jail Funding HB 3194 107,806 107,805 100% 107,806 107,806 - Jail Funding HB 2712 36,311 9,057 20% 46,143 46,143 - State Grant 85,781 - 0% 85,370 85,370 - Prisoner Housing 329,918 - 0% 80,000 80,000 - Inmate Telephone Fee 83,297 4,418 6% 80,000 80,000 - Federal Grants 32,071 - 0% 20,000 20,000 - Work Center Work Crews 69,723 5,793 12% 50,000 50,000 - Contracts with Des County 475,815 388 1% 60,632 60,632 - Inmate Commissary Fees 32,480 2,445 10% 25,000 25,000 - Interest 50,563 5,265 13% 40,000 40,000 - Donations-"Shop with a Cop" 38,361 29,968 46% 65,000 65,000 - Miscellaneous 66,441 3,081 5% 64,000 64,000 - Total Operating Revenues 20,635,256 372,408 2% 20,365,842 20,365,842 - EXPENDITURES&TRANSFERS DC Sheriffs Office 20,817,324 3,601,208 14% 25,428,019 22,287,066 3,140,953 DC Comm Systems Reserve 80,000 - 0% 80,000 80,000 - Transfer to Reserve Fund 100,000 - 0% 100,000 100,000 - Total Expenditures 20,997,283 3,601,208 14% 25,608,019 22,467,066 3,140,953 Change in Fund Balance (362,027) (3,228,800) (5,242,177) (2,101,224) 3,140,953 Beginning Fund Balance 6,507,110 6,145,083 117% 5,242,177 6,145,083 902,906 Ending Fund Balance $ 6,145,083 $ 2,916,283 , $ - $4,043,859 $4,043,859 a)Current year taxes received beginning in October Page 5 LED#2- Rural 702 ' Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 FY 2015-Year to Date FY 2014 (16.7% of Year) FY 2015 Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection l $Variance Revenues Tax Revenues-Current 7,988,657 - 0% a) 8,272,852 8,272,852 - Tax Revenues- Prior 262,227 58,565 35% 169,000 169,000 - Des Cty Transient Room Tax 2,838,797 338,546 12% 2,920,654 2,920,654 - City of Sisters 486,678 87,168 17% 523,010 523,010 - Marine Board License Fee 155,221 - 0% 169,000 169,000 - State Grant 124,246 - 0% 130,600 130,600 - Court Fines & Fees 135,023 22,220 17% 130,000 130,000 - Contracts with Des County 119,984 20,025 16% 121,650 121,650 - US Forest Service 101,375 - 0% 76,500 76,500 - School Districts 65,088 - 0% 55,000 55,000 - Federal Grants 84,285 2,132 5% 42,000 42,000 - Bureau of Reclamation 24,023 - 0% 27,000 27,000 - Interest 21,715 2,824 13% 21,000 21,000 - SB#1065 Court Assessment 17,435 3,974 26% 15,000 15,000 - Federal Grants-BLM 16,213 - 0% 10,000 10,000 - Donations&Grants-Private 12,030 7,030 n/a - 7,030 7,030 Miscellaneous 73,333 4,259 6% 68,500 68,500 - Total Revenues 12,526,331 546,744 4% 12,751,766 12,758,796 7,030 EXPENDITURES &TRANSFERS DC Sheriffs Office 12,278,716 2,127,913 14% 14,948,526 13,102,035 1,846,491 DC Comm Systems Reserve 120,000 - 0% 120,000 120,000 - Transfer to Reserve Fund 100,000 - 0% 100,000 100,000 - Total Expenditures 12,498,716 2,127,913 14% 15,168,526 13,322,035 1,846,491 Change in Fund Balance 27,614 (1,581,170) (2,416,760) (563,239) 1,853,521 Beginning Fund Balance 3,046,683 3,074,297 127% 2,416,760 3,074,297 657,537 Ending Fund Balance $ 3,074,297 $ 1,493,128 $ - $2,511,059 $2,511,059 a)Current year taxes received beginning in October Page 6 PUBLIC HEALTH Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 FY 2015-Year to FY 2014 Date (16.7%of Year) FY 2015 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection 1 $Variance Revenues State Grant 2,878,140 166,420 5% a) 3,156,998 