2019-26-Minutes for Meeting December 05,2018 Recorded 1/15/2019\)TES CO
24�42,1013*-
2 i BOARD OF
o Recorded in Deschutes County
COMMISSIONERS CJ2019-29
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Commissioners'Journal 01/15/2019 12:09:38 PM
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 3 88-65 70 G�UTes.CpG II�II�II�I"II�I'II�II'II �I�
{ 2019-26
1:30 PM WEDNESDAY, _,DA .', Deco mbe ;, 2018 ALLEN CONFERENCEROOM
Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Phil Henderson, and Anthony DeBone. Also present were
Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County
Counsel; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant. Several citizens and no identified representatives
of the media were in attendance.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
ACTION ITEMS
Eagle Air Estates Appeal: As a follow up from this morning's Business Meeting,
Peter Russell, Community Development Department presented a revised document
of decision of the Eagle Air Estates appeal of a declaratory ruling that a paved
taxiway violated the open space requirements of Eagle Air Estates. This portion of
the agenda was audio recorded. The Board signed the revised Document No. 2018-
687 based on the vote of approval of the revised decision at the December 5, 2018
Business Meeting.
1. PacificSource 2016-2017 Claims Reconciliation.
Dr. George Conway and Dave Inbody, Health Services presented the details
of the pending settlement document with PacificSource. In 2016 and 2017
BOCC WORK SESSION DECEMBER 5, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 7
Deschutes County Health Services was responsible for covering the cost of
behavioral health services provided to Oregon Health Plan members by
community panel providers. After review of claims, a final settlement of $3.2
million was determined. The total budget was approximately $12.5 million.
Dr. Conway reported on the status of the amendments with PacificSource
and working towards a new contract in 2019.
2. Veteran Behavioral Health Peer Support Specialist Pilot Program Grant
Application Request
Janice Garceau, Health Services presented this request for consideration. The
grant through Oregon Health Authority would provide funding for two years
to hire a veteran peer support specialist to provide outreach to high risk
veterans in the community. The deadline for the application is December 14.
The Board expressed support. Ms. Garceau will work closely with the
Deschutes County Veterans Services.
HENDERSON:
VOTE: BAN EY:
Move approval with amendments as necessary
Second
HENDERSON:
DEBONE:
Yes
Yes
Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
3. Public Safety Campus Master Plan Update
Lee Randall, Facilities Director and Dan Hopper, Project Manager presented a
very brief status of the pre -construction processes. County Administrator
Anderson noted there are three options. Commissioner DeBone asked for
examples of scenarios for the services that will be provided. Dr. George
Conway and Holly Harris, Health Services described the population served in
crisis situations. Commissioner Henderson spoke on obligations for health
services and the need to research further prior to this program. Dr. Conway
noted the public safety campus incorporates a number of departments not
BOCC WORK SESSION DECEMBER 5, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 7
only Health Services. Commissioner DeBone expressed his opinion that all
departments and leadership should be involved in the discussions.
County Administrator Anderson explained his understanding that the BOCC
previously directed staff to move forward with regard to the P&P Building
remodel and securing bids for the Programs Building remodel in order to
stand up a crisis center to operate during daylight hours. Mr. Anderson also
reported a consultant was used to identify needs for each department on the
public safety campus. The Board was asked for their further (clarified)
direction at this point. Commissioner DeBone expressed support of
proceeding with Parole and Probation facility and of the use of leased space.
Commissioner Baney spoke on funding and the importance of making a
decision. County Administrator Anderson reported a new option for leased
space will be researched. Dr. Conway seeks clear direction to move forward
so as not to lose momentum for the public safety campus and the
crisis/sobering facility. Commissioner Henderson spoke on the remodel of
the programs building and Mr. Randall reviewed the cost components of the
remodel of approximately 5,000 square feet as well as parking
improvements. The Board expressed support in Health Services looking for
lease options for the crisis center.
Ken Hales, Community Justice Director inquired on status of moving forward
with the design for parole and probation. Mr. Randall reported on the steps
for remodel approach and the items that would be involved in request for
proposals for architectural design. A second selection process would then be
requested for qualifications for a construction manager/general contractor.
Commissioner DeBone supports the parole and probation remodel
independently from the crisis stabilization center. Commissioner Henderson
leans toward the approach to start with design work for parole and
probation.
James Lewis, Property Manager will look for a lease space for a stabilization
center. Commissioner Henderson requested information from the Sheriff's
Office specific to a secured sobering facility.
BOCC WORK SESSION DECEMBER 5, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 7
4. Draft Ethics Reporting and Hotline Policy -this item was pulled from the
agenda.
OTHER ITEMS:
• Chris Doty, Public Works Director presented a letter to the Forest Service as a
request for support from the Finely Butte Quarry. Commissioner Henderson
made a few suggested revisions. Commissioner Baney supports those
revisions. Mr. Doty will make revisions to the letter and bring back to the
Board for signature.
BAN EY: Move approval as amended
HENDERSON: Second
VOTE: BAN EY: Yes
HENDERSON: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At the time of 3:45 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660
(2) (e) Property Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session at 4:20 p.m.
COMMISSIONER UPDATES
• The Board discussed the Project Wildfire Director and Cohesive Strategy
Coordinator and both are contract positions and not County employees. The
Project Wildfire position may need to be reviewed to fit current times and be
a County employee posting verses a contractor. Commissioner Henderson
didn't even realize Jodie Barram was hired for the Project Wildfire contract
even though he is a member of Project Wildfire. Question was raised who
served on the interview panel and how many candidates there were, both
were unknown. Another point reported is that Ed Keith, County Forester has
BOCC WORK SESSION DECEMBER 5, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 7
stated he doesn't want to be a Deschutes County representative on the
Cohesive Strategy Committee. Commissioner Henderson doesn't remember
ever talking about how many people will be representing Deschutes County
and will be meeting with Senior Advisor Joe Stutler tomorrow. The Board
would like to look at the structure of the Cohesive Strategy committee before
appointments are made. Commissioner Henderson is surprised there aren't
more than two people representing Deschutes County.
Commissioner DeBone will be participating on the COIC board meeting
tomorrow and also attended the Oregon Business Plan summit in Portland
on Monday.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At the time of 4:32 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under Litigation.
The Board came out of Executive Session at 4:51 p.m.
OTHER ITEMS:
Medical Marijuana Regulations:
Community Development Department staff Tanya Saltzman, Nick Lelack, and
Peter Gutowsky reported on next steps for medical marijuana asking if the
Board wants to continue discussing medical marijuana. An appeal was made
regarding the recreational text amendments. Discussion held on challenges
and appeals.
Mr. Gutowsky reported a marijuana application was submitted on Monday
that will need to demonstrate compliance with new regulations and Peter
wondered if there is an appeal should it go to a hearings officer.
Commissioner DeBone suggested it go to the hearings officer.
Commissioner Henderson requested extra time to consider.
BOCC WORK SESSION DECEMBER 5, 2018 PAGE 5 OF 7
• County Administrator Anderson reported on an earthquake in Alaska and
there has been a call for mutual aid assistance to the states of Washington
and Oregon to work with kids in schools. The state of Oregon is reaching out
to the counties. There two Health Services staff interested. Counsel Doyle
has reviewed a draft IGA with the Office of Emergency Management. The
request is for two weeks to provide counseling to middle school kids. There
is reimbursement but the timing is a bit unclear. The Board is ok with a two
week period of time.
• The draft agenda for the Sunriver Service District Annual Breakfast meeting
for Friday, December 14 was reviewed.
• Commissioner DeBone reported on some issues with the Forest View Special
Road District. Another board member just resigned this week. This is a three
person board that has two alternates.
• An invoice for financial support for Association of Oregon Counties has been
received and Commissioner DeBone feels we should pay the invoice.
Commissioner Henderson feels we should pay installments over five years.
Mr. Anderson noted this would be included on our annual dues invoice but
will include interest. Commissioner Baney suggests to just pay it in full.
DEBONE: Move approval for payment to AOC in the amount of $41,649.88
for special assessment
BAN EY: Second
Commissioner Baney suggested making adjustments to the dues in order to
off set this special payment. Commissioner Henderson feels a committee
should be formed to review the AOC checkbook.
BOCC WORK SESSION DECEMBER 5, 2018 PAGE 6 OF 7
VOTE: BAN EY:
HENDERSON:
DEBONE:
Yes
No
Chair vote yes. Motion Carried
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:26 p.m.
DATED this / 7 Day ofhA-U"J)0�-2018 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
TAMMY BANEY,C�tSSIONER
BOCC WORK SESSION DECEMBER 5, 2018 PAGE 7 OF 7
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 PM, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2018
Allen Conference Room - Deschutes Services Building, 2ND Floor - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend
Work Session, which are open to the public, allow. the Board to gather information and give direction to staff.
Public comment is not normally accepted. Written minutes are taken for the record
Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are anticipated to be considered or
discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics.
Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice.
CALL TO ORDER
ACTION ITEMS
1. PacificSource 2016-2017 Claims Reconciliation -Dave Inbody, Deputy Director
2. Veteran Behavioral Health Peer Support Specialist Pilot Program Grant Application
Request - janice Garceau, BH Deputy Director
3. Public Safety Campus Master Plan Update - Lee Randall, Facilities Director
4. Draft Ethics Reporting and Hotline Policy - Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator
COMMISSIONER'S UPDATES
WA*011-d **1_[eIu
Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations
Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Page 1
of 2
At any time during the meeting an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS
192.5660(2)(e); real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h) litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor
negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b); personnel issues; or other executive session categories. Executive sessions
are closed to the public; however ,with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the public.
