Loading...
2014-576-Minutes for Meeting November 06,2014 Recorded 12/22/2014 DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK CJ 201416 NANCY COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 12/22/2014 10:12:39 AM I1IJuJj1IIIIIIIIIIu HIIIII 2 1 - . G�JT�sc / 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 TRI-COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2014 Deschutes County Fair & Expo Center, Redmond The meeting was called to order at 11:15 a.m. Present were representatives of three counties and WEBCO. From Crook County: Muriel DeLaVergne, Health Services; Judge Mike McCabe; Commissioners Seth Crawford and Ken Fahlgren; Scott Willard, CMHP; Debra Patterson, Juvenile; Jeff Wilson, County Counsel; Brian Huber. From WEBCO: Jeff Davis, Executive Director; Kristen Chatfield, Collette Smith and. Melinda Garcia. From Deschutes County: Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Anthony DeBone; County Administrator Tom Anderson; Jane Smilie and DeAnn Carr, Health Services; County Counsel David Doyle; Judith Ure, Administration; David Givans, Internal Auditor; Ken Hales, Community Corrections; Sonya Littledeer- Evans, Juvenile; Judith Ure and David Givans, Administration; Chris Doty, Road; Peter Gutowsky and Nick Lelack, Community Development; Scot Langton, Assessor From Jefferson County: Commissioners Mike Ahern and John Hatfield; Rick Treleaven, CMHP Director; Jeff Rasmussen, County Administrator; Alexa Gassner and Tom Machala, Public Health; Commissioner-elect Mae Huston; and Jean McCloskey. Other. Also present were Rick Treleavan, BestCare Services; John Rexford, High Desert ESD; and media present for a portion of the meeting was Claire Withycombe of The Bulletin. (Please note, there could have been others in attendance who did not sign in or whose signature is not legible.) Minutes were taken by Bonnie Baker and Sharon Ross, Deschutes County Commissioners' staff. 1. Wellness & Education Board of Central Oregon. Jeff Davis gave an overview of WEBCO's purpose in Central Oregon. (See attached presentation documents.) It was known as the Central Oregon Health Board previously before the C.O. Health Council was established. WEBCO was felt to be a good arrangement for the Early Learning Hub for Central Oregon. Membership was increased from one representative on the board from each County to include a representative from High Desert ESD. Ken Fahlgren, Tammy Baney, Mike Ahern and John Rexford are the current representatives. Mr. Davis explained the platform that was developed through WEBCO, but WEBCO was not to be a service provider. Instead, WEBCO was to be a coordinator or administrator. Also, ABHA (Accountable Behavioral Health Alliance) was changing because of the CCO's, and Benton and Linn Counties, who were are part of ABHA, went their own direction. Ways then needed to be found to handle mental health funding from Medicaid. WEBCO was felt to be a good choice to balance out the health outcomes with behavioral health outcomes. This means there is now a vehicle that can be used to develop relationships and services. The various services need to be considered together. St. Charles and other health entities are now regional. The challenge is how to integrate the various programs offered by each County. They are contracting out some maternal child services and early learning educational services; and the largest contract is with PacificSource for health and substance abuse issues. For the organization to work, it needs strong administrative support, and tracking of financial performance and the quality of management and services at the local level. System performance depends on data analysis, stakeholder collaboration, strategic development and project management. All needs to fit into data analysis. This needs to be stronger for the behavioral health piece. Kristen Chatfield stated that tracking has been developed for this as a region. They can track hard data, but also want to capture some of the other work, especially that related to behavioral health and prevention programs. Mr. Davis reviewed key performance indicators. About 4,500 residents receive services each quarter. For every dollar needed, about another 25 cents is required to reach maximum performance. Commissioner Unger asked about the Medicaid payment portion. Mr. Davis stated that Medicaid payments are discounted, and there is not enough funding to deliver what is needed. In the tri-county region, 65,000 people are now enrolled in the Oregon Health Plan, a big increase over previous years. Scott Willard stated that Crook County has added twelve staff to handle meeting the increased need. Rick Treleaven of Jefferson County added that it is a balancing act. Clients are not always good about turning in the re-enrollment paperwork. DeAnn Carr of Deschutes County Health said they have had a 5 % increase in staffing with a 23% increase in the number of people served. Mr. Davis went over quality management groups that are to improve the system. This includes regional training and technical assistance. Commissioner Tammy Baney said she feels there can be regional coordinated reporting back to the State, and they can utilize the regional improvement plan as well. Mr. Davis said the Central Oregon Health Board has worked towards a regional improvement plan in the past. Ms. Chatfield said that when the St ate sees the counties working together, it can be very helpful. Mr. Davis stated that WEBCO could also assist with foundation grants, pursuing State funding and training. Melinda Garcia spoke about the administrative support piece and reviewed the funding structure. They have many meetings with the counties and others. They hold most meetings in Prineville but also go the counties. The meetings allow for an exchange of ideas and help to keep current on needs. Mr. Davis discussed the future of WEBCO, and