3,049,902 (107,096) Environmental Health-Lic Fac 767,248 39,382 5% 779,450 779,450 - OMAP 812,441 115,019 18% 655,250 625,250 (30,000) Family Planning Exp Proj 400,900 29,662 5% 550,000 550,000 - Interfund Grants &Contract 95,011 260,206 210% 123,618 363,024 239,406 Grants (Intergvt, Pvt, &Local) 139,171 6,496 3% 240,000 210,279 (29,721) Patient Insurance Fees 232,968 25,814 13% 196,400 196,400 - State Miscellaneous 229,520 - 0% 120,336 120,336 - Federal Payments 161,576 61,406 60% 101,585 162,991 61,406 Vital Records-Death 100,535 30,095 30% 100,000 100,000 - Health Dept/Patient Fees 80,653 8,186 10% 80,216 80,216 - Contract Payments 92,637 3,438 5% 69,291 3,438 (65,853) Vital Records-Birth 36,655 5,565 14% 41,000 41,000 - Child Dev & Rehab Center 52,433 - 0% 39,609 39,609 - Interest on Investments 9,077 2,144 36% 6,000 6,000 - Grants &Donations 38,192 49,507 3300% 1,500 49,507 48,007 Miscellaneous 10,135 20 1% 2,800 2,800 - Total Revenues 6,137,293 803,360 13% 6,264,053 6,380,202 116,149 Expenditures Personnel Services 6,457,193 1,125,227 16% b) 7,166,528 6,945,515 221,013 Materials and Services 2,043,710 260,731 13% c) 2,028,288 2,320,005 (291,717) Capital Outlay - - 0% 100 - 100 Transfers Out 157,320 - 0% 164,640 164,640 - Total Expenditures 8,658,223 1,385,958 15% 9,359,556 9,430,160 (70,604) Revenues less Expenditures (2,520,930) (582,597) (3,095,503) (3,049,958) 45,545 Transfers In-General Fund 2,701,475 450,246 17% 2,701,475 2,701,475 - Transfers In-PH Res Fund 33,000 - n/a - - - Transfers In-Gen. Fund Other 65,100 - 0% 65,100 65,100 - Total Transfers In 2,799,575 450,246 16% 2,766,575 2,766,575 - Change in Fund Balance 278,645 (132,351) (328,928) (283,383) 45,545 Beginning Fund Balance 1,273,934 1,552,578 99% 1,570,821 1,552,578 (18,243) Ending Fund Balance $ 1,552,578 $ 1,420,227 $ 1,241,893 $ 1,269,195 $ 27,302 a) Oregon Health Authority grant projected at amended contract amount b) Personnel projected to decrease in FTE-appropriation transfers pending c) M &S increased to reflect amended grants and contracts Page 7 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 FY 2015-Year to FY 2014 Date(16.7% of Year) FY 2015 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection I $ Variance Revenues Administrative Fee 8,260,932 1,848,462 16% 11,210,767 11,210,767 - State Grants 7,801,239 1,426,546 19% a) 7,499,586 9,216,197 1,716,611 OHP Capitation 469,069 - 0% 390,000 390,000 - Federal Grants 184,980 - 0% 204,849 204,849 - Patient Fees 219,846 35,280 17% 201,610 201,610 - Title 19 246,484 48,941 27% 180,300 180,300 - Liquor Revenue 142,665 - 0% 151,000 151,000 - Divorce Filing Fees 129,788 21,413 15% 140,600 140,600 - Interfund Contract-Gen Fund 127,000 - 0% 127,000 127,000 - School Districts 6,952 - 0% 65,000 50,000 (15,000) Federal Grant(ARRA) 63,750 - 0% 34,000 34,000 - Interest on Investments 21,190 5,083 26% 19,500 19,500 - Rentals 16,000 500 3% 18,800 18,800 - Marriage Licenses 6,540 2,090 32% 6,500 6,500 - Local Grants 52,891 329,450 n/a - 329,450 329,450 Claims Reimbursment 12,918 - n/a - - - State Miscellaneous 31,820 5,100 n/a - 5,100 5,100 Justice Reinvestment HB3194 120,000 - n/a - - - Miscellaneous 28,157 1,430 27% 5,318 5,318 - Total Revenues 