OTHER ITEMS
These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners with to discuss as part of the
meeting pursuant to ORS 192.640.
ADJOURN
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and
activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/meetingcalendar
Meeting dates and times are subject to change. If you have question, please call (541) 388-6572.
Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Page 2
of 2
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
FILE NUMBERS:
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY
OWNER/APPLICANT:
247 -18 -000138 -DR, 247-18-000626-A
Eagle Air Estates Homeowners Association
15860 Pilot Drive
Sisters, OR 97759
APPLICANT'S J. Christian Malone
ATTORNEY: Schmid Malone Buchanan, LLC
550 NW Franklin Ave., Suite 378
Bend, OR 97703
APPELLANT: Michael Morgan
15925 Pilot Drive
Sisters, OR 97759
PROPOSAL: An appeal of a Declaratory Ruling that a paved taxiway violated the
open space requirements of Eagle Air Estates.
STAFF REVIEWER: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner
HEARINGS OFFICER
DECISION ISSUED: July 25, 2018
APPEAL FILED: August 6, 2018
HEARING DATE: September 5, 2018
RECORD CLOSED: September 26, 2018
1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
x(541)388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org Q�www.deschutes.org/cd
1. SUMMARY OF DECISION:
In this decision, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") considers the appellant's appeal of
the July 25, 2018, Hearings Officer Decision (file no. 247 -18 -000138 -DR; "Hearings Officer Decision").
The Board exercised its discretion to hear the appeal de novo.
The Board received two Memoranda on the appeal from Senior Planner Peter Russell, dated August
23 and October 3, 2018 ("Staff Memoranda #1 and #2") that identified and summarized the
appellant's objections, the applicant's materials, and the Hearings Officer's findings in regard to the
issues raised in the appellant's Notice of Appeal submittal. The Board also received a memorandum
dated September 11, 2018, that focused solely on the declaratory ruling process (Staff
Memorandum #3). The Board's Decision in this appeal will refer to and incorporate the Hearings
Officer's Decision, and the summary of issues in the three Staff Memoranda.
A public hearing was held before the Board on September 5, 2018, after which the Board closed the
oral record and the applicant agreed to the Open Record closing September 12, Mutual Rebuttal
closing September 19, and Final Argument closing September 26, 2018. The Board deliberated on
the matter on October 10, 2018. (The Board rarely re-examines Hearings Officer decisions made
nearly thirty years previously. As detailed below, the subdivision application included the paved
taxiway and anticipated access to Sisters Airport. The paved taxiway has been in existence and in
use for nearly three decades.) After reviewing the record, receiving testimony from the applicant,
the appellant, and the public, and deliberating on the matter, the Board, in a 2-1 vote (Commissioner
DeBone in opposition) found that the paved taxiway did not violate the open space requirements
and overturned the hearings officer's decision, determining the appellant had met its burden of
proof. The Board based its decision primarily on a differing interpretation of the terms "open space"
and "present use" than the hearings officer's ruling. The Board agreed with the hearings officer's
decision on the interpretation of "enhance recreational opportunities" but differed on how the term
is applied to a paved taxiway in open space.
Due to the unique aspects of this case, including that the Board is interpreting County code from
almost 30 years ago, the Board specifies its findings and interpretations are for matters in this
appeal only and are not intended to set precedent.
11. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The Board adopts and incorporates by reference the description of the applicable standards and
criteria as set forth in the July 25, 2018 Hearings Officer Decision (file no. 247 -18 -000138 -DR) in
Section I. The applicable criteria were:
• Planning Law 15 (PL -15)
o Section 1.030 (Definitions) (21) and (80)
o Section 8.050, Specific Use Standards (16)
• Title 22, Deschutes County Code (DCC) Procedures Ordinance
o Chapter 22.40, Declaratory Ruling
Board of County Commissioners Decision, Document No. 2018-687
File Nos. 247-18-000626-A, 247 -18 -000138 -DR Page 2 of 8
• Land Use Approval CU-89-68/TP-89-701 (Eagle Air Estates cluster subdivision)
III. BASIC FINDINGS:
The Board adopts and incorporates by reference the code interpretations, findings of fact, and
conclusions of law set forth in the July 25, 2018, Hearings Officer Decision in Section II. Basic
Findings, Subsections A (Location), B (Zoning), C (Lot of Record), D (Proposal), E (Land Use History),
F (Review Period) and II (General Findings) with the addition of the following:
Procedural History: On August 8, 1989, a County hearings officer approved CU-89-68/TP-89-701,
which created Eagle Air Estates ("EAE"). EAE is a 12 -lot cluster subdivision with hangars to the
immediate west of Sisters Eagle Airport. Pilot Drive, a private road, provides access from Camp Polk
Road to EAE. Pilot Drive ends in a cul-de-sac. A paved taxiway then extends from the cul-de-sac to
the north end of the runway at Sisters Eagle Airport. The 1989 approval required 65% of the EAE
land be open space with 35% developed. The open space has no in situs address but is a separate
tax lot described on the County Assessors Map as 14-10-33D, Tax Lot 99.
The paved taxiway has been in use since its construction circa 1991. While the paved taxiway was
not shown on the final plat, the paved taxiway was shown on the tentative plat and was discussed
in the 1989 hearings officer's decision. Specifically, under Findings of Fact #3, the 1989 Hearings
Officer summarized the paved taxiway portion of the application as:
"Access to the lots would be off of a private road leading from Camp Polk Road. The
private road, as proposed, would also connect to the northern end of the Sisters Airstrip.
The 12 lot development is designed to be an airpark subdivision, where lot owners could
taxi their personal planes out onto the private road and then to the airstrip."
Residents of EAE have consistently taxied to and from the abutting Sisters Airport for nearly three
decades. Nonetheless, the Board heard considerable testimony regarding the residents and the
Sisters Airport's complicated and, at times, vexatious relationship. The dispute between the
residents and the Sister's Airport lead to a private party filing a code enforcement complaint with
the County in May 2017, alleging the paved taxiway violated the open space requirement of EAE's
land use approval. The County's policy is to prefer resolving code enforcement complaints via
voluntary compliance, which in this instance involved applying for a land use ruling on the fact -
specific controversy of the paved taxiway. The EAE Homeowners Association ("EAE HOA") filed a
declaratory ruling application (file 247 -18 -000138 -DR) on February 8, 2018. The application stated
"A declaratory ruling that the paved taxiway does not violate 'open space' requirement." The
application was deemed complete on March 9, 2018. A public hearing was held on May 22, 2018,
before a County Hearings Officer. On July 25, 2018, the Hearings Officer issued his decision ruling
the paved taxiway violated the open space requirement. Michael Morgan, who provided written
testimony to the Hearings Officer, appealed the Hearings Officer's Decision on August 6, 2018.
Board of County Commissioners Decision, Document No. 2018-687
File Nos. 247-18-000626-A, 247 -18 -000138 -DR Page 3 of 8
The 150 -day period for issuance of a final local decision is December 7, 2018. The applicant
requested to extend the 150 -day decision period at several points throughout the process. The
combined extensions cannot exceed 215 days per ORS 215.427. The extensions totaled 124 days.
The Board decided to hear the appellant's appeal de novo in the Board's Order 2018-057 dated
August 15, 2018. A public hearing was held on September 5, 2018. The appellant, Michael Morgan,
represented himself. The opponent, Sisters Eagle Airport, was represented by Elizabeth Dickson of
Dickson Hatfield LLP. The Board heard testimony from the applicant, the appellant, and the public.
The record closed on September 26, 2018. The Board's review included the record below before
staff and the hearings officer as well as the record, testimony, and written submissions in the
proceedings on appeal before the Board.
The Board conducted deliberations at the regular Business Meeting on October 10, 2018. Staff
returned on October 24, 2018, with a draft final decision. The Board provided further input on
several issues that they found influential. The Board commented on the unusual nature of the case
before them, wherein the Board finds itself drawn into essentially a private dispute. The Board
noted the paved taxiway is a necessary ancillary use of an airpark subdivision, and that the previous
owners of the Sisters Airport never appealed the approval of the 1989 land use decision, which
included the paved taxiway. The Board further noted a trait of open space is to allow animals and
people to traverse an area without any physical obstructions, such as a shed, and a paved runway
allows movement both along its surface and crossing its surface. Finally, the Board observed they
are being asked in 2018 to interpret how the terms and definitions were used in 1989. Staff then
returned with a modified decision incorporating the Board's perspective on November 28, 2018.
The Board continued to deliberate and continued the decision until December 5, 2018.
IV. FINDINGS:
The Board adopts and incorporates by reference the record, code interpretations, findings of fact,
and conclusions contained in the July 25, 2018, Hearings Officer Decision (file no. 247 -18 -000138 -
DR) in Section II Substantive Findings, except for the additional findings related to the DCC Sections
identified below, which are amended as follows:
A. FINDING: (E)(4) CU-89-68/TP-89-701 Approval Document (First Step)
The Board disagrees with the Hearings Officer finding that:
'The inquiry, in this section of findings, is whether or not laying asphalt pavement upon
the ground, to create a paved taxiway, is development. The Hearings Officer finds laying
asphalt pavement on the ground (or any other material used to create a hard surface to
allow vehicles/aircraft to travel over) is analogous to laying pavement for a public or
private road. The Hearings Officer finds the paved taxiway is development."
"The Hearings Officer finds laying pavement for a taxiway is a human activity and
development that must be located in the 359,66 (non -open space area)."