concepts that he hopes will help bring funds in. Some counties already share staffing. They would like to add a child psychiatrist and regional epidemiologist. Chronic disease and health issues could be addressed on a regional basis. If you do a good job with children early in life, especially in regard to education, this is reflected in better overall future health. This is a work in progress and an opportunity for regional collaboration in many ways. Muriel DeLaVergne of Crook County Health added that it began as a discussion regarding public health, but this can be developed to encompass a number of needs, and they can apply for extra dollars to address those needs. The CCO's across the State know that behavioral health directly impacts health. They want to focus on prevention in a coordinated way. They are still trying to address tobacco use in this manner. Jane Smilie of Deschutes County Health said that there may be opportunities for this next year. Commissioner Baney stated that most is applicant-driven rather than a vision, while they try to function during the development of the program. She wants it to be broadened beyond the basics, to get to healthy communities. Rick Treleaven of Jefferson County said that using a bucket approach can save funds, as they try to live within those budgets. But those can be mixed in creative ways once this is more refined. Commissioner Baney said the problem is challenging, from education to family jobs and housing. Mr. Treleaven stated that it all starts early in life. Mr. Davis stated that developmental screenings are usually handled at WIC, but this should be done in the public health realm to address the bigger issues. Juvenile services need more attention as well, within the corrections system. They have contracted with someone to look at the region's behavioral health needs, and results should be available in the early spring. The community health assessment and health improvement plan is required, but probably will not be available until early 2016. Counties in Central Oregon have worked well together to address the changing healthcare structure. Commissioner Baney asked about the budget. Mr. Davis said that they have spent $4 million. (He referred to a handout.) It is a lean organization. Commissioner Baney added that it is far ahead of what was experienced in the ABHA days in regard to funding and budgeting. At this time, the group adjourned for lunch. At 12:45, Commissioner John Hatfield reconvened the group. 2. 2015 State Legislative Priorities. Commissioner Alan Unger stated that COIC has some legislative concerns; Commissioners Hatfield, McCabe and he are a part of the 190 organization which also oversees public transit. 190 statute is not clear if they can collect public funds, so they are looking at amending statute. This has already gone through legislative counsel. He will keep all posted. Cascade East Transit is involved. There is an urban system with fixed routes, plus Dial a Ride. The system has grown with opportunity money, but this funding has decreased. The system has been shrinking and they are trying to get some funds back. A phone survey shows that 30% of citizens don't know there is a transit system, so more outreach is needed. They need choice riders and not just need riders. Work patterns show that people cross county lines between work and home. OSU Cascades is impacted by transit as well. COIC is on a path to grow visibility of transit and do more outreach to communities. They will be coming to the cities in the future and County support is important. Judge Mike McCabe stated that this area has the only transportation system in the state without stable funding. It is now hit and miss, but needs base support. Once that is in place, employers and educational institutions will help. Commissioner Ken Fahlgren said they have had meetings but continue to try to push this forward, including St. Charles. Commissioner Baney stated she is trying to help with Bend area transit and on ways to get the larger employers on board. They may be able to use student fees or other options. The employers have the most to gain but they would not have to pay taxes for this. Commissioner Unger stated that St. Charles is anxious to move this forward, especially now that they are regional. Judge McCabe added that many people feel there is a need for transit, but most do not want to pay for it. Commissioner Hatfield noted that it is challenging because the area is both rural and urban. Commissioner Unger wants to support fixed route, but it is not required yet. Once you start this, you really can't go back. Commissioner Tony DeBone said that an overall system is quite complicated. Commissioner Unger stated that they are looking at flex routes in some communities, and volunteer drivers to make it more cost effective. 3. Local Workforce Board. Commissioner Unger said he is on this board, appointed by the Governor. They are talking about funding from various sources to help people become trained for new work. They are looking at the whole system, economic development and workforce development. The Oregon Consortium is chaired by Judge McCabe and includes 24 counties. It is being restructured at the request of the Governor to become more localized. They are looking at a ten-county board. now, and funding is available to assist. Deschutes County brings the most money to the table. They are all adopting ordinances to create a 190 organization for this purpose. Each county will have a Commissioner involved. It will include private sector, with labor and employers, with about 19 people total. There should be a recommending board to show what is needed at the local level. Each county needs to think of two private industry representatives who can be involved. Education, the employment department and private business need to work together on this. The next step will be getting funds from the State to pay for an interim director of the group. Judge McCabe noted the responsibilities of the workforce board. There is a lot to do before they get that point. Commissioner Unger indicated that COIC's biggest job is giving workforce training. They also can provide oversight for the new local board on a short-term contract basis. The County representatives present indicated support. 