17,942,221 3,724,294 17% 20,254,830 22,290,991 2,036,161 Expenditures Personnel Services 12,415,866 2,273,396 15% 14,762,595 14,762,595 - Materials and Services 6,738,744 831,021 12% b) 6,989,403 8,548,208 (1,558,805) Capital Outlay - - 0% 100 - 100 Transfers Out 204,900 - 0% 204,900 204,900 - Total Expenditures 19,359,510 3,104,417 14% 21,956,998 23,515,703 (1,558,705) Revenues less Expenditures (1,417,289) 619,877 (1,702,168) (1,224,712) 477,456 Transfers In-General Fund 1,377,302 229,550 17% 1,377,302 1,377,302 - Transfers In-Acute Care Svcs 293,593 31,266 17% 187,594 187,594 - Total Transfers In 1,670,895 260,816 17% 1,564,896 1,564,896 - Change in Fund Balance 253,606 880,693 (137,272) 340,184 477,456 Beginning Fund Balance 2,671,137 2,924,742 88% 3,313,248 2,924,742 (388,506) Ending Fund Balance $2,924,742 $3,805,436 $3,175,976 $3,264,926 $ 88,950 a)Oregon Health Authority grant projected at amended contract amount b) M &S increase related to Oregon Health Authority amended contract Page 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 FY 2015-Year to FY 2014 Date(16.7% of Year) FY 2015 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection I $Variance Revenues Admin-Operations 40,102 8,829 17% 51,225 51,225 - Admin-GIS 2,944 60 2% 2,500 2,500 - Admin-Code Enforcement 261,188 57,645 21% 273,000 273,000 - Building Safety 1,748,911 401,722 25% 1,616,713 1,616,713 - Electrical 408,194 82,466 20% 418,506 418,506 - Contract Services 229,039 42,000 20% 211,500 211,500 - Env Health-On Site Prog 448,367 78,407 18% 437,358 437,358 - Planning-Current 917,674 253,557 28% 902,876 902,876 - Planning-Long Range 440,222 90,728 16% 560,658 560,658 - Total Revenues 4,496,641 1,015,414 23% 4,474,336 4,474,336 - Expenditures Admin-Operations 1,587,119 358,462 25% 1,416,868 1,416,868 - Admin-GIS 123,751 21,890 17% 129,011 129,011 - Admin-Code Enforcement 275,521 45,756 15% 297,852 297,852 - Building Safety 688,035 114,470 14% 822,664 822,664 - Electrical 217,271 35,239 15% 234,152 234,152 - Contract Services 220,779 45,795 16% 281,699 281,699 - Env Health-On Site Pgm 181,831 36,332 13% 274,228 274,228 - Planning-Current 666,180 143,648 20% 706,730 706,730 - Planning-Long Range 425,323 62,720 11% 553,993 553,993 - Transfers Out(D/S Fund) 179,035 - 0% 173,673 173,673 - Total Expenditures 4,564,845 864,313 18% 4,890,870 4,890,870 - Revenues less Expenditures (68,204) 151,101 (416,534) (416,534) - Transfers In/Out In:General Fund-L/R Planning 495,360 27,795 17% 166,770 166,770 - Out:CDD Reserve Funds 3,660 - 0% (861,143) (861,143) Total Transfers In/Out 491,700 27,795 (694,373) (694,373) - Change in Fund Balance 423,496 178,896 (1,110,907) (1,110,907) - Beginning Fund Balance 1,578,705 2,002,201 126% 1,589,113 2,002,201 413,088 Ending Fund Balance $2,002,201 $2,181,097 $ 478,206 $ 891,294 $ 413,088 Page 9 ROAD Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 FY 2015-Year to FY 2014 Date(16.7%of Year) FY 2015 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection I $Variance Revenues Motor Vehicle Revenue 11,300,058 1,727,398 15% 11,220,000 11,220,000 - Forest Receipts 1,259,367 130 0% a) 1,140,950 1,140,950 - Federal -PILT Payment 1,064,365 1,250,809 123% b) 1,020,000 1,250,809 