Board of County Commissioners Decision, Document No. 2018-687
File Nos. 247-18-000626-A, 247 -18 -000138 -DR Page 4 of 8
"The Hearings Officer finds that allowing the paved taxiway within the EAE Cluster
Development common area/open space would be a modification of the CU-89-68/TP-89-
701 Approval clearly prohibits development within the common area/open space."
The Board finds a paved taxiway in this particular circumstance was not development, but rather
was instead a contemplated improvement that sees intermittent use. The Board finds the paved
taxiway is analogous to a paved golf cart path, and that the paved taxiway does not present a barrier
to either looking across open space or physically crossing it. Contrary to the Hearings Officer's
finding, the Board finds the record for CU-89-68/TP-89-701 clearly indicated the paved taxiway was
part of the application for EAE and an anticipated use of the land. The paved taxiway appeared on
the tentative plat and was described in the then Hearings Officer's 1989 approval of EAE under
Findings of Fact #3. The 1989 decision stated in relevant part "The 12 lot development is designed
to be an airpark subdivision, where lot owners could taxi their personal planes out onto the private
road and then to the airstrip."
The Hearings Officer in 1989 considered the paved taxiway was an allowed improvement in the
open space as indicated by the project approval, an approval that was not appealed. The paved
taxiway's presence and general location were described in the burden of proof, the staff report, and
the Hearings Officer's decision. Clearly, the airpark subdivision intended to provide a paved taxiway
to allow access to and from the Sisters Airport. A paved taxiway is an obvious necessary and
subordinate use of an aviation -based residential subdivision. The paved taxiway has been in
continuous use for nearly 30 years, and the Board now finds no reason to disturb or alter the
Hearing Officer's 1989 decision in CU-89-68/TP-89-701.
Additionally, the EAE attorney in file 247 -18 -000138 -DR, which is part of the record of file 247-18-
000626-A now before the Board, argued that because the paved taxiway was originally part of a
private road (Pilot Drive), the paved taxiway logically was part of the 35 percent of the land
considered developed and not the 65 percent considered open space. The EAE attorney further
argued opponents had not presented any survey evidence into the record that would prove
otherwise. Thus the County has discretion to decide whether the paved taxiway is in the 35 percent
planned for development, and thus a use allowed outright, or the 65 percent defined as open space.
B. FINDING: PL -15 Section 1.030(80)
The Board concurs with the Hearings Officers finding that flying is a recreational activity. The Board
further finds such an activity is explicitly allowed in open space. In definitions, PL -15 Section
1.030(80) states:
"O.pen Space. Lands used for agricultural or forest uses, and any land area that would, if
preserved and continued in its present use conserve and enhance natural or scenic
resources; protect air, streams or water supply, promote conservation of soils, wetlands,
beaches or marshes, conserved landscaped areas such as public or private golf courses,
that reduce pollution and enhance the value of abutting or neighboring property, enhance
Board of County Commissioners Decision, Document No. 2018-687
File Nos. 247-18-000626-A, 247 -18 -000138 -DR Page 5 of 8
the value to the public of abutting or neighboring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature
reservations or other open spaces, enhance recreation opportunities, preserve historic,
geological and archeological sites, promote orderly urban development, and minimize
conflicts between farm and non farm uses." (Emphasis added)
Thus, even if the paved taxiway were considered development, the paved taxiway in this case is an
allowed activity in the open space. Under the applicable County code, the enhancement of
recreational opportunities is allowed in open space. The Hearings Officer and the Board both agree
that flying private planes is a recreational activity. A paved taxiway is essential to this activity and
thus is allowed in open space. The paved taxiway is analogous to a golf cart path, which is also
allowed in open space. Both are horizontal features which do not disturb the visual aspects of open
space nor act as a barrier to physical movement across the open space and are crucial to
recreational activities. A paved taxiway is an ancillary and subordinate use to the EAE cluster
subdivision which was proposed as an airpark. The Board finds the specificity of the findings for
CU-89-68/TP-89-701 limits the precedential value of this decision.
C. FINDING: (E)(5) PL -15 Section 1.030, (21) and PL -15 Section 1.030(80) and PL -15 Section
8.050 (16) Modified by Board Ordinance 84-105
The Board disagrees with the Hearings Officer finding that:
"The Hearings Officer finds PL -15 Section 8.050(16)(B)(2) does not allow a paved taxiway
on land designated open space in a Cluster Development."
"The Hearings Officer finds paving a taxiway is development as that term is used (in} PL -15
Section 8.050(16)(b)(7)."
"The Hearings Officer finds PL -15 Section 8.050(16)(8)(1)(2) and (7) would not allow a paved
taxiway within open space land at the EAE Cluster Development."
As these issues are essentially identical to those cited in Section A, the Board incorporates its
findings in Section A into Section B by reference.
D. 6. PL -15 Section 1.030(80)
The Board disagrees with the Hearings Officer's finding that
':..the term 'present' as used in PL -15 Section 1.030(80), refers to the use of the property at
the time of the application by EAE for its Cluster Development approval."
"The Hearings Officer finds a paved taxiway would not meet the applicable 1989 definition
of open space because a paved taxiway would not be the preservation and continuation
of the 1989 use of the common area/open space land."
Board of County Commissioners Decision, Document No. 2018-687
File Nos. 247-18-000626-A, 247 -18 -000138 -DR Page 6 of 8
The Board did not reach consensus on what "present" meant. Present could mean:
1) the use at the time of the code enforcement complaint about the paved taxiway; or
2) the paved taxiway was anticipated as the "present" use based on the application
materials for CU-89-68/TP-89-701 that referenced a physical connection to Sisters
Eagle Airport; or
3) the use of the land at the time of the 1989 land use application.
Ultimately, the question of what the term "present" meant is moot as the Board agreed flying is a
recreational activity and that a paved taxiway enhances the recreational opportunity of flying.
Enhancing a recreational opportunity is an allowed use in open space.
During the appeal process, the appellant raised the issue of equitable estoppel given the paved
taxiway has been in continuous use for nearly 30 years. The EAE developer spent considerable time
and money in constructing the paved taxiway, a paved taxiway which was specifically mentioned in
the approval of EAE. Homeowners in EAE have testified the presence of the paved taxiway was a
key factor in their decision to purchase their homes. EAE residents historically and currently
continue to use the paved taxiway to take their aircraft to and from the Sisters Airport. The attorney
for the Sisters Airport disagreed that equitable estoppel was even applicable. The Board finds the
issue of equitable estoppel is not germane to the declaratory ruling question before the Board.
Again, the Board finds itself in the unusual position of making a declaratory ruling on a land use
from 1989 to possibly resolve a dispute between neighboring properties. From the Board's
perspective, the opposing parties would likely benefit from a less litigious approach to resolving
their dispute.
V. DECISION:
Based on the findings set out above, the Board, in a 2-1 vote (Commissioner DeBone in opposition)
hereby declares the paved taxiway in this case does not violate the open space requirement of EAE
and overturns on appeal the duly 25, 2018, Hearings Officer Decision, which found the paved
taxiway did violate the open space requirement.
Dated this day of December, 2018 Mailed this day of December, 2018
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY
Anthony DeBone, Chair
Board of County Commissioners Decision, Document No. 2018-687
File Nos. 247-18-000626-A, 247 -18 -000138 -DR Page 7 of 8
Philip G. Henderson, Vice Chair
Tammy Baney, Commissioner
THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL WHEN MAILED. PARTIES MAY APPEAL THIS DECISION TO THE
LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS WITHIN 21 DAYS OF THE DATE ON WHICH THIS DECISION IS
FINAL.
Board of County Commissioners Decision, Document No. 2018-687
File Nos. 247-18-000626-A, 247 -18 -000138 -DR Page 8 of 8
-ES (,0G
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners Work Session of December 5, 2018
DATE: November 27, 2018
FROM: Dave Inbody, Health Services,
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
PacificSource 2016-2017 Claims Reconciliation
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff recommend approval of the settlement and payment to PacificSource.
ATTENDANCE: Health Services staff: David Inbody, Deputy Director, Administrative
Services Division; Janice Garceau, Deputy Director, Behavioral Health Division; George A.
Conway, Director
SUMMARY: In 2016 and 2017, Deschutes County Health Services was responsible for
covering the cost of behavioral health services provided to Oregon Health Plan members
by community providers. Although funds are withheld by PacificSource to cover these
costs, a significant surge in such services resulted in an additional $5.6 million in claims to
be paid. After a review of the claims by Health Services staff and negotiation with
PacificSource, a final settlement of $3.2 million was determined. We are presenting this
for review by the Commissioners before submitting this payment.