4. Regional Transit. This was addressed under item #2. 5. Public Safety/Law Enforcement. There was no discussion on this issue. 6. Public Health. Tom Machala of Jefferson County brought up a mutual aid agreement used in the past to share county assets and personnel. They are pushing for a similar agreement to be used statewide. The old agreement provided for payment after 72 hours; the new one says 12 hours. Marion County is the originator. Eleven counties have signed up so far. It is important for public health reasons, but can be any county asset or personnel for any reasonable need. Jane Smilie said that County Counsel is supportive and it will come to the Commissioners soon. Ms. DeLaVergne stated that Crook County has already signed. A statewide agreement is appropriate, especially for emergency situations. UNGER: Move support and Board signature of the inter-county mutual aid agreement as revised. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Jane Smilie distributed a document regarding communicable disease, and in particular the Ebola virus. They have gone through two exercises involving the counties and medical providers. They are attending incident command meetings to keep up with the topic, and are testing their response system. They decided to start a joint information system with the counties, 911 and St. Charles. Continuing education is in place. This addresses a variety of diseases, but it does specifically include Ebola. The affected county will be responsible for tracking the progress of anyone who might have been exposed. A speaker very familiar with Ebola is coming for a public presentation in Deschutes County in the near future. Ms. DeLaVergne stated that this issue needs to be put in perspective. Thus far there has been one death due to Ebola, when there are over 30,000 deaths from flu each year and people still hesitate to get a flu shot. 7. Transportation and Roads. Chris Doty provided a memo for review. The first issue is the transportation funding package, which is being addressed in Salem now by the Oregon Transportation Forum. It is being led by the Oregon Truckers' Association and AAA. This gives credibility to the need for funding in Oregon. Money would be allocated towards road maintenance and rehabilitation. The last time this happened was in 2009 through an increase in the gas tax. Usually this is 50% to the State, 30% to counties and 20% to cities. Another element would help with transportation modernization and enhancement. Another possible change is a chance in gas tax to mimic the CPI. It is not tied to inflation at this time. The flat per-gallon fee has not been changed in twenty years. Connect Oregon is based on the lottery, so its funding varies. He asked the counties to advocate these changes so that the need can be addressed. Commissioner Baney asked how the additional funds would be allocated, since this will come up at AOC. Commissioner Unger noted that it will also come up at COACT. Mr. Doty stated that reallocation of the county portion, 30%, will be discussed. at AOC. This is based on vehicle registrations. This is obviously beneficial for counties with a bigger population, but all counties have roads to maintain. They may want some of the funds allocated differently, based on total road miles. The new formula would raise the amount going to Crook and Jefferson counties, and lower what Deschutes County would receive. The highly populated counties would see a big decrease in revenue. Commissioner Unger asked if those counties are on board with this. Mr. Doty said the road officials feel it is the right thing to do, but they have to convince the county leaders. There are only so many ways to generate revenue. Regarding the regional gas tax, Mr. Doty said that there is an opportunity to do this locally. It is awkward when one community has this tax and another doesn't. A regional approach helps to mitigate this, and it can be invested locally. Visitors would pay into this as well. Commissioner DeBone stated that he does not know how the cities would handle this. Mr. Doty stated that this would have to be passed by the voters, and how it is split would have to be determined. Chair Baney said that several cities passed a regional gas tax, and only Sisters' tax remains. The question was raised as to what happens if it passes in two counties and not the third. Mr. Doty said each county would probably need to have its own ballot measure, but it could be pursued as a group. As the law is written now, these funds cannot be used to fund transit costs. COACT and regional needs are not being addressed with adequate funding. Many programs are being consolidated and each faction is pursuing the same dollars. It has become very political. COACT will begin prioritizing the needs. It is a good time to think regionally to benefit all. Commissioner Unger stated the communities were given direction to try to connect. Bike/pedestrian issues came up, but Highway 97 became a focal point because of freight, and capacity for the Highway became a priority. He asked if the priorities as they are now is what the counties want. Most seem to be concerned about the cities. The amount of funding has decreased over the years also. Commissioner Unger said the cities seem to be looking at multi-modal issues, while there should be some thought about freight movement and connectivity. Commissioner Baney feels that bike/pedestrian will likely be removed from Connect Oregon. However, this means the legislature may be trying to identify local needs. There needs to be some thought on lane capacity, resiliency and multi-modal. Judge McCabe does not want to see this moved to the legislature. 