230,809 Other Inter-fund Services 850,395 - 0% c) 971,700 971,700 - Cities-Bend/Redmond/Sisters 1,097,444 - 0% 804,200 804,200 - State Miscellaneous 588,197 7,606 1% 602,629 602,629 - Sale of Equip& Material 230,017 45,866 17% 271,000 271,000 - Assessment Payments(P&I) 15,058 24,893 11% 225,840 225,840 - Mineral Lease Royalties 206,097 6,251 4% 140,000 140,000 - Interest on Investments 49,562 11,883 37% 32,000 32,000 - Miscellaneous 117,069 7,182 28% 25,500 25,500 - Total Revenues 16,777,629 3,082,020 19% 16,453,819 16,684,628 230,809 Expenditures Personnel Services 5,313,126 920,510 17% 5,555,695 5,555,695 - Materials and Services 8,051,744 1,397,721 13% 10,622,604 10,622,604 - Debt Service - 106,578 91% d) 117,000 106,578 10,422 Capital Outlay 121,455 928,010 10% 8,875,507 8,875,507 - Transfers Out 450,000 - 0% _ 600,000 600,000 - Total Expenditures 13,936,325 3,352,819 13% 25,770,806 25,760,384 10,422 Revenues less Expenditures 2,841,304 (270,800) (9,316,987) (9,075,756) 241,231 Trans In-Solid Waste 282,148 - 0% e) 298,156 298,156 - Trans In -Transp SDC - - 0% 2,000,000 2,000,000 - Trans In-Road Imp Res - - 0% 1,000 - (1,000) Total Transfers In 282,148 - 0% 2,299,156 2,298,156 (1,000) Change in Fund Balance 3,123,452 (270,800) (7,017,831) (6,777,600) 240,231 Beginning Fund Balance 6,846,576 9,970,028 111% 8,954,332 9,970,028 1,015,696 Ending Fund Balance $ 9,970,028 $ 9,699,228 $ 1,936,501 $3,192,428 $1,255,927 a)Payment received annually in February b) PILT payment received July 2014 c) Inter-fund service billed at year end d) Final payments of two LID loans made in July 2014 e)Transfers made quarterly Page 10 ADULT PAROLE &PROBATION Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 FY 2015-Year to FY 2014 Date(16.7% of Year) FY 2015 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection I $Variance Revenues SB 1145 3,028,672 - 0% a) 3,025,187 3,025,187 - DOC Measure 57 220,788 217,845 99% b) 220,788 217,845 (2,943) Electronic Monitoring Fee 235,642 38,771 18% 220,000 220,000 - Probation Superv. Fees 208,461 33,584 18% 190,000 190,000 - Interfund -Sheriff 50,000 8,334 17% 50,000 50,000 - Crime Prevention Grant 50,000 - 0% c) 50,000 50,000 - CFC-Domestic Violence 70,242 - 0% c) 47,996 47,996 - State Subsidy 14,677 - 0% a) 15,158 15,158 - Alternate Incarceration 17,725 - 0% d) 15,000 15,000 - Interest on Investments 7,807 1,260 20% 6,150 6,150 - Probation Work Crew Fees 9,137 2,135 43% 4,950 4,950 - State Miscellaneous 4,142 - 0% e) 4,301 4,301 - Leases 1,323 - 0% 1,500 1,500 - Claims Reimbursement 6,997 - n/a - - - Justice Reinvest HB3194 458,143 - n/a - - - Miscellaneous 671 168 34% 500 500 - Total Revenues 4,384,428 302,097 8% 3,851,530 3,848,587 (2,943) Expenditures Personnel Services 3,343,789 583,167 16% 3,623,526 3,623,526 - Materials and Services 1,107,365 110,978 10% 1,148,766 1,148,766 - Capital Outlay - - 0% 100 - 100 Total Expenditures 4,451,154 694,145 15% 4,772,392 4,772,292 100 Revenues less Expenditures (66,726) (392,048) (920,862) (923,705) (2,843) Transfers In-General Fund 451,189 75,198 17% 451,189 451,189 - Change in Fund Balance 384,463 (316,850) (469,673) (472,516) (2,843) Beginning Fund Balance 747,520 1,131,982 110% 1,030,824 1,131,982 