Deschutes County Mental Health CMHP ,
2016 & 2017 Performance Withhold and Out of Area Holdback Final Settlement A1C' 'C ur
Report created: 11/14/2018 Community Solutions
2016 2017 Total
Total Performance Withhold: $770,126 $718,528
Withhold Earned: 100% 100%
Withhold Earned Amount: $770,126 $718,528 $1,488,654
Out of Area Holdback: $3,258,510 $3,548,353 $6,806,863
Paid FFS Claims on Behalf of Deschutes County Mental Health CMHP: ($4,915,450) ($7,640,321) ($12,555,770)
Paid FFS claims removed as a one-time deduction to enable reconciliation completion (Oct -2018): $1,027,933
Difference from Holdback: ($1,656,940) ($4,091,968) ($4,720,974)
Payment required from Deschutes County Mental Health CMHP to Pacific5ource: $3,232,321
ci m
N Ln
m m
0 00
N � �
r\ M
i/3 ih
O O
Ln r -I
,,* L
to Ln oo
Ol N
N F m
to
r\
w
:O
Ln M
r`
00
Ot
�o N
LA1
w
,OD
00 p
J
m
O
d'
00 t0 J
Q
M
00
(1
d N Q
O
e
v>
vs
tri- v;
c
_G
m
'u
0
u
Na)
li
0
L
m
E
E
C
O
E
a
CN
C
u
a)
U
i
a,
N
i
O
v u
Li
a =
m m
O O
O
v
0
H
E
.m
u
A
0
L
to
E
E
rq
N
M
N
M
N
M
-tn
v
.y
a
0
a
0
2
°
c
a v
mu
t
n
o
a n
E
o
c
o
m
v
o
m a
`a
�' 2'
o
v = >
= N
v
$
v
�
o
_
O
o
O O
O
N
o
0
0
o
o
o
S "S
M
Ll Y�
+ `
u
-
`—'
u
`-'
u
-Ov
..
'�
..
N
0.
3
.°
Y
a .�-.�
Y
,C
a -
ate-+ ;
:E
= 2
N
Y
N
o M v O
a
a
a a
x x
v v
x
v
u
= u
u
°� v=
u
u
=
�'
u
w m
F c
v u
u
v
a
u a
n.
u a
0.
u
m
0.
u
o o
w
o
Y
s
v
o
°
^Q
o
46 o
m¢Q
v r
�v
a
x
x
M
x
vv
o E a
u
u
u u
v u
r x
v
u
u u
u O
u
O
u
u m
u u
u O
u
u
a
a yr
u
O
u u
a a
o v o m>
m w 2 o
I
I Oo
O
W to
V
H
O
l0
m
tll M
O O
l0
m
a0d'
m
I2
a
m
O
a0
'i
m
N
ap
m
m
O
i
i
.n
l0
v>•
VI N
.n +n
.n +n
M
+n
l0'
.n .n
v}
m
an .n
W
an
V
vt•
M
.n +n
.n
+n
N
.n
.n
.n an
0
N
VT
V! t/)•
m eo
m
�o of
N
V! VT
ry m In
o ui ri
V
VT VT 4/1 VT
In m
oo
I� N
V' v! V!
N
v
vi
ri
V? VT
VT
m
m.;
N
i/T
In
W
VT VT
L}
n
V}
m
N
t/!
V!
�n v v m o0
Om1 N V^1
.-I
VT N VT V} V? VT
V
O
00 Vl
m 0a
N
h V1
O
0a t0
I�
1p
M h
as
00
m
O
m
I�
i0
vi m
O c
Vl' a-1'
m ry
N m
t0 m
m
O
N
.n m
O M
r I+1'
v
M
V1'
v ry
c V
Vf m
m
O
a0
M
M
m
m M
1 t'�1
N
lD
M
M
V1 V1
Ot O
N
VF
VT
m
VT t/T
H
to VF
m
N
V}
t? VT
t/T
to VT
m
V}
V
V}
m
VT V'
N
VT
N
V}
V}
m
LQ
V? VT
W
w v
oLO, v
'•
v
o
o
N
w
O
C
O
m y
O
w
v
o
N w
o.
a
N
m
s o o t
o
v
N v a
_
o
v
o
a N
.-.
al
£
S V
Qj
al
= vl - v
v m C
v
a w
O
m>
O
om
y-
co w w
o
a
m
E m
c v
,L.
_
N
.� ❑
m
v v o a
O
v
�O
mv E
¢
°
O
v L
N
tTa
v
'D
ib
v
O
o.
N
o v
v o c
m °
ai v
o
N
v
0
oo
u
L 0 m v Y
c
c N
o m x
a
a = o
c L
v
v
Z
lav
T
L¢ c m o v
p
v ;a u o
a
m w
v
m -- °'
M
N
N
_w
L
'�
N
w
N
Yo o
'o
u
v "' v
c C
c
j
3 0 £ >>a a v
"O c a
v
la ->
-p m E
m o
a
N
Y>
v
N y
°.
L VOI .0
w o v
9
N
c m o
v
�'
:n £ m y x
v v v>
c
c
v
a asci o
>«
v°'"i '£" E
`
w $ �io v
_ m
oo
-_ "w
c .+ _
m '°
= v-
:o
v u
'Q
.o
a'
u
'm
v v
`o 0.
c
c v
v
v v L
o=
E x
w v>
y
a
°'
o ou
v 0 v
o
o c
.'^ w
v m
m
e
w
o
c
n
E
E
L L w o
0
0— v a¢
Y
>
E
N m to O o
o =
ou w
0
o f
Eo
!a
'O
w L a+
ODs
u
~ C>¢
v°
C
v
O
U
r
O
Oo C
v 'a° "�O V In
m u
0
N L
c
S
N
C
O N E
v
.- v `w
u £ v
m a
'u =
v
.-��
£
v v
v c c>
v v°
'°
v z � a
U'
v o
O
`°
O
a °'
m
m ¢ v
�° o
c
m '�^ v m
a v
o u -', a u m
O
c v O o
o.
U U
U
'o
U
L
O U
vi
� t v�
riE
W of m OLi m m w
c
c -i ry
tri v
vi In In _ In
n
,.
ao of
.ti
.-i
A=
ti ..,
.-� ,L
.-� .. v ra
.ti
.+ .-+ .ti .ti .timl
CIO
�i
c,f
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners Work Session of December 5 2018
DATE: November 27, 2018
FROM: Janice Garceau, Health Services,
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Veteran Behavioral Health Peer Support Specialist Pilot Program Grant Application
Request
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff recommend approval to apply for the Veteran Behavioral Health Peer Support
Services Pilot Program.
ATTENDANCE: Janice Garceau, Health Services Deputy Director, Behavioral Health
Division
SUMMARY: The Oregon Health Authority's Veteran Behavioral Health Peer Support
Specialist Pilot Program grant would provide $171,648 over two years. These funds would
be used to hire 1.0 FTE Peer Support Specialist to provide outreach and engagement
services to difficult to engage and high-risk veterans in the community. The position will
collaborate with the Adult Outpatient Team's clinicians, psychiatrist and case manager to
wrap services around up to 25 eligible veterans per year.
Supports for these veterans will be individualized and based on the self -identified needs
of each veteran, and might include the following activities:
• Providing intensive outreach and engagement in community settings in order to
facilitate veterans accessing behavioral health and other forms of care
• Providing emotional support and encouragement - "walk alongside" the veterans as
they navigate their recovery
• Modeling recovery, wellness, and collaborative relationships for the veterans, their
service providers and other community partners.
• Supporting the veterans with development and application of self -advocacy skills
• Participating on care teams such as Adult Outpatient, Crisis, ACT and others to
provide input into clinical services
• Support the veterans with identifying and strengthening natural supports
• Connecting the veterans to individuals who can help the veterans identify and
access supports such as Oregon Health Plan (OHP), Social Security benefits,
vocational programs, and food assistance (based on eligibility)
• As appropriate, help connect veterans to staff who can ensure timely access to VA
health care, community behavioral health, OHP services, or other appropriate
health services (based on eligibility)
• Help the veterans during interactions with the criminal justice system and connect
veterans with the VA Justice Outreach program as needed.
This grant supports the following Deschutes County Health Services (DCHS) Strategic
Goals:
0 Increased access to services in the community and improved health through
collaboration with community partners
Clients and the community experience a streamlined and coordinated system of
services
This grant also supports the CCBHC target population of veterans with high needs, dual
diagnosis and Serious and Persistent Mental Illness who are at risk for hospitalization,
homelessness and incarceration. In addition, The Regional Health Improvement Plan's
priority of addressing substance use and chronic pain is supported by the clinical strategy
of creating an efficient, effective, and coordinated system of outreach, engagement, and
care coordination services to a medically significant population.
ES
_ Deschutes County Health Services
GRANT APPLICATION REQUEST
Please answer the following questions:
Official Grant Title:
Veteran Behavioral Health Peer Support Specialist Pilot
Pro ram
Source of Grant Funds:
Ore on Health Authority (OHA
Funding Amount and Duration (include
amount per year if multiple years):
Two -Year Grant Total of $171,648 (Year 1 = $84,578 /
Year 2 = $87,070)
Application Due Date:
December 14, 2018
FTE Required and Cost of FTE:
1.0 FTE Peer Support Specialist (2 -year cost w/benefits =
$171,648)
Staff Responsible:
Karen Tammin a - Supervisor / Barrett Flesh - Manager
Matching Requirements?
❑ Yes 0 No
Contract or MOU Required?
0 Yes ❑ No
Does grant allow for admin fee?
DYes ❑ No If Yes, amount: 15% Indirect charged
Expedited Director approval?
❑ Yes 0 No
If Yes, attach copy of grant opportunity notification.
1. How does this grant opportunity align with priorities in the Health Services Strategic Plan, the
Re Tonal Health Im rovement Plan (RHIP) or an emerging need?
This grant supports the following Deschutes County Health Services (DCHS) Strategic Goals:
• Increased access to services in the community and improved health through collaboration
with community partners
• Clients and the community experience a streamlined and coordinated system of services
This grant supports RHIP Goal of Addressing Substance Use and Chronic Pain. Specifically:
• Create an efficient, effective, and coordinated system of outreach, engagement, and care
coordination services to medically significant populations, including: pregnant women who
still use drugs, people who use illicit IV drugs, identified high utilizers of medical and
pharmacy services, identified utilizers of mental health acute care services, and identified
hospital patients.