8. Juvenile Crime Prevention. Administrative Change — Oregon Youth Development Council to Oregon Youth Authority & JCP Grant Program. Debbie Patterson of Crook County reported they have done a good job in the past managing the State funding allocated to the Oregon Youth Development Council. The community receives a portion of the money based on population. Crook County uses the funding for the program for Level 7 kids. The program has been changed and now funding is there, but is not under county control. Ken Hales of Deschutes County noted the Policy Option Package takes a portion of the grant money and places it at the Oregon Youth Authority for administration. The hope is that this money remains in the Governor's Budget. If it is no longer available, it would leave a huge population not served. The request of the Commissioners is for legislative support to recognize the necessity. He would like to make sure the whole amount of money is being transferred to the Oregon Youth Authority — it has always been $6.6 million. Jeff Rasmussen of Jefferson County raised the topic that regarding juvenile detention, he wished Deschutes County rates were more competitive. Marion County charges $265 per night, NORCOR charges $150.00, and Deschutes County charges $350. The operating cost is dramatically different, and with costs of medical staff, the daily cost per bed per day goes up. Deschutes County has medical staff working with the kids coming into detention to manage each crisis and keep them safe while they are there. 9. Land Use. Endangered Species. Nick Lelack and Peter Gutowsky of Deschutes County asked for comments or discussion on Sage Grouse, the spotted frog and steelhead. Judge McCabe commented on the remarkable help Peter Gutowsky has been on the Sage Grouse issues for Crook County. Some are concerned that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will take over private property, which seems wrong. Mr. Gutowsky commented there should be an upcoming presentation by the Governor's Office to contemplate rule making. Rural Renewable Energy Development Zones. Deschutes County Administrator Tom Anderson asked for input from Crook County and Jefferson County on any benefits they have seen from this program. Mr. Rasmussen noted they have two applications in the process. Judge McCabe commented on the wind farm that does allow for some tax reduction. 10. Assessment & Taxation. Trends in Valuation. Scot Langton, Deschutes County Assessor, and Jean McKlowsky, Jefferson County Assessor, were present to answer questions. A handout was distributed. showing Assessment and Taxation Valuation Trends, and a discussion held on rapidly increasing values. They also reviewed data on Measure 50. Commissioner Unger asked what is happening at the state level. Mr. Langton commented he could see future discussions on the Comcast cable field and will keep the Commissioners informed of any concerns. 11. ODF Reclassification Process. Mr. Fahlgren said that the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife has asked for reclassification of lands to help reset oversight of OD&F fire patrol. This involves public input. Wasco County has gone through the process, and now it is being done in Jefferson and. Deschutes. This needs staff from each county and one Commissioner. There is a cost per acre to be in the jurisdiction, and no properties are being eliminated. Fires have to be fought in those areas now and there is no other protection in place. There will probably be more impact in Deschutes County. Mr. Anderson stated that Deschutes County has some rural fire protection districts, and the lines may impact some of these. Funding will be an issue. In Deschutes County, the role was designated to Ed Keith, County Forester. Commissioner DeBone asked if any residents have become upset over this. Mr. Fahlgren replied that there have been concerns from the owners of some of the larger ranches. 12. Other Issues. Commissioner Unger added an update on the Deschutes Water Alliance to report that their purpose is to look at the basin and figure out how to manage water in the future. There are concerns regarding water flow and fish environment. They have asked the State for $750,000 to work with a $1.5 basin-wide study with the Bureau of Reclamation. They are developing a plan to study what needs to be done to manage water in the future while protecting the environment. Judge McCabe said another item needing consideration is the: environmental qualities of waters in the United States in general. Judge McCabe commented that at a recent "What's Brewing" meeting, held each Wednesday, marijuana was the topic. As a tri-county area, they need to get people to get on top of the marijuana issue and find out what to expect. Jeff Wilson, Crook County Legal Counsel, noted there may be concerns with those people on probation saying they can now smoke marijuana, and the Parole and Probation as well as Sheriff's Office have concerns about this. Discussion was then held regarding personnel policy issues; for instance, what would it mean if someone has THC in his or her system. Road departments are in a pool of random drug testing, and the group wonders what will happen if employees are tested and THC shows up. David Doyle, Deschutes County Legal Counsel, noted that the OLCC has to establish regulations no later than January 1, 2016, and the first opportunity a jurisdiction can opt out for businesses to sell marijuana would be the next general election. Being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 3:32 p.m. DATED this f -� Day of P-I-A""ctit--- 2014 