101,158 Ending Fund Balance $ 1,131,982 $ 815,132 $ 561,151 $ 659,466 $ 98,315 a)Contract with Dept of Corrections. Payment expected in September includes State Subsidy b)Annual payment received in July c) Payment received quarterly d) Invoiced quarterly e)Annual payment expected in February Page 11 EARLY LEARNING HUB Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 FY 2015-Year to FY 2014 Date(16.7%of Year) FY 2015 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection I $Variance Revenues Federal Grants 258,463 - 0% a) 157,390 157,390 - Title IV- Family Sup/Pres 21,994 - 0% 21,994 21,994 - HealthyStart Medicaid 60,561 - 0% 60,000 60,000 - Youth Investment 124,493 - n/a - - - State Grant 55,185 - n/a - - - HealthyStart/R-S-G 249,125 - 0% a) 254,623 254,623 - OCCF Grant 132,326 - 0% a) 39,499 39,499 - Charges for Svcs-Misc 4,138 - n/a - - - Program Fees 4,710 - n/a - - - Miscellaneous - 0% 2,000 2,000 - Court Fines &Fees 77,873 12,848 17% 77,086 77,086 - Interest on Investments 2,868 461 18% 2,500 2,500 - Donations 50 - n/a - - - Private Grant 130 - n/a - - - Sale of Assets 450 - n/a - - - Interfund Grants 329,624 - 0% 7,260 7,260 - Total Revenues 1,321,991 13,308 2% 622,352 622,352 - Expenditures Personnel Services 501,770 42,259 16% 258,410 258,410 - Materials and Services 1,402,021 20,363 3% 766,142 766,142 - Total Expenditures 1,903,791 62,622 6% 1,024,552 1,024,552 - Revenues less Expenditures (581,800) (49,314) (402,200) (402,200) - Transfers In General Fund 278,739 42,048 17% 252,288 252,288 - General Fund-Other 89,350 0% 89,350 89,350 - Total Transfers In 368,089 42,048 12% 341,638 341,638 - Change in Fund Balance (213,711) (7,266) (60,562) (60,562) - Beginning Fund Balance 548,572 334,861 105% 318,121 334,861 16,740 Ending Fund Balance $ 334,861 $ 327,596 * $ 257,559 $ 274,299 $ 16,740 Page 12 SOLID WASTE Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 FY 2015-Year to FY 2014 Date (16.7% of Year) FY 2015 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection I $Variance Operating Revenues Franchise Disposal Fees 4,209,029 827,915 19% 4,413,809 4,413,809 - Private Disposal Fees 1,518,056 321,566 21% 1,550,430 1,550,430 - Commercial Disp. Fees 1,076,538 230,804 21% 1,082,144 1,082,144 - Franchise 3% Fees 210,053 6,097 3% a) 210,000 210,000 - Yard Debris 98,410 25,812 28% 92,000 92,000 - Recyclables 33,345 10,067 22% 45,000 45,000 - Special Waste 40,873 1,250 5% b) 25,000 25,000 - Interest 11,028 2,554 26% 10,000 10,000 - Leases 10,801 1,800 17% 10,801 10,801 - Miscellaneous 21,508 4,748 24% 20,000 20,000 - Total Operating Revenues 7,229,641 1,432,612 19% 7,459,184 7,459,184 - Operating Expenditures Personnel Services 1,777,663 304,079 16% 1,891,970 1,891,970 - Materials and Services 3,214,375 282,203 8% 3,435,926 3,435,926 - Debt Service 930,157 - 0% c) 929,794 929,794 - Capital Outlay 25,895 - 0% 227,000 227,000 - Total Operating Expenditures 5,948,091 586,282 9% 6,484,690 6,484,690 - Operating Rev less Exp 1,281,550 846,330 974,494 974,494 - Transfers Out Road 282,148 - 0% d) 298,156 298,156 - SW Capital Reserve 545,000 - 0% d) 1,525,000 1,525,000 - Total Transfers Out 827,148 - 0% 1,823,156 1,823,156 - Change in Fund Balance 454,402 846,330 - (848,662) (848,662) - Beginning Fund Balance 1,224,767 1,679,169 118% 1,428,003 1,679,169 251,166 Ending Fund Balance $ 1,679,169 $2,525,499 $ 579,341 $ 830,507 $ 251,166 a) Payments due April 15th b) Unpredictable revenue c) Payments made November and May d)Transfers will be made quarterly Page 13 RISK MANAGEMENT Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31,2014 FY 2015-Year to Date FY 2014 (16.7%of Year) FY 2015 Actual Actual %of Budget Budget Projection I $Variance Revenues Inter-fund Charges: General Liability 272,823 63,298 17% 379,793 379,793 - Property Damage 326,526 65,384 17% 392,304 392,304 - Vehicle 164,150 29,592 17% 177,550 177,550 - Workers'Compensation 1,520,352 260,290 17% 1,561,804 1,561,804 - Unemployment 318,566 53,668 17% 317,000 317,000 - Claims Reimb-Gen Liab/Property 139,123 6,712 34% 20,000 20,000 - Process Fee-Events/Parades 1,400 305 23% 1,300 1,300 - Miscellaneous 14 - 0% 110 110 - Skid Car Training 27,540 2,610 11% 24,000 24,000 - Interest on Investments 15,567 3,250 22% 15,050 15,050 - TOTAL REVENUES 2,786,061 485,109 17% 2,888,911 2,888,911 - Direct Insurance Costs: GENERAL LIABILITY Settlement/Benefit 268,561 33,118 Defense 49,872 638 Professional Service 33,139 168 Insurance 161,994 156,747 a) Loss Prevention 4,659 125 Miscellaneous 5,619 - Repair/Replacement 4,531 3,584 Total General Liability 528,374 194,379 49% 400,000 400,000 - PROPERTY DAMAGE Insurance 166,668 178,556 a) Repair/Replacement 211,158 830 Total Property Damage 377,826 179,386 72% 250,000 250,000 - VEHICLE Professional Service 875 - Insurance 205 19 Loss Prevention 22,021 528 Repair!Replacement 69,276 10,374 Total Vehicle 92,377 10,920 9% 120,000 120,000 - WORKERS'COMPENSATION Settlement/Benefit 478,204 71,912 Professional Service 5,000 - Insurance 155,474 103,790 a) Loss Prevention 44,261 8,476 Miscellaneous 52,488 - Total Workers'Compensation 735,427, 184,178 31% 600,000 600,000 - UNEMPLOYMENT-Settlement/Benefits 102,324 - 0% 200,000 180,000 20,000 Total Direct Insurance Costs 1,836,329 568,864 36% 1,570,000 1,550,000 20,000 Insurance Administration: Personnel Services 324,005 50,081 15% 330,406 330,406 - Materials&Srvc,Capital Out.&Tranfs. 146,109 20,864 10% 199,140 199,140 - Total Expenditures 2,306,443 639,810 30% 2,099,546 2,079,546 20,000 Change in Fund Balance 479,618 (154,701) 789,365 809,365 20,000 Beginning Fund Balance 2,631,057 3,110,676 101% 3,074,957 3,110,676 35,719 Ending Fund Balance $3,110,676 $2,955,975 " $ 3,864,322 $ 3,920,041 $ 55,719 a)Annual premiums paid in July Page 14 DESCHUTES COUNTY 9-1-1 Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 FY 2015-Year to Date FY 2014 (16.7% of Year) FY 2015 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection I $Variance Revenues Property Taxes-Current 6,258,760 - 0% a) 6,482,015 6,482,015 - Property Taxes-Prior 203,163 45,252 33% 138,000 138,000 - Federal Grants 46,514 - 0% 150,000 150,000 - State Reimbursement 41,813 5,369 15% 36,000 36,000 - Telephone User Tax 756,775 - 0% 750,000 750,000 - Data Network Reimb. 