Finally, this grant supports the CCBHC target population of veterans with high needs, dual
diagnosis and Serious and Persistent Mental Illness (SPMI) who are at risk for hospitalization,
homelessness and incarceration.
2. Briefly summarize what work the grant is intended to accomplish.
The Veteran Behavioral Health Peer Support Specialist (VBHPSS) position will be housed under
the Adult Outpatient Team and will provide outreach and engagement services to difficult to
engage and high-risk veterans in the community. The position will collaborate with the Adult
Outpatient Team's clinicians, psychiatrist and case manager to wrap services around up to 25
eligible veterans per year.
Rev. 11/19/2018 Page 1 of 4
H:\My Documents\ADMINISTRATION\Board of County Commissioners\BoCC Agenda Requests\2018-2019\Veterans BH Peer Support
Specialist Pilot\VBHPSS Grant Ap Request Form 11 20 2018.docx
Supports will be individualized and based on the self -identified needs of each veteran, and might
include the following activities:
• Providing intensive outreach and engagement in community settings in order to facilitate
veterans accessing behavioral health and other forms of care
• Providing emotional support and encouragement - "walk alongside" the veterans as they
navigate their recovery
• Modeling recovery, wellness, and collaborative relationships for the veterans, their service
providers and other community partners.
• Supporting the veterans with development and application of self -advocacy skills
• Participating on care teams such as Adult Outpatient, Crisis, ACT and others to provide
input into clinical services
• Support the veterans with identifying and strengthening natural supports
• Connecting the veterans to individuals who can help the veterans identify and access
supports such as Oregon Health Plan (OHP), Social Security benefits, vocational
programs, and food assistance (based on eligibility)
• As appropriate, help connect veterans to staff who can ensure timely access to VA health
care, community behavioral health, OHP services, or other appropriate health services
(based on eligibility)
• Help the veterans during interactions with the criminal justice system and connect veterans
with the VA Justice Outreach program as needed.
3. Describe the science or evidence base that supports delivering the work the grant is intended to
accomplish.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration cites the use of peers as an
evidence based delivery model that is especially helpful in engaging hard to reach/engage
individuals in behavioral health services. In addition, DCHS has found the use of Peer Support
Specialists to be extremely effective at engaging individuals in the Forensic Diversion Program,
with good overall outcomes as a result.
The Peer Support Specialists on the Forensic Diversion Team provide outreach, follow up and
engagement for clients with an SPMI Diagnosis who are at risk for incarceration or who are
currently incarcerated. Through daily contact with clients and a focus on rapport building, they
have seen a 56% reduction in recidivism for those individuals served. Most have seen an
improvement in their quality of life, have secured housing and employment and have engaged in
mental health treatment. Many of these individuals have previously not been willing to engage in
ongoing mental health treatment.
4. Does the work the grant is intended to accomplish require ethics review? If so, what is the
regulating authority and who will do the work?
No
Rev. 11/19/2018 Page 2 of 4
H:\My Documents\ADMINISTRATION\Board of County Commissioners\BoCC Agenda Requests\2018-2019\Veterans BH Peer Support
Specialist Pilot\VBHPSS Grant Ap Request Form 11 20 2018.docx
5. Summarize the cost of doing the work the grant is intended to accomplish (include costs of
personnel, equipment, materials and services, travel/training, etc., as applicable, using the grant
calculator tool).
Veteran PSS Grant Year 1
Compliance oversight
Peer Support Specialist Salary and Benefits
$ 63,346.00
Education & Training
1,000.00
Travel - Accommodations
500.00
Travel - Meals
500.00
Travel - Mileage Reimbursement
1,000.00
Program Supplies
2,000.00
Office Supplies
200.00
Meeting Supplies
1,000.00
Computer Supplies
1,000.00
Client Flex Funds/Support
3,000.00
Indirect Costs - 15% grant costs
11,031.90
Total Costs Year 1
$ 84,577.90
Veteran PSS Grant Year 2
Peer Support Specialist Salary & Benefits
$ 66,513.30
Education & Training
1,000.00
Travel - Accommodations
500.00
Travel - Meals
500.00
Travel - Mileage Reimbursement
1,000.00
Program Supplies
2,000.00
Office Supplies
200.00
Meeting Supplies
1,000.00
Client Flex Funds/Support
3,000.00
Indirect Costs - 15% grant costs
11,356.95
Total Costs Year 2
87,070.25
Total Two -Year Costs
$ 171,648.15
6. Administrative supports required (check all that armlv):
0
Compliance oversight
Contract—recipient contract to come from OHA
❑
Data analysis: Is the data ❑ already collected? OR ❑ new to us?
Where does the data live?
Fxj
EHR
❑x
Fiscal oversight and/or reporting
❑
Operations (building, vehicles, etc.)
❑
Reporting: What: Participant count, program survey of 100% of participants with 70%
completion rate expected, fiscal report. How often: June 15, 2019; frequency thereafter not
yet identified by OHA. Minor data reporting responsibilities: Survey created by OHA and
data collected by VBHPSS, other costs of position built into indirect cost allocation.
❑
Other, please describe:
Rev. 11/19/2018 Page 3 of 4
H:\My Documents\ADMINISTRATION\Board of County Commissioners\BoCC Agenda Requests\2018-2019\Veterans BH Peer Support
Specialist Pilot\VBHPSS Grant Ap Request Form 11 20 2018.docx
To be completed by Director: Final review of grant application materials prior to submittal will be done
by:
❑ Deputy Director 0 ?Q Director
Deputy Director Approval
Director Approval
❑x Yes ❑ No Date: 11/19/2018
>�es ❑ No Date: f i
'L+
Rev. 11/19/2018 Page 4 of 4
H:\My Documents\ADMINISTRATION\Board of County Commissioners\BoCC Agenda Requests\2018-2019\Veterans BH Peer Support
Specialist Pilot\VBHPSS Grant Ap Request Form 11 20 2018.docx
E S C�C�
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners Work Session of December 5, 2018
DATE:
FROM: Lee Randall, Facilities, 541-617-4711
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Public Safety Campus Master Plan Update
Date: November 29, 2018
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Public Safety Campus Stakeholders
Re: Public Safety Campus: near-term project sequencing and process
Background
On October 24, the Board provided conceptual approval for the near-term options that were
presented as part of the Public Safety Campus Master Plan. The Board directed the public
safety campus stakeholders (Sheriffs Office, Community justice, Health Department, and
Facilities Department) to further develop the near-term components of the plan. Those
components include:
1. Remodel and expansion of the 2nd floor Adult Parole & Probation offices and minor
remodel of the 1 sc floor Work Center in the shared Adult P&P/Work Center building.
2. Relocate the Community Service Shop and complete associated parking
improvements.
3. Remodel the Programs Building, currently used by Adult Parole & Probation, and
repurpose for use as the Stabilization Center.
Staff are now seeking specific direction regarding construction process and contracting
methods.
Construction Process
Option A—in Sequence: Each of the (3) major component projects are undertaken in
succession, one at a time.
• Adult Parole and Probation/Work Center Remodel and Expansion. Remodel and
expansion of 2nd floor of shared Adult/Work Center building is undertaken and
completed. Staff from the Programs building are then relocated to the expanded
space. Work Center remodel is undertaken concurrently.
• Community Service Shop and Parking Improvements. Concurrent with the Adult P &
P/Work Center Remodel, the Community Service Shop is constructed along with
parking improvements which will serve to accommodate additional staff and public
at the Adult P & P/Work Center facility and to accommodate future needs related to
the Stabilization Center
Pros:
Cons:
Programs Building Remodel. Programs Building is remodeled for use as Stabilization
Center. Design may be completed while above mentioned work is underway.
Minimal disruption to existing Adult Parole & Probation operations at the Programs
Building.
Eliminates the need to provide short-term operational space for Adult P & P staff
currently utilizing the Programs Building.
Extends the duration of the near-term option. Extends the period of time for the
Stabilization Center to become operational.
Stabilization Center funding: grant funding in addition to the $1 million dollars
currently appropriated would not be available due to implementation timeline
requirements. Bureau of justice Assistance (BJA) grant funding through the justice
and Mental Health Collaboration Program requires that the Stabilization Center be
operational by September 2019. It would add psychiatric and case management
services in the amount of $750k. Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic
(CCBHC) expansion grant funding of $350k for furniture, fixtures, and equipment
must be also be expended by September 30, 2019.
Option B—Concurrent Construction: project development of both the Adult P & P/Work
Center remodel and the Programs Building remodel are pursued simultaneously.
• Construction Documents and Contracts. Develop concurrently.
• Temporary Office Space. Leased space or modular office units to be provided for
Adult Parole & Probation operations for the duration of Programs Building remodel
construction.
o Modular space on site. 3,600SF modular office space: $107,000 for 15
months.
■ Allows Parole & Probation staff to remain on site. Lower moving
costs. Modular units allow for more flexible lease terms
o Leased space off-site comparison: $102,600 to $124,200 (15 months)
■ Lease space for 15 month duration may be difficult to acquire.
Available square footage would vary.
• Construction. Adult P &P/Work Center project, Stabilization Center, and site parking
expansion take place concurrently, but on separate project timelines.
Pros:
1. Remodel of the Programs Building for use as Stabilization Center is completed
sooner. May preserve access to grant funds with implementation deadlines.
2. Reduced overall start -to -finish timeline for (3) major component projects.
3. Concurrent construction may allow for cost savings such as lower mobilization costs,
combining of contracts, etc.