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. • IIJVAL Tamlwr :Trey, Ch.t� Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ATTEST SIGNATURES: Alan Unger, Commissioner Recording Secretary � O kt,n4 Yr. vA TES etJo W � JEFFERSON COUNTYk `� �:. i adiiiii:tj • \., 1,.,)'1,, —..., Trii-County Commissioners Meeting Deschutes County Fair & Expo Center South Sister— Lava Room Thursday, November 6, 2014 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. AGENDA 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. • Wellness & Education Board of Central Oregon (WEBCO) o Presentation: WEBCO's Role in Central Oregon(the Who, What, How and Why) o Budget Review 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. Lunch Provided (Soup and Salad Bar) 12:30 to 4:00 p.m. Other Tri-County Issues • 2015 State Legislative Priorities • Local Workforce Board (Alan Unger) • Regional Transit(COIC) • Public Safety/Law Enforcement o General Updates o Marijuana(the vote will be completed) • Public Health o Mutual Aid/Emergency Preparedness o Communicable Disease Control • Transportation & Roads o Transportation Funding Bill o Regional Gas Tax o Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation • Juvenile Crime Prevention o Administration Change—Oregon Youth Development Council to Oregon Youth Authority o JCP Grant program • Land Use o Endangered Species(or...Fish, Frogs& Fowl) o Rural Renewable Energy Development Zones • Assessment& Taxation o Trends in Valuation • ODF Reclassification Process o Crook Lessons learned • Deschutes Process beginning/Jefferson Next • Other Issues oo - CCU x'5 CC JEFFERSON COUNTY . G ` q a °1'°fin lei C.0 .s�,o.,4 ,,� W r t, -1 ', ♦ _ _ Tri-County Commissioners Meeting Deschutes County Fair & Expo Center South Sister- Lava Room Thursday, November 6, 2014 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. SIGN-IN SHEET Name (please print) Organization/Address Signature _ LO-tack,,S Cnso LL Co /1/14-Ats hw _ 1' Nlik r d a, ClatueC IA)NCO // 'Awiralla Se r, -k77� �' C ,c- e.-4t-r4-7 k- -r r1-.--' ,)) 1,)a. 1 a \i'(s\k _ k.r L .) , et-1- , .-\-)-c /(i_Chaiti ii(, ,,.,_, , ■ii Li r AS . , r. n !Ji , _enr .11,921LSIIIMM=1,„ k, ,_. ,IIPEIMIMIIIIPMr111,..., i 1, 1, EllbA- 1.. , , , C / 4/461/1 Oetve 6) , vt=1*, .z--(0-11, I-� t-f-; trod Jeff-� ; c , c i,/ ' i _ ,I P ce- /.�.).. < ,,, - _ -+ f! 'i j . , _ ... (-6d)7614,47 /.-#17 ,-- -he7 iv B1 a Q_ -z4 s 'le ms advet, Jerk/c41( ,`-) . f ; arx4-4/1 Cam. I -- rdr)fili i ‘ . r i f `V ;f!): 76./ 4 co I Lt, � � 4 '.�" ' _ ` .. , L(/\_?____, ticeS Q JEFFERSON COUNTY c101"°6;c, Ct Oil Ir % ,,4k7 ... .•')■ Si A ArOki:A , ,,,,,, ,,, '13$1-FTISO Tri-County Commissioners Meeting Deschutes County Fair & Expo Center South Sister— Lava Room Thursday, November 6, 2014 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. SIGN-IN SHEET Name (please print) Organization/Address Signature , i 1 ( -4- / 4 i ''\ 1/1- '1_,■' _fiA -Vve')•e it5t-4-AA .1 ('''SC L tA4 e 5 Cc, 1/1/4 v, 6 6.7-7 v-e,-,v ,..- ,..- ,_,....:■ —1:.)C17 1)125( 74e) 6 ( k_..,(at,',e - ,...--- -4.1-----"- . / :k--c--/-/'""/"—S e 6 (7:27 ,t`(--:-- -----y/ ivc.(ckLL-2 2 .. 4..1.32-LCi c-- - -.X:\ . " "411 1 41.it-xviz_sro 6-s.,\ CO .-ii3Ck) 1_1-4,1,4::: ili-1,\ ()t'icif■ (4u h•• Ciao c( co .....,:_ _ n p IA A_ ri-Ni e_ V66.e jiTti-ex ,A,-. 0 6, 0 I CO 0 CO C Q 0 b.13 A,pS elmo A--0-0i 1*,U a C,J o c, N co I. 'Aire UJ NES S o0 a CD„ 1 i * •: .•'•:•••:'•••••••:•••••.•7•:::'•.'•:',;•1;••••:•;.•..:'...1;.•'..:;.!;.:Mg4$'..•..'i•..•' . ..-.....„.:'.:5::'...!ZiArf„.: , * .•05:...;.:,1.10;„. : .5 * . ' OD =MI . ....X..,. Mill. .•i = , ......i cii) . i . . . •NIC . .... , esiook • ..,./4.•;:/.//044 : . :. i as) .... ..../ Q 0 ./....../...://.....,Agatiks.. 111+ ....... . ;12 • • • • • 0 C c O CD O -- • ■• IL ' ! 0 0 VI mg M aril 0 41 3 0 a c3 = 0 CO c u7 0 O CO co 00 � = o O 4- 0 U 2 c.0 _ s CD ca CU +-� c� .�? cn m .o _, _ -t 0 a) a) > O � _c 030 ? CU - -2.— LCD CD © cicio c� c7ci z O . . CL it, I o '.rte ? s = (1) 4-, 2 CL LA 73 o cu c = o I O •N y Z U • co W C N 0 .E ro 'Lc 0 L .� G _ • r () • • J a CL- C L • . bLI _ L V C p ,C b.0 E v 0 CO • 4 •L CO O VI a • • Cr 11) Orrin (IDF) a) 0 cu O n = m- _ w (1) 3 -C rD _. O O (7 = rD (Di— N)- =`11 ami 5 5 (IT -6D * 3 w 0 co a f-F > 0- FP. C7 ■%.5 !711 0 CU *<e%1 -0 a) -I fp ..,. ‘.,... rt i —Polgi Lid ''S V) 1.% :Fr . , tip 0 cm 0- c_ s_t N O co = 713 , r I,p+ F o_ CD rD O -1 CD 0_rD �+ r-w r-r Q o -- —. ' = * 0 B-P g 0 121 3 3 t- = -I m -% a) --. 3 — 3 ■..• 3 CO arty = rD c� * 3 rD I _ 0 O _ rD * (' cu .-• ail' ET . cu in =-. ot, = -1 5 m- — owl. 0 O �- * rD `"• mrn Q n corn CD O r-r g 0 -1 rD > 076 n 9° ..,.., a ..< -, = 0 O r -• O in -, O' = 3 Q i-l- = V) W Vi U � V .i fII 0 •; r 2 _ V) 41 -0 cu t .� TO - Q ma CU V C 2 U 0 ( O cn v)� icel >- U D N -a i C d C V) CO W C (/) V) C O U • • • Q •∎ elmo 3 LL L s 1 g I '5© ±, ro w _17. , IR. \ \ _c i co .� a = i Noss, W (.1) •• . .....1 VI JI:6•4•11 .• : lisle I •.. •..,...:,:•:::,...,4.40,!....• •:....„.•:„Jvgo.„.„,,.• • C • .•'' CD ,,::,...,„:,:„,:., nts,',:,. ..... , :: .„..:4,.0:05 : al) H 3 0 .., • ..... . .. i ...„.„....,. ••,..:V74144. > •• ' • •,,11,',,C4h.l • et.".,..13fitt. • •. .., eM11. •• 1 mar • • •••,,i4- • I .....I amp.,.........„..„...„ mig I •, .; .3 ti)m. .• .,,:,-:.,.H...,, 2i........v........ )...................::...T........„:.,.....:.,•...;.....,„,„.......t„...,,,.......,.............,.,,. .p;,,.,...,...„„.. „....,...,. ,....:, .. g M •• . .• .•!,, —h =. II 0 •,:.. C0 .--.D r 0 , 3 _, ,w . D u . ., : 1 ..........,,„,.., ..., . t mine •.. i 3 • ; ,, < • :.i . ........„ . .„.....„,.......„....,. ........„.....,„... . CD . ............,, ... .:.•.......,..„, m .: ::...1 .. a) CD .:%,,, • ..•••v....., M • 1 eil . ........ c .. i •• „.....„.•„• .......:...„..........:„..„,.,...,............,....,......,.....,.. =,,.-..„,„,„,,,„„.•,..,,,. • ••..•..„.„„, . .......v,„ • .. ........ . . „.............,.... CD , 'V .i ,;:" ...... .,...,.. ..,..„...-„,....„. in) ',,..."1., . „ 113 • / ••• .,::.:::1M,•• : ..•:,,A,, • -- . .. . 2:11 :. 0 • .. ..,:' . .„,..,.,.,,.. . .,..-.....,....,.. ..,. ......,,,, • .... ...„:::„.-.,..„..„,„ • . .. .„...„...,......„....,,, .. . .........,.,....:„ , .........,„.„.... , / M • ::..:..•••••,,,:54.:::ffl. , , II, :. ..:•:.'',. . . „..,....„.„.„,..„.„,„ , , IC .•' ;' •, .4. :I • • •, ,..::.-......„,,,,• • . . ....,..„,„:„ : •• , ••1 • :.•i ■0 : 1 ) . I CD . . , , ...:....t„.. . 1 , .....,..:.....:..,,, : ! ......„..... . ............. :.. 1 . ... , . :,...., ... a a) i u cu 4) •. 120 E C cu 0. 4-. o CD HW E 4... v, › O dI (1) ,, — 'I- co VI , *ilt. Ai) E s— 4-• >, CU as 7,„ Cl. 10.3 c < ti 1,, e c E , cu o a) N. . sumo 0 o t.. -C o >iii V) al ° 0 U P o ca .t, t ),,,,„i,./1, .4 IV'4'114 ',r'r , ‘"1 .. 6.: I. !!' ' ''',4. ;I#4. '.1 04 ■ R- / 1 * Fri 0 I a • m9° IM ;:::,..i:,,:cil. I 0 a R op ii4.,-: ° Fri Fp i 0 rP N ei OD o co ril ;• .• ?gam fro p al o Cb ''rr'■;-11'4:i -;.41 ':'''' r• 0 OD go 0 r l " C a . .. co 5 - = coil o 1 C haw s w - i 11 ,�� a ei Al _. CO F 0 lil p 0 air tl C7 i ihr ,,,:::::1!.;,,,,.::,,,,ii; ,, ,r,', n =• .n no 0 • 767 3 El i a m ,r C7 al c got A O N 7r If C e e *t FPI11i v d at m o A R -5 -g lie 1 rit --A, E5704 sj 1 1 ,• -112 s 11 .6. titP .sif ..§ ;-- gti- jig. u t 4 `4 lir, ' ilgikV: ii I "5 E a sli LII :gb I I E 1 .1 g A - -5 gb- -E .E ifLp IL : . g 1 - tuelli l m.. .g- lif .,. . ] : , 4 . .._ 4 _,.. 1 : .§ 4 IS I .rgl g ;In 115 -g0, 1 1111Iii - z go- E. is..z, X .% 1 E zg ," i L1112 .b1 lz 1 AR ! hit 1- 4‘5E -! ii. ul 12 t ill ! ! ' �. At 1 15 :1 .g A till In & --.24 -1 5 A t 61E- 1 911Zilts Ft ti; le u -Ali i Zi1 -E A t 4 El - z, s. .@ El A 15 , g- sm .s .12 * lit linal ] i 1 i 1 liE• a A i i 4 :w I i :Uui ; 13- 1 2 =-s Al v iIIcmpicw i. _ 1 _ 1 -_ 11 Sil i 111101 , , Vag) Up till il Ilia g " , ' OC) 41111 X 0 %II° ',,'.- 4 0 o i k< 0 o I MO i. • • • • g m �et1 • � S 0 C• p f o 3fD —• to p S1 e*. w= n 3 73 IP ID � O �� � `c ( 3 3 vi 3 - CD C "—'. a4 07 h r+ o ■ CU f,° O. 3 6%1 rmaiL �• c ono = r, ■■=•= = -I n 3 3 c -t CU r* r (1) C- M M CU tn C (.'n .c 0 O 0• M mi a d0 .0 in 0 et VI VI f, ORMi .- V C = `� O =MB C sla (D 0. 0 . C 134 a 1' >I LO a � E M "t3 W m CD C I -I C !2A a CD i E E c . a a 4.• > , 2 a - ,in cp. . >1141 ,.. .F - . , ,, 4-# 'W.,' E . == f ° ,' a " ,x " '.. C CI -- }' C .,r C C � zn a 0 E bAO�)pti I a AAA/ CC ea i r k 5 y ,y X..„ W ,j' -n ■w -■ (- <F) xi a) 1 -n m • T O rD 14 1 • -� C N G7 el-1 = -0 c .. : _. I-1- I D Cu 3 R su _...• f_ r+ O e CD ,. . o „ 0 ' �0 0 M+ 1 ' nD v) A tu z3 .< (1) rD 0 = ... 3 L CD C 3 A` — - —• CD C 1 i cn cv n,.• . CD • bp i E C o 1 O T 0- CIL N C CD IX , C \\ 0 a > CD N(113 #= i ' M T C •— ! 0 0 O wpm •C C C• Q 0 U S S elmi y. •- C •- OS E ,-,, u, tio Q c `E mCS to cew W r a5,a)L I "I< ... I. ,, ,, ,,, ,, m•ri ,,, -„, ., ,,,,. „..,,,, fie C ID M 6 Mit o a) o 3 A VVI = C OQ = Z C of E 0' a nom m o O ° a� a h c r)3 ova. m 13 1 = a r/71 9 VI e■F ta CD '4C = o m CI all p n M 2: 3 5 moo, o I". 1013 R. r) , , , \ } , ..., , ., 0 C C 0 Ob •- a ripe ca a 4J -0 M 0 W o o I Z in L. CZ c a) _ .� tz 1 in U c 0 V� o v °,�' °� ' i CU Irsi ..1,0 -0 °-'>( 14J 1.� � = 0• ce C — 73 a) s_ › 4 > E W 6 c coy o co m c a) Q ,C till CO a) o V No s s d '0� 1��0 b b1/✓�i % p` E y0 O 4 W L W �/ g ty A e F cq .NESS � ca Wellness Education Board of Central Oregon Administration Actual vs Budget Cash Basis As of October 2014 Jul 14-Oct 14 Budget $Over Budget Revenues Intergovernmental Subcapitation $ 4,307,351 $ 19,565,217 $ (15,257,866) Intergovernmental Subcapitation-Incentive 100,000 100,000 YATH Grant Revenue 9,450 9,450 Maternal Child Health 45,053 45,053 Early Learning - 8,389 (8,389) Interest Earned 1,829 1,829 Total Revenues $ 4,463,682 $ 19,573,606 $ (15,109,924) Expenditures Personnel Services Director $ - $ - $ - WEBCO Staff 63,835 367,034 (303,199) Benefits 15,499 128,462 (112,963) Data Analyst Reimbursement (6,730) (35,000) 28,270 Total Personnel Services $ 72,604 $ 460,496 $ (387,892) Materials&Services Postage $ 6 $ 500 $ (494) Community Education - 30,000 (30,000) Office Supplies 868 6,000 (5,132) Office Furniture 1,200 6,000 (4,800) Moving Expenses 5,745 10,000 (4,255) Publishing/Advertising 2,605 10,000 (7,395) Board Expense 177 3,000 (2,823) Sub-Capitation to Counties 2,971,424 18,577,217 (15,605,793) Incentive Pmts to Counties 100,000 - 100,000 YATH Grant Expense - Maternal Child Health Expense 45,053 IT Maintenance 300 14,000 (13,700) Repairs&Maintenance - 2,000 (2,000) Licenses&Fees - 4,000 (4,000) Contract-Outside Services 2,522 30,000 (27,478) Contract-Janitorial 136 2,400 (2,264) Contract-ED Consultant 16,094 78,500 (62,406) Legal(County Counsel) - 12,500 (12,500) Website - 3,600 (3,600) Call Center 25,158 88,000 (62,842) Electricity 1,174 4,000 (2,826) Telephone 1,515 6,500 (4,985) Lodging,Meals,Travel 2,095 8,000 (5,905) Membership&Dues - 10,000 (10,000) Liability Insurance 2,295 4,000 (1,705) Lease/Rents 10,095 38,000 (27,905) County Fiscal/HR Services - 15,000 (15,000) Audit Services - 9,200 Computers&Equipment - 7,500 (7,500) Conferences&CPE - 15,000 (15,000) Total Materials&Services $ 3,188,461 $ 18,994,917 $ (15,806,456) Total Expenditures $ 3,261,065 $ 19,455,413 $ (16,194,348) DESCHUTES COUNTY AND TRI-COUNTY EBOLA VIRUS DISEASE PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES EXERCISES We have participated in two tabletop exercises using Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) scenarios. One was led by Deschutes County on October 21 and included representatives from the three health departments, as well as: • St. Charles Health System • Healthcare providers • Emergency medical services • Law enforcement • Education, including Central Oregon Community College • State emergency preparedness staff This exercise allowed for a