43,943 - 0% 30,000 30,000 - Jefferson County 29,758 304 1% 30,000 30,000 - User Fee 53,229 - 0% 45,000 45,000 - Police RMS User Fees 236,717 5,191 2% 295,788 295,788 - Contract Payments 39,075 - 0% 11,000 11,000 - Miscellaneous 45,553 3,621 40% 9,000 9,000 - Claims Reimbursement 29,857 - n/a - - - Interest 40,303 3,714 12% 30,600 30,600 - Total Revenues 7,825,460 63,451 1% 8,007,403 8,007,403 - Expenditures Personnel Services 4,420,333 781,811 14% 5,521,419 5,521,419 - Materials and Services 1,996,805 425,476 20% 2,077,868 2,077,868 - Capital Outlay 66,498 - 0% 350,000 350,000 - Total Expenditures 6,483,636 1,207,287 15% 7,949,287 7,949,287 - Revenues less Expenditures 1,341,824 (1,143,835) 58,116 58,116 - Transfers Out- Reserve Fund 7,800,000 - n/a - - - Change in Fund Balance (6,458,176) (1,143,835) 58,116 58,116 - Beginning Fund Balance 10,398,030 3,939,854 116% 3,410,000 3,939,854 529,854 Ending Fund Balance $ 3,939,854 $ 2,796,018 $ 3,468,116 $3,997,970 $ 529,854 a)Current year taxes received beginning in October Page 15 Health Benefits Trust . Statement of Financial Operating Data FY 2015 Two Months Ended August 31,2014 FY 2014 FY 2015 Year to Date %of Actual Actual (16.7% Budget Budget Projection $Variance of Year) Revenues: Internal Premium Charges $ 14,485,502 $ 2,639,935 17% a) $15,517,000 $15,848,484 $ 331,484 Part-Time Employee Premium 16,955 5,473 27% b) 20,000 32,838 12,838 Employee Monthly Co-Pay 813,125 142,670 18% b) 810,000 856,020 46,020 COIC 1,595,847 296,025 18% b) 1,670,000 1,776,148 106,148 Retiree/COBRA Co-Pay 1,061,986 179,614 14% b) 1,260,000 1,077,683 (182,317) Prescription Rebates 154,981 - 0% 110,000 110,000 - Claims Reimbursements 1,675 - 0% 50,000 50,000 - Miscellaneous 744 - n/a - - - Interest 67,057 13,403 19% 72,000 72,000 - Total Revenues 18,197,871 3,277,120 17% 19,509,000 19,823,173 314,173 Expenditures: Personnel Services(all depts) 129,509 21,049 15% 144,917 144,917 Materials&Services Admin&Wellness Claims Paid-Medical 11,633,134 1,753,273 14% 12,552,108 12,552,108 - Claims Paid-Prescription 657,550 104,226 15% 709,494 709,494 - Claims Paid-Dental/Vision 1,731,608 299,257 16% 1,868,398 1,868,398 - Claims Refunds (182,448) (24,842) n/a - (24,842) 24,842 Stop Loss Insurance Premium 275,052 50,235 13% 400,000 400,000 - State Assessments 67,753 - 0% 215,000 215,000 - Administration Fee(EMBS) 333,188 61,443 18% 343,000 343,000 - Preferred Provider Fee 49,712 7,425 13% 57,200 57,200 - Health Impact 4,327 - 0% 4,500 4,500 - Other-Administration 38,643 16,255 40% 40,142 40,142 - Other-Wellness 117,775 32,929 17% 195,970 195,970 - Admin&Wellness 14,726,294 2,300,201 14% 16,385,812 16,360,970 24,842 Deschutes On-site Clinic Contracted Services 850,209 110,681 12% 943,500 943,500 - Medical Supplies 54,806 7,415 21% 35,000 35,000 - Other 27,016 2,655 10% 26,777 26,777 - Total DOC 932,031 120,750 12% 1,005,277 1,005,277 - Deschutes On-site Pharmacy Contracted Services 314,801 18,590 6% 306,000 306,000 - Medication and Drugs 1,588,726 - 0% 1,696,000 1,696,000 - Other 13,250 2,079 16% 13,321 13,321 - Total Pharmacy 1,916,777 20,670 1% 2,015,321 2,015,321 - Total Expenditures 17,704,610 2,462,671 13% 19,551,327 19,526,485 24,842 Change in Fund Balance 493,261 814,449 (42,327) 296,688 339,015 Beginning Fund Balance 11,967,822 $ 12,461,082 108% 11,585,710 12,461,082 875,372 Ending Fund Balance $ 12,461,082 $ 13,275,531 $11,543,383 $12,757,770 $1,214,387 %of Exp covered by Revenues 102.8% 133.1% 99.8%1 101.5% a) Projection is amount budgeted as Health/Dental Insurance expenditure. b) Year to Date annualized. Page 16 FAIR AND EXPO CENTER Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 FY 2015-Year to Date FY 2014 (16.7%of Year FY 2015 Actual Actual I %of Budget Budget I Projection I $Variance Operating Revenues Events Revenues $ 458,147 $ 140,297 22.4% $ 625,000 $ 625,000 $ - Storage 35,590 - 0.0% 45,000 45,000 - Camping at F& E 22,866 140 0.9% 16,000 16,000 - Horse Stall Rental 52,084 15 0.0% 52,769 52,769 - Concession % -Food 97,917 11,411 6.5% 175,000 175,000 - Annual County Fair(net) 205,000 - 0.0% a) 200,000 200,000 - Miscellaneous 6,648 2,791 35.3% 7,900 7,900 - Total Operating Revenues 878,251 154,654 13.8% 1,121,669 1,121,669 - Operating Expenditures: Personnel Services 895,582 154,165 16.6% 926,183 926,183 - Materials and Services 657,882 77,264 15.2% 508,386 508,386 - Total Operating Expenditures 1,553,464 231,429 16.1% 1,434,569 1,434,569 - Results of Operations (675,213) (76,776) (312,900) (312,900) - 1 Non-Operating Revenues Transfer-General Fund 374,186 60,834 16.7% 365,000 365,000 - Transfer-Room Tax-(Fund 160) 262,900 20,316 18.7% 108,544 108,544 - Transfer-Fair&Expo Reserve 100,000 - n/a - - - Interest 409 72 n/a - 72 - Grants 176,289 - n/a - - - Rights&Signage 72,000 17,600 22.0% 80,000 80,000 - Total Non-Operating Revenues 985,784 98,821 17.9% 553,544 553,616 - Non-Operating Expenditures Debt Service 112,974 - 0.0% 112,213 112,213 - Capital Outlay 176,289 - 0.0% 100 - 100 Total Non-Operating Expenditures 289,263 - 0.0% 112,313 112,213 100 TRT- 1%for Marketing Revenues(Fund 170) - - 0.0% 292,333 292,333 - Less: Expenditures 14,980 3,128 1.1% 288,850 288,850 - Net TRT 1%for Marketing (14,980) (3,128) 3,483 3,483 - Change in Fund Balance 6,328 18,918 131,814 131,986 100 Beginning Fund Balance (6,673) (345) -0.4% 87,000 (345) (87,345) Ending Fund Balance $ (345) $ 18,573 $ 218,814 $ 131,640 $ (87,245) a) Revenues and Expenses for the annual fair recorded in a separate fund and the available net income is transferred to the Fair& Expo Center Fund Page 17 JUSTICE COURT Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 FY 2015-Year to FY 2014 Date(16.7% of Year) FY 2015 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection I $Variance Revenues Court Fines & Fees 425,632 35,923 8% 450,000 443,838 (6,162) State Miscellaneous - - 0% 600 600 - Interest on Investments _ 653 103 13% 815 815 - Total Revenues 426,285 36,026 8% 451,415 445,253 (6,162) Expenditures Personnel Services 407,456 66,417 16% 416,045 416,045 - Materials and Services 183,148 44,196 27% a) 166,093 140,177 25,916 Total Expenditures 590,605 110,613 19% 582,138 556,222 25,916 Revenues less Expenditures (164,319) (74,586) (130,723) (110,969) 19,754 Transfers In-General Fund 140,819 12,400 17% 74,398 74,398 - Change in Fund Balance (23,500) (62,186) (56,325) (36,571) 19,754 Beginning Fund Balance 153,818 130,317 121% 107,621 130,317 22,696 Ending Fund Balance $ 130,317 $ 68,131 $ 51,296 $ 93,746 $ 42,450 a)$25,000 in software maintenance paid out in July Page 18 V1 H Cad 4a. O v cu U U 4 t S o U x a 0 U ti Z rn • • .411t (u)