Cons:
1. Adult Parole and Probation operations are disrupted while being moved to
temporary location. Communication with clients required to ensure continuity of
operations.
2. Added cost of modular office space or leased space.
Q
Option C—Leased Space for Stabilization Center: leased space is utilized to establish the
Stabilization Center while construction of the Adult P & P/Work Center remodel and
expansion is underway. Operation of the Stabilization Center would need to be approved by
building owner and would need to be in appropriately zoned location.
Property Management and Health Services staff would need to locate available and
appropriate space.
Pros:
1. Allows for quicker establishment of the Stabilization Center than would occur under
Option A.
2. Earlier establishment of Stabilization Center preserves access to grant funds for
operations, grants which are tied to implementation deadlines
Cons:
1. Location of Stabilization Center would not be on the Public Safety Campus.
2. Cost and disruption of moving back to Programs Building once the remodel is
complete.
Contracting Methods
Dependent upon the size and scope of the project, the following construction approaches
could be utilized:
• Design/Bid/Build: this traditional method involves selection of a design team and
development of project documents up to bid documents; then advertising for bids
from prospective general contractors.
o Deliberative process that allows for multiple checks and balances in project
design and construction
o Work is obtained by sealed bid awarded to the lowest responsive, responsible
bidder.
o Difficult to incorporate contractor input in design stages of project
• Construction Manager/General Contractor: Preliminary project documents are
developed and a construction manager/general contractor is selected based on
qualifications.
o The selected CM/GC participates in design development, constructability
reviews, value engineering, scheduling, estimating, and subcontracting
services.
o Guaranteed Maximum Price is established to complete the contract work.
o The selected CM/GC coordinates and manages the building process.
o "Findings" document must be created which demonstrates that the
contracting agency may reasonably anticipate time savings and cost savings.
Design Build: utilizes a qualification -based selection process that builds on the
CM/GC process.
o Owner contracts with a single entity for all design, engineering, construction
management, and construction services.
o The design -build team is responsible for all services for a guaranteed
maximum price.
o Intended for complex or phased projects which are time -sensitive and require
coordination as a unified whole.
3
�iES "o
g Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners Work Session of December 5, 2018
DATE: November 30, 2018
FROM: Erik Kropp, Administrative Services, 541-388-6584
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Draft Ethics Reporting and Hotline Policy
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
See attached.
ATTENDANCE: Erik Kropp, David Givans, Christopher Bell
SUMMARY: Please see attached staff report.
Date: November 29, 2018
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator
Re: Draft Ethics Reporting and Hotline Policy
ON
The County has had a long standing policy called "Misconduct Reporting and Detection Policy,"
Administrative Policy No. GA -14 (attached). The policy establishes specific guidelines and
responsibilities for the communication and investigation of alleged misconduct.
Policy No. GA -14 was adopted in January 2005. Staff would like to discuss with the Board a draft
update to the policy (attached) which would add an ethics reporting hotline and whistleblower
protections (required by ORS 659A). The draft policy also incorporates best practices for ethics
reporting and requirements from ORS 297, the state law that governs local government waste
hotlines.
Oregon's Whistleblower Law (ORS 659A.200 to 659A.224) protects public sector employees from
discrimination or retaliation by their employer when they disclose information that the employee
reasonably believes is evidence of mismanagement, gross misuse or waste of public resources or
funds, abuse of authority in connection with the administration of a public program or the execution
of a public contract, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety resulting from the
public employer's action.
For government waste hotlines, the State of Oregon has specific requirements (ORS 297.760 —
297.765) should a local government decide to have a waste hotline. These requirements include
having written policies and procedures to handle complaints, notifying the Oregon Government
Ethics Commission if there is a violation of the state's ethics law, etc.
Staff will seek input and direction from the Board on the draft update to GA -14.
1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97703
'Q` (541)388 6584 rz erik.kropp@deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org
Deschutes County Administrative Policy No. GA -14
2{ Effective date: January 3, 2005
MISCONDUCT REPORTING AND DETECTION POLICY
STATEMENT OF POLICY
It is the policy of Deschutes County to establish specific guidelines and responsibilities that must
be followed for the communication and investigation of misconduct and other similar
irregularities.
APPLICABILITY
This policy applies to all elected officials, officers, employees and agents of Deschutes County
and to all officers, employees and agents of local service districts, agencies and commissions
over which County has authority to impose general policies.
This policy will also apply to the public, contractors, subcontractors, agents, intermediaries and
others transacting business with the County.
POLICY AND PROCEDURES
In General
It is the County's intent to fully investigate any suspected acts of misconduct. An objective and
impartial investigation will be conducted regardless of the position, title, and length of service or
relationship with the County of any party who is suspected of misconduct. In order to be in
violation of this policy the offender must have acted intentionally, knowingly, or with conscious
disregard for the consequences. As used in this policy, misconduct must involve the actual or
likely, tangible injury or loss to the County or county -owned property, or a benefit to the
offender, the offender's relative or a third party, and is not limited to instances in which the
offender benefits.
a. In all circumstances where there is reasonable suspicion of a crime, an appropriate law
enforcement agency(s) will be involved before any internal investigation is contemplated.
The District Attorney's Office will determine if criminal prosecution will occur.
b. To improve the effectiveness of any investigation, all parties with knowledge of the alleged
misconduct and/or its investigation will keep the details and results of the investigation
confidential. County Legal Counsel will be consulted as to any disclosure of information.
c. Unless exceptional circumstances exist, a person (or entity) under investigation for
misconduct will be given notice in writing of the essential particulars of the allegations
following the conclusion of any investigation and prior to final disciplinary action being
taken. Where notice is given, the person (or entity) against whom allegations are being made
may submit a written explanation of their version of the facts and any mitigating
circumstances to the County within the time set forth in the notice (unless there are
extenuating circumstances and an extension is granted).
d. This requirement is subject to applicable provisions of collective bargaining agreements
Policy No. GA- 14, Misconduct reporting and detection policy Page 1 of 5
respecting the rights of employees during disciplinary proceedings.
e. Upon conclusion of any investigation, the findings will be reported to the County
Administrator, the County Internal Auditor, County Legal Counsel, and Board of County
Commissioners.
f. Each elected official and/or department head is responsible for instituting and maintaining a
system of internal control to provide reasonable assurance for the prevention and detection of
misconduct. County management should be familiar with the types of improprieties that
might occur within their area of responsibility and be alert for any indications of such
misconduct. Moreover, each elected official and/or department head should be alert for any
indication of wrongdoing.
g. The County will pursue every reasonable effort, including court-ordered restitution, to obtain
recovery of the County losses from the offender, or other appropriate source(s). County
Risk Management will be timely notified of any misconduct (if appropriate) so that recovery
from County insurance policies may be pursued.
Procedures
1. All Employees - Any employee who has knowledge of misconduct against the County will
immediately notify his/her supervisor. If the employee has reason to believe that the
employee's supervisor may be involved, the employee will immediately notify their
department head (or elected official). If the employee has reason to believe the employee's
department head (or elected official) is involved, the employee will notify the County
Administrator. The employee may directly notify the County Auditor, or County Legal
Counsel if the employee believes other notifications would compromise an investigation.
Employees will maintain the confidentiality of information and not discuss any incident
related to an actual or suspected violation of this policy with any other persons, except the
County Administrator, County Legal Counsel or the County Internal Auditor, unless required
by law or directed to do so by County Management.
All employees will cooperate with administrative or criminal investigations.
2. Department Head/Elected Official - Upon notification from an employee of suspected
misconduct, or if the department head (or elected official) has knowledge that misconduct
has occurred, the department head (or elected official) will immediately contact the County
Administrator. The department head (or elected official) may directly notify the County
Auditor, or County Legal Counsel if the department head (or elected official) believes other
notifications would compromise an investigation. The department head (or elected official)
will not attempt to investigate the suspected misconduct or to discuss the matter with anyone
other than the County Administrator, County Internal Auditor, County Legal Counsel and, if
applicable, the law enforcement agency.
3. County Administrator - Upon notification or discovery of suspected misconduct, the County
Administrator will have full responsibility for conducting the internal investigation unless the
Administrator is incapable of doing so due to bias or insufficient impartiality. The County
Policy No. GA- 14, Misconduct reporting and detection policy Page 2 of 5
Administrator is authorized to delegate all or any part of the investigation to the County
Internal Auditor, some other employee or an impartial third party. If the County
Administrator is biased or not sufficiently independent to lead the investigation, the Chair of
the Board of County Commissioners will determine how the internal investigation is to
proceed.
At the conclusion of all investigations, the County Administrator or County Internal Auditor
will document the results in a confidential memorandum to the County Internal Auditor /
County Administrator (as applicable), County Legal Counsel, applicable department head (or
elected official) and the Board of County Commissioners.
4. Members of the Public - The County asks that any members of the public with knowledge of
misconduct against the County notify the County. The public should directly notify the
County Administrator, County Auditor, or County Legal Counsel.
The County asks for public members reporting information to keep their information
confidential while the County investigates the matter. Public members may be asked to
repeat the information to other parties in the investigation or law enforcement at the direction
of County management.
Members of the public should supply contact information.
5. Method of notification of suspected misconduct: When possible, all notification for a
suspected misconduct will be in written form including relevant details and applicable
support (if any). It will be submitted via in-person delivery, mail, or phone to the County
Administrator, County Internal Auditor, or County Legal Counsel. Since confidentiality of
e-mail is hard to control and e-mail are considered public documents, the use of e-mail to
report suspected misconduct is discouraged. Anonymous notification will be accepted but
maybe treated as less reliable.