better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the various community partners in the event we have a suspect EVD case in our area. We participated in a second tabletop led by St. Charles Health System on October 31. The goal of this tabletop was to examine the flow of systems in the event a patient with possible EVD exposure would present at one of the regional hospitals. INCIDENT COMMAND We started working within a limited incident command structure starting October 16 and expanded that this week. This includes daily 8 am meetings. We have been planning our response according to our all hazards response plan, but are currently compiling an EVD-specific response plan. This plan leads public health staff through various phases of a possible EVD response and assures all EVD-related protocols and procedures are in one document. COMMUNICATIONS, COORDINATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE We have tested our 24/7 communication systems to ensure at any time a public health professional can be reached by partner agencies. As a result of the October 21 tabletop, we have organized a Joint Information System and met with partners at the Joint Information Center on October 31. • We have issued two jointly branded press releases—with the three county health departments and St. Charles. • The last one took just over an hour from drafting and routing for approvals to disseminating it to the media. We have answered questions, provided information and coordinated through phone calls, in- person meetings and email with a variety of partners and provided assistance to various agencies including 911, St. Charles, DES, EMS, schools, COCC and more. We worked with 911 to initiate caller queries regarding possible EVD exposures by dispatchers. We have exchanged and reviewed protocols from partner agencies in order to assure we are all synchronized. Tomorrow (November 7), we will provide continuing education for our medical reserve corps on a number of communicable disease topics including EVD—presenters include: • Dr. Richard Leman, Chief Medical Officer for the Health Security, Preparedness, and Response Program of the Oregon Health Authority • Dr. Rebecca Sherer, Medical Director of Occupational Health and Infection Prevention and Control at St. Charles Health System. • Dr. Alan Jamison, retired pediatrician who has participated in numerous disaster relief and humanitarian missions around the globe. Most recently, Dr. Jamison returned from West Africa where he provided clinical care for patients with EVD. PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION We participate in weekly, sometimes more often, calls among state and local officials that include updates on various aspects of EVD preparedness and response: clinical information, patient assessment and monitoring, disease investigation, patient transport and care, provider safety and more. Daily, we review updated guidance from CDC and OHA. In addition, we have reached out to other local and state jurisdictions to learn about plans and tools that are being used elsewhere and from which we can benefit. JcESC C t O ti p K { Road Department ► "'"'� 61150 SE 27th St. •Bend, Oregon 97702 (541)388-6581 •FAX(541)388-2719 MEMORANDUM Date: October 31, 2014 To: BOCC Through: Tom Anderson, County Administrator From: Chris Doty, Road Department Director RE: Tri-County Meeting, November 6, 2014—Transportation Discussion Items The purpose of this memo is to outline the transportation related topics to be discussed by the Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson County commissions at the November 6th Tri-County meeting. Topic 1: Transportation Funding Package and DACES proposal The Oregon Transportation Forum (OTF, a non-profit group of transportation industry stakeholders) is currently working to develop a transportation funding package for consideration in the upcoming 2015 legislative session. The OTF has developed a long list of investment needs and options — over 15 categories ranging from general maintenance to elderly/disabled transit to Amtrak. From the long list of options, it is anticipated that the OTF will choose a small package of options to move forward in bill. The bill will identify corresponding revenue sources to fund the various components of the package — most likely adjustments to existing traditional sources (fuel tax, DMV fees, weight-mile tax, etc.). Several likely items within the bill include: • Maintenance and Preservation or "Fix-It" ($300M): To be distributed via 50-30-20 split to State, counties, and cities (5-cent fuel tax and other fee increases). • Modernization or "Enhance" ($130M): To be distributed via STP formula for projects of regional and local significance. • Indexing Fuel Tax to Inflation: Performs annual adjustment to fuel tax based on CPI or similar metric. • Connect Oregon: A continuance of this popular program funded via lottery funds. Discussion Items: 1. The importance of general maintenance funding to county road programs (Fix-It). 2. The necessity of capital project funding and the potential for the "Enhance" portion to exclude county road programs. 3. The need to index the fuel tax to inflation to sustain the buying power of the primary source of county road program revenue. 4. Connect VI: Regional significant investment in non-highway modes. OACES Re-Allocation Proposal The current methodology for allocation of state highway fund (SHF) revenue to county government is based on the percentage of registered vehicles contained within the county. This methodology has generally favored counties with urban areas (more registered vehicles); it does not consider the amount of road mileage within a county's system. As funding mechanisms which have generally benefitted rural counties, such as Secure Rural Schools, 0 and C Lands, etc., have waned in the past decade, the state highway fund allocation methodology has become a more exclusive funding source for rural counties. On a per mile basis, rural counties receive significantly less funding from state highway fund resources than their urban county counterparts. The Oregon Association of County Engineers and Surveyors (OACES) has framed a proposal to amend the funding methodology for new revenue associated with the Fix-It component to consider a fixed minimum amount of funding (1/3rd new revenue) and road mileage (1/3rd new revenue proportionally distributed), in addition to number of registered vehicles (remaining 1/3rd of new revenue). The below table outlines the potential revenue reallocation per the OACES proposal within the tri-county area (5-cent fuel tax increase): ;,":4 a • r t r,'fi .0 S ..t A . ., k -m���A t..r J L H� . . •''i Y'"!rrufj'i' i "� le -;: td.:;a"y •,, .,rt- ar" +tj ycy."' o�"'J is 'r7,a A;- .e.1P`j7r ;,.y_.» ., ....... .. .. 5i';• re_ -.— , . r $287,000 $650,000 +$363,000 r s � ' $1,834,000 $1,380,000 (-$454,000) $235,000 $690,000 +455,000 The intent of the OACES proposal is to add a "county system" component to the SHF allocation in consideration of the role of rural county transportation systems in statewide commerce. Discussion Items: 1. The merits of OACES proposal. 2. Advocacy to AOC to adopt a position and pursue legislation. Topic 2: Regional Fuel Tax This is not a proposal; it is a discussion topic pertaining to the concept of a regional fuel tax in central Oregon. A long-standing argument against a local fuel tax in any community has been the potential for competitive disadvantage resulting from fuel taxes in one area versus no fuel tax in an adjacent area. That argument is mitigated when fuel tax efforts are coordinated regionally. Unlike other local funding options, a local fuel tax would provide funding via visitors and not just local residents and businesses. Only a small number of gas stations are located outside of incorporated city limits. If a local city passes a fuel tax, that city is entitled to 100% of the revenue. A county-wide fuel tax would result in shared revenues for a county and the individual cities (road districts) within that county. Approximately 42% of fuel tax collected by the State of Oregon (at 30-cents/gallon) is allocated to local government—with the remaining 58% to ODOT. A much smaller percentage of the federal fuel tax (at 18.4-cents/gallon) finds its way back to central Oregon. Less incidental collection fees, virtually 100% of a local fuel tax is invested locally. Discussion Items: 1. Is there any interest in exploring a regional effort to implement a local fuel tax in central Oregon? Topic 3: COACT— Regional Needs Discussion Within the Operating Guidelines of the Central Oregon Commission on Transportation (COACT) the Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson County commission representatives provide significant leadership and influence. Through various federal/state programs ("Enhance" portion of STIP, Connect Oregon, etc), ODOT and the Oregon Transportation Commission continue to rely on the ACTs to provide significant input to regional project selection. With fewer funding programs available and with the fact that prior specialty programs (bike/ped, safe routes to schools, transportation enhancement, etc.) have been consolidated into these few programs, the work of the ACTs to navigate the project selection process has become increasingly complex. To address and clarify this issue, COACT will soon begin a process to identify and prioritize needs within the region. Discussion Items: 1. How can central Oregon identify its regional transportation system priorities in a manner which considers and balances true regional need and equity within the agencies who are proposing projects? 4 101-, Tri County Commissioners Meeting Deschutes County Fair & Expo Center South Sister—Lava Room Thursday, November 6, 2014 Assessment and Taxation Valuation Trends Prepared by Jean McCloskey,Jefferson County Assessor Brian Huber, Crook County Assessor Scot Langton, Deschutes County Assessor Chg in Assessed Values since 2006 40% .................. 30% � Crook 25% }. I y.e .. Jefferson 20% w....... ....... Deschutes Zee-1590 .i. ----3% 10% rte• �r 0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Market&Taxable Value History Crook County Jefferson County Year M5 RMV Chg TAV Chg M5 RMV Chg TAV Chg 2014 2,088,229,458 115.6% 1,743,828,527 108.5% 1,948,291,568 103.5% 1,501,334,047 103.3% 2013 1,806,895,651 106.2% 1,607,654,654 105.3% 1,883,186,678 101.1% 1,453,141,355 101.7% 2012 1,701,510,450 96.7% 1,527,069,365 99.0% 1,863,258,788 95.7% 1,428,714,661 99.6% 2011 1,760,255,747 84.4% 1,541,855,903 94.1% 1,946,681,344 92.2% 1,434,147,205 99.8% 2010 2,085,498,641 78.4% 1,638,536,654 98.9% 2,111,621,906 84.7% 1,437,148,710 101.6% 2009 2,658,664,055 83.4% 1,657,103,487 103.4% 2,493,309,841 83.8% 1,413,905,824 105.3% 2008 3,188,439,315 80.7% 1,602,643,711 107.2% 2,975,534,748 105.2% 1,343,373,118 106.7% 2007 3,949,315,642 148.6% 1,494,834,473 109.0% 2,828,956,506 120.1% 1,258,956,914 104.0% Deschutes County Year M5 RMV Chg TAV Chg 2014 25,306,704,908 114.3% 19,685,814,487 105.6% 2013 22,132,313,573 105.6% 18,637,321,902 104.6% 2012 20,967,826,593 97.3% 17,820,526,479 101.1% 2011 21,550,551,814 91.7% 17,626,168,430 99.4% 2010 23,496,169,372 70.9% 17,740,724,079 100.7% 2009 33,146,906,560 88.0% 17,612,789,038 104.4% 2008 37,665,685,747 102.0% 16,874,559,236 106.6% 2007 36,916,443,882 130.1% 15,823,948,426 108.2% of properties w/Mkt value below M50 Maximum Assessed Value 70% .. 60% 50% —Crook 40% —Jefferson 30% —Deschutes 20% 10% s ... 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Real Market Value below Maximum Assessed Value %RMV=AV Year Crook Jefferson Deschutes 2014 30% 32% 20% 2013 55% 33% 35% 2012 58% 37% 43% 2011 52% 29% 37% 2010 33% 16% 26% 2009 8% 5% 7% 2008 8% 1% 7%