Person(s) notifying the County of a suspected misconduct may request that their name(s) be
kept confidential. Upon such request, the County will maintain confidentiality to the extent
allowed under the public records law.
6. Internal Audit Investigations: An internal audit investigation is an examination by the
County's Internal Auditor of relevant evidence to an alleged incident of misconduct. The
examination should assess the extent of the misconduct and issues to be resolved in its
correction.
An internal audit investigation will be initiated, at the request of County Administrator or the
Chair of the Board County Commissioners. Internal audit investigations may be done
concurrently with the criminal investigation, if allowed by the applicable law enforcement
agencies and performed in such a manner as not to disrupt the criminal investigation. The
County Administrator is authorized to appoint another impartial party to investigate the
incident if the County Internal Auditor has a conflict of interest or is implicated.
7. County Internal Auditor - At the conclusion of all investigations, the County Internal Auditor
Policy No. GA- 14, Misconduct reporting and detection policy Page 3 of 5
will develop appropriate recommendations if the misconduct could have been avoided. These
recommendations will be submitted for discussion with the Audit Committee and distributed
to affected County departments to assist in the prevention of misconduct. The Audit
Committee is a committee formed by separate policy. The Audit Committee is responsible
for assisting the BOCC and County management in fulfilling responsibilities for financial
and other reporting, internal control, and compliance with laws, regulations, and ethics within
the County.
8. Contacts/Protocols - For all allegations, regardless of whether they are supported by
sufficient and competent evidence and/or for which the infraction is not material (in the
judgment of the County Administrator), the County Administrator will maintain a file of the
allegations, the results of such investigations and any conclusions or recommendations from
the investigation.
9. Personnel Actions - If misconduct is substantiated by criminal or internal investigation,
appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal, will be taken by the
appropriate level of management, in consultation with one or more of the following: County
Administrator, County Personnel, County Internal Auditor, and County Legal Counsel, and
in accordance with the County's Personnel Policies and Procedures, applicable union
contracts, and department policies.
In the case of misconduct by an employee who is appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners the County Administrator (or the Chair of the BOCC if that person is
responsible for the investigation) is authorized to impose discipline up to and including
suspension without pay. Provided however, such action will not limit the authority of the
Board of County Commissioners to dismiss such employee.
The employee under investigation may be placed on administrative leave with pay during the
investigation.
Nothing contained herein is intended to limit or compromise any criminal proceeding arising
from the misconduct.
10. Other Actions - For cases where misconduct does not pertain to an employee of the County,
if misconduct is substantiated by criminal or internal investigation, appropriate action(s) will
be taken by County management.
11. Prohibition Against Retaliation - Any form of retaliation against any person who reports,
makes a complaint of, provides information regarding, or who cooperates with any
investigation regarding alleged misconduct, as defined in this, is prohibited.
12. Media Issues - To the extent allowed by Oregon Public Records law the alleged misconduct
or audit investigation will not be discussed with the media by any person other than as
directed by the County Administrator, in consultation with the applicable law enforcement
agency(s), County Legal Counsel, and Board of County Commissioners.
This policy should be placed on the County Internet and Intranet sites so employees and
Policy No. GA- 14, Misconduct reporting and detection policy Page 4 of 5
members of the Public will know how to proceed with notification.
13. Sheriff's Office - Since the Sheriff's Office has more defined policies for items meriting
internal investigations, they may conduct internal investigations and take action in
accordance with their internal procedures. However, the County Administrator will be
promptly notified of the type of investigation and the severity. The Sheriff will maintain
documentation of all allegations, the results, and any conclusions or actions taken. The
County Administrator, County Legal Counsel, and County Internal Auditor can review this
documentation at any time and will at least annually. If there are any questions as to
appropriateness of actions taken, the County Administrator will determine if a separate
investigation is warranted. The County Administrator, in accordance with these policies, will
handle any allegations of misconduct regarding the Sheriff.
DEFINITIONS:
"Misconduct" includes, but is not limited to:
1) Theft, embezzlement, breach of fiduciary responsibility, or other financial fraud;
2) Forgery or alteration of checks, drafts, promissory notes and securities;
3) Any misappropriation of funds, securities, supplies or any other asset;
4) Misrepresentation of information on documents;
5) Authorizing or receiving payment for hours not worked, or for services, materials or
supplies not furnished;
6) Misappropriation of furniture, fixtures and equipment;
7) Offering, furnishing, soliciting or receiving anything of material value by or from
vendors, consultants or contractors doing business with the County;
8) Violation of the Oregon Government Standards and Practices (ORS 244.040 as
constituted on the date of an incident);
9) Unauthorized use or misuse of County property, equipment, materials or records;
10) Any activity involving the alteration, destruction, forgery or manipulation of County
records, data or information; including computerized data, for fraudulent purposes,
personal gain, to injure another person or organization; or the misappropriation of County
software;
11) Any claim for reimbursement of expenses that are not made for the exclusive benefit of
the County;
12) Interference with or obstruction of any investigation of any misconduct described above;
and
13) Any similar or related misconduct.
"County management" includes the Board of County Commissioners, County Administrator,
Deputy County Administrator, County Legal Counsel, Elected Officials with authority to act as
county department heads, department heads, and administrators of County service districts.
APPROVED by t e Deschutes County Board of Commissioners January 3, 2005.
-Dave Kanner,
County Administrator
Policy No. GA- 14, Misconduct reporting and detection policy Page 5 of 5
vmgn
� 1 Deschutes County Administrative Policy No. GA -14
Effective Date: DRAFT 11-30-18
ETHICS REPORTING AND HOTLINE
STATEMENT OF POLICY
This policy provides a mechanism for employees, volunteers, vendors, and contractors to report concerns
without fear of retaliation or retribution. ,
Note: This policy intends for Deschutes County to comply with Oregon Statute 297 governing
local government waste hotlines as well as Oregon Statute 659A governing whistleblower
protections. Nothing in this policy is intended to, or should it be interpreted, as abridging any
rights, which exist under law, rule or regulation, or applicable collective bargaining agreement.
This policy does not operate to waive any right which may not be legally waived.
APPLICABILITY
This policy applies to all elected officials, officers, employees and agents of Deschutes County, including
those affiliated with the 9-1-1 County Service District. It also applies to all officers, employees and agents
of entities, committees, and commissions over which County has authority to impose general policies.
This policy does not apply to Sunriver Service District, Black Butte Ranch Service District, OSU
Extension/411, or road districts.
In terms of reporting ethics concerns, this policy also applies to the public, contractors, subcontractors,
agents, intermediaries and others transacting business with the County.
POLICY AND PROCEDURES
A. In General
The County shall review all concerns reported. Investigations conducted will not consider the position,
title, or length of service of any party named in the report. In circumstances where there is a potential
crime, the appropriate law enforcement agency will be involved prior to any investigation.
Employment-related concerns, reports of harassment, or discrimination should continue to be reported to
Human Resources or other channels in accordance with the County's Non -Harassment and Non -
Discrimination Policy, HR -10. These reports will be entered into the hotline management system for
statistical reporting and for ensuring compliance with whistleblowing protections.
B. Responsibilities — Employees
Any applicable employee of Deschutes County who has an ethical concern, is responsible for
immediately reporting this information. In addition to using the hotline, employees may report these
concerns to his/her immediate supervisor, manager, department head, County Counsel, County
Administrator, or County Internal Auditor. Any employee who is notified of an ethical concern from
another employee or the public shall immediately forward the report to County Counsel and copy the
County Internal Auditor and County Administrator.
Ethics Hotline Policy — Page 1
C. Ethics Hotline
The Deschutes County Ethics Hotline is operated by a specialty vendor that provides confidential hotline
services 24/7/365. Reporting options include a toll-free phone number, website, email, and fax.
The Ethics Hotline will provide a unique case number for all callers to allow for follow-up on their
reported concern. Persons making a report to the hotline will be asked to provide as much detail as
possible. Persons making a report to the hotline will have the ability to remain anonymous if they choose.
The identity of callers who make reports to the hotline will be protected to the fullest extent possible and
practicable.
The means of contacting the Ethics Hotline will be prominently advertised and notices will be distributed
to applicable parties at the County.
Instead of making a report to the Ethics Hotline (or in addition to), a person may report an incident to the
Oregon Government Waste Hotline operated by the Oregon Secretary of State at 1-800-336-8218.
D. Confidentiality/Anonymity
Confidentiality of persons making reports will be protected to the fullest extent possible by law. If the
reporting party chooses to remain anonymous, the County's ability to conduct an internal investigation
may be limited. Employees who remain anonymous will not fall under whistleblower protections.
The County Internal Auditor and all participants in an investigation shall treat all information received
confidentially to the extent allowable by law. Investigation results will not be disclosed or discussed with
anyone other than those who have a legitimate business need to know.
All requests for information with respect to a concern reported under this policy or associated
investigations shall be directed to County Counsel.
E. Investigations and Report Handling
1. A report is any concern reported through a County employee or to the Ethics Hotline.
2. Oregon Statutes govern operation of local government hotlines. The County Internal Auditor or
County Counsel should be consulted if the process is not clear.
3. All reports are considered reports to County's Legal Counsel. Management and resolution of such
reports will be provided by the independent County Internal Auditor.
4. Investigating Concerns - upon receiving the report, the County's Legal Counsel will consult with the
County Internal Auditor and relevant parties at Deschutes County to determine whether adequate
information exists to conduct an investigation.
a. If it is found that adequate information has not been received, the person who submitted the
report may be asked for additional information. If additional information is not provided, the
County Internal Auditor may decide to close the case and notify the person who submitted the
report of the decision.
Ethics Hotline Policy — Page 2
b. Special situations -
i. Where the concern involves a member of the Board of County Commissioners,
other elected County official, the County Administrator, or the County Counsel;
the County Internal Auditor will conduct an initial review or contract out the
review to an independent auditor or Certified Fraud Examiner, and report the
results to highest and most independent management not involved.
ii. Where the concern involves the County Internal Auditor, the Chair of the Audit
Committee, County Counsel, and County Administrator will conduct an initial
review or contract out the review to an independent auditor or Certified Fraud
Examiner.
5. If sufficient information exists, the County Internal Auditor, in consultation with the County
Administrator, will determine who will investigate the report. The County Internal Auditor can seek
input from relevant County parties. The County Internal Auditor will be responsible for conducting
or overseeing the investigation. County departments, the subject of a concern, will not oversee the
investigation of their own reports.
a. Regardless of whom it concerns, reports that involve potential criminal activity will be
immediately brought to the attention of law enforcement. The County Internal Auditor may
assist law enforcement at law enforcement's discretion. No County investigations will occur
until the criminal investigation has been completed.
b. The County Internal Auditor may delegate or share investigations with appropriate
department management staff or outside independent contractors depending on the nature and
scope of the concern.
6. The County Internal Auditor can initiate an investigation or audit based on a reported concern even if
the report was initially referred to another department or law enforcement.
7. The County Internal Auditor has primary responsibility for monitoring the investigation of all
concerns except as identified in the special situation investigations section for a report on the County
Internal Auditor. Investigations will be independent, impartial, and fact -based. Within the scope of
the investigation and as required by law, the County Internal Auditor will have:
a. Free and unrestricted access to all relevant County records, data, employees and premises,
whether owned or rented - except information that is protected under state statute (such as
records associated with a pending criminal investigation). The County Internal Auditor has
significant access authority provided by County Code 2.14.060; and
b. The authority to examine, copy, or remove all or any portion of the contents of files, desks,
cabinets, and other County property without prior knowledge or consent of any individual
who might use or have custody of any such items.
8. If the department head/elected official whose department is involved in the investigation disagrees
with the investigatory approach, he/she can appeal to the Board of County Commissioners.
9. For concerns reported, the County Internal Auditor will be responsible for:
a. Communicating in a timely manner with the person who submitted the report and asking
relevant follow up questions, if necessary.
b. Maintaining the integrity of the report process to ensure that concerns are treated with
seriousness, investigated, and a timely determination is made.
Ethics Hotline Policy — Page 3
c. Preserving information that is received by the County Internal Auditor's Office of all
investigations and work performed.
d. Ensuring that any potential ethical violations under ORS 244 are reported to the Ethics
Commission.
e. Ensuring that any criminal activity is reported as somaspossibleto the appropriate law
enforcement agency.
10. The County Internal Auditor will also provide periodic annual reports summarizing reports by type of
concern to the Board of County Commissioners and the Audit Committee. When developing the
annual audit plan, the County Internal Auditor will consider concerns raised and/or results of
investigations.
11. Once an investigation is completed, the County Internal Auditor is responsible for providing a written
determination of the conclusion ofthe investigation to the following:
a. The person who submitted the concern (unless the report was anonymous and the report did
not come in through the Ethics Hotline).
b. The department head/elected official over the department involved in the investigation
c. The County Administrator, and
d. County Counsel.
12. Upon conclusion of an investigation, recommendations may be made to department management
where appropriate to minimize future risk. Management is responsible for implementing sufficient
and appropriate controls to prevent reoccurrence.
13. The written determination is a public record. If a public records request is received for records
relating to an investigation, the auditor will follow standard procedures subject to ORS 192.410 to
192.505.
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES
The following definitions and examples are meant to provide some guidance as to the nature and type of
ethical concerns. However, reports can include any type of concern.
Abuse - the intentional, wrongful or improper use or destruction of County resources. Abuse can
include the excessive or improper use of an employee's or official's position in a manner other than its
rightful or legal use.
2. Fraud - at its most basic definition, fraud is the act of using dishonesty for personal gain. In the
context of this policy, the definition includes any misuse of, attempt to misuse a County asset for
personal gain, or purposes unrelated to County business. There are three main categories of fraud:
financial statement fraud, misappropriation of assets, and corruption. Examples include, but are not
limited to:
Stealing or removing County assets -
a. Using County equipment, facilities, supplies or funds for purposes unrelated to County
business.
b. Obtaining County funds or compensation through dishonesty.
c. Falsifying financial records.
d. Theft or misuse of County money, services, equipment, supplies or other materials.
e. Intentionally misrepresenting the costs of goods or services provided.
f. Falsifying payroll information.
Ethics Hotline Policy — Page 4
g. Submitting false claims for reimbursements.
h. Soliciting or accepting a bribe or kickback.
i. Falsifying weights or measures.
4. Ethics —
a. Ethical complaints for public officials under Oregon Government Ethics law in ORS Chapter
244, include:
i. use of public office for personal financial gain;
ii. conflicts of interest;
iii. nepotism;
iv. prohibited gifts; or
v. failure to report statements of economic interest.
Substantiated ethics violations of ORS Chapter 244 are required to be reported to the State's Ethics
Commission.
b. Violations of the County's Code of Ethics found in Deschutes County Code 3.28.010.
5. Inefficiency — failure to make the best use of County time, County resources or participating in
uneconomical practices that impacts the County.
6. Concern: includes issues or concerns of abuse, ethics, fraud, waste or inefficiency.
7. Waste: The needless, careless or extravagant expenditure of County funds, incurring of unnecessary
expenses, or mismanagement of County resources or property. Waste does not necessarily involve
private use or personal gain, but usually signifies poor management decisions, practices, or controls.
8. Examples - the following are some of the types of concerns that may be reported:
Concern TypeDescription/Example
Abuse of Benefits
Improper or deceiving actions, including falsification of records
or physical conditions related to benefit plans including paid
time off programs.
Accounting, Auditing, and Internal
Questionable procedures relating to accounting, auditing, or
Financial Controls
financial controls. (Examples include misstatement of financial
reports, violations of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles, billing issues, information security, and financial
concerns).
Compliance and Regulation
Violations of a rule, regulation, law, operating procedure, past
Violations
practice or protocol.
Conflict of Interest
Actions that influence the exercise of one's job duties.
Examples include inappropriate vendor relations, bribery,
nepotism, and exploitation of confidential information.
Embezzlement
Fraudulent appropriation of assets by an individual to whom
such property has been entrusted.
Falsification of Contracts or Records
Altering, fabricating, destroying, misrepresenting, or forging
contracts or documents for personal gain.
Ethics Hotline Policy — Page 5
Health record miscoding or up -coding
Purposely miscoding a client's health record or up -coding. Up -
coding is purposely using a billing code that does not match the
procedure performed and results in a higher billing rate.
Improper Giving or Receiving of
Giving, receiving or solicitation of valuables, which could be
Gifts
interpreted as an effort to influence a business relationship or
decision.
IT Security ConcernsViolations
of information security policies, conduct that results
in potentially compromising the County's network or
technology resources.
Sabotage or Vandalism
The deliberate and willful destruction of, or damage and
impairment to, equipment or property. Interference in order to
cripple, shut down, or reduce the output of an operation.
Theft of Property
Stealing property belonging to the County or another.
Time Abuse
he act of falsifying one's own or other's work hours.
Unusual or Suspicious Activities
Irregular activities that raise a concern which warrants an
investigation.
INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
Any questions concerning the intent or application of this policy should be directed to the County Internal
Auditor or designee who is delegated the responsibility for the interpretation and implementation of this
policy.
Approved by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners on
Tom Anderson,
County Administrator
Ethics Hotline Policy — Page 6
ES C
Ys
December 5, 2018
Mr. Kevin Larkin, District Ranger
Forest Service
Deschutes National Forest, Bend -Fort Rock Ranger District
63095 Deschutes Market Road
Bend, OR 97701
RE: Finley Butte Quarry
Dear Mr. Larkin,
The Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners has been informed that the Finely Butte Quarry is reaching
its excavation limit. The Finley Butte Quarry has been a productive material source within southern Deschutes
County for many years and is one of very few quarries in the area.
The availability of locally sourced aggregate material is critical to Deschutes County. In addition to road
construction and maintenance activities of ODOT, Deschutes County, the City of La Pine, and others, the material
source is critical to the development of the growing La Pine community. Importing aggregate from remote quarry
sites in other parts of the county will add cost to every public and private construction project.
Our Road Department has estimated an increase in haul cost between $250,000 to $0.5M over a ten year period
to import aggregate for use in south Deschutes County road maintenance projects. This is a significant, and
perhaps unnecessary added cost to taxpayers.
We understand there is a proposal to add 25 -acres to the existing Finley Butte Quarry site by Vic Russell
Construction. The Deschutes County Commission is highly supportive of any efforts to develop additional quarry
capacity in south Deschutes County for the reasons cited above. We would be appreciative of any efforts the
Deschutes National Forest could make to ensure that a viable material source remains locally available.
Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of assistance in the process.
Yours Truly,
Tony DeBone, Chair Phil Henderson, Vice -Chair Tammy Baney, Commissioner
1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97703
541) 388 6571 (c )oard@deschutes .org Givwwdeschutes.org