2023-28-Minutes for Meeting December 21,2022 Recorded 1/17/2023vyCES
0
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2023-28
Steve Dennison, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal 01 /17/2023 3:46:34 PM
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
BOCC MEETING MINUTES
9:00 AM
WEDNESDAY December 21, 2022
Barnes Sawyer Rooms
Live Streamed Video
Present were Commissioners Patti Adair, Anthony DeBone, and Phil Chang. Also present were Nick
Lelack, County Administrator; Kim Riley, Assistant County Counsel; and Brenda Fritsvold, BOCC Executive
Assistant.
This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County
Meeting Portal website www.deschutes.org/meetings
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Adair called the meeting to order at 9:01 a.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT:
Chair Adair acknowledged the receipt of one citizen input email regarding designating a
position on the Planning Commission to specifically represent the Tumalo area.
CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of the Consent Agenda.
DEBONE: Move Board approval of Consent Agenda
CHANG: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
BOCC MEETING
DECEMBER 21, 2022 PAGE 1 OF 13
1. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2022-067, Road Name Assignment
of McClain Drive
2. Consideration of Board Signature on Document No. 2022-955, Improvement
Agreement for Phase A of the Caldera Springs Destination Resort Expansion
3. Consideration of Board Signature on Document No. 2022-954, Improvement
Agreement for Phase C-1 of the Caldera Springs Destination Resort Expansion
4. Approval of Resolution No. 2022-081, recognizing the receipt of $147,595 in grant
funding from PacificSource and increasing appropriations within the Health
Services Fund and the 2022-23 Deschutes County Budget
5. Consideration of Board signature on letter appointing Danielle Grimes to the
Deschutes County Central Oregon Housing Authority (dba Housing Works) Board
6. Consideration of Board Signature on letter reappointing James Getchell to the
Newberry Estates Special Road District
7. Approval of the minutes of the December 7 2022 BOCC meeting
ACTION ITEMS:
8. Presentation from CASA of Central Oregon
Heather Dixon, Executive Director of CASA of Central Oregon, shared that the
organization's purpose is to match every child who has been neglected or abused
with a trained volunteer who advocates for the child's best interest in court and at
school. Dixon said children with CASA volunteers do better in school, are more likely
to receive therapy and health care, are less likely to move from residence to
residence or get stuck in long-term foster care, and are significantly more likely to
find refuge in a safe, permanent home.
Dixon explained that when children enter the foster care system, the State becomes
their parent. Although each child's personal advocate is assigned by a judge, CASA
provides them with the training and support they need to make a difference in the
lives of the children they are matched with. Dixon said of the 215 children currently
in foster care in Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson counties, some are not yet served
by a court -appointed special advocate due to the insufficient number of volunteers.
Commissioners expressed appreciation for the organization and encouraged
community members to volunteer.
9. Consideration of Board signature of Document No. 2022-984, Funding
BOCC MEETING
DECEMBER 21, 2022 PAGE 2 OF 13
Contribution Agreement with ODOT for the US 20/Locust Project
Chris Doty, Road Director, and Bob Townsend from the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) shared the history of efforts by the City of Sisters and the
State to construct a roundabout at the intersection of US 20 and Locust Street to
better manage traffic and provide a safe connection to the highway. Deschutes
County had previously indicated its support for this initiative and pledged a
$1,000,000 contribution towards the project. Sisters has agreed to contribute
$1,250,000 and ODOT has budgeted $5,000,000.
Townsend said the State expects to go out for bids late t2023 and start
construction in early 2024. The project's estimated completion date is late May
of 2024.
Commissioner Chang inquired about the trucking community's opinion of the
plan. Townsend responded that the roundabout's lanes and turning
configuration have been sized to their satisfaction.
DEBONE: Move approval of Board signature of Document No. 2022-984, a
Funding Contribution Agreement with ODOT for improvements to
US 20 at Locust Street
CHANG: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
10. Informational presentation on the Tumalo Wastewater Feasibility Study
Chris Doty, Road Director, summarized that the purpose of the Tumalo Wastewater
Feasibility Study was to analyze the feasibility of implementing a wastewater
collection and treatment system; the analysis included various alternatives and
possible rates and fees.
Commissioner DeBone said the County recognized the differences of opinion in the
community on this issue, and funded the study to supply needed information. Doty
agreed that the study does not mandate that a wastewater system be built but
rather was done to investigate the feasibility, options and anticipated costs of such a
system.
Commissioner DeBone asked if the existing system (TPOA) is privately owned and
operated. Doty confirmed that it is; one of the factors considered in the study is an
evaluation of the potential to expand this system beyond its current service area.
BOCC MEETING
DECEMBER 21, 2022 PAGE 3 OF 13
Doty emphasized that the feasibility study is limited in scope and does not address
how Tumalo might change as the result of a sewer system. The study focused on the
following items:
1. The gathering and evaluating of available existing septic system performance
data;
2. The assembly of stakeholders and an advisory committee;
3. The development of wastewater collection and treatment options for
consideration;
4. The estimating of capital costs, maintenance and operations costs, and a
potential rate model; and
5. The evaluation of governance options.
Doty shared the results of the work done on each of the scoping items, noting that
many septic systems in Tumalo were installed over 50 years ago. The preferred
collection option of a gravity system was deemed not viable; the next best choice is a
system with septic tank effluent pumps. This system would have lower capital costs
and fewer impacts on the community. It would also be scalable to accommodate
project phasing and system expansion.
Doty reviewed three alternatives, as follows: expand the TPOA system; install a new
collection system with a new treatment and disposal site; or install a new collection
system and tie into the north interceptor line proposed by the City of Bend along US
20 at Cooley. Doty summarized the benefits and challenges of each alternative and
shared a table illustrating estimated monthly rates and fees according to three
different grant funding models (10%, 30% and 50%).
Doty concluded that the final study is available on the County's website along with
supporting documentation and other information, including recordings of the
various meetings held on this subject.
Commissioner Adair requested that staff present this information to the Tumalo
community.
Commissioner Chang asked how much of this information has been shared with the
advisory committee. Doty responded that it was shared in a Zoom call and has also
been made available to the general public via the website. He added that staff came
to understand early in the process that due to the diversity of opinions on the
advisory committee, that group will not transition into a sanitary sewer district
formation group.
Commissioner Chang emphasized that whatever happens next will be the decision
of the Tumalo community.
BOCC MEETING
DECEMBER 21, 2022 PAGE 4 OF 13
Commissioner Adair invited Onsite Wastewater Manager Todd Cleveland to address
concerns about the soil in the Tumalo area, which has low filtration and drains very
rapidly, and also explain the difference between on -site wastewater treatment and
disposal systems.
Chair Adair noted that several persons signed up to comment on this issue.
Robert Fish considered the TPOA to be a good opportunity to see how that kind of
system would function if expanded. He referenced his experience performing
maintenance on many treatment systems, questioned how the source of impacts to
water quality could be determined to come from treatment systems instead of
fertilizer applications or farm animals, and asked to know specifics regarding a
"relative high water table" as this pertains to the Tumalo area.
Jeannie Fraley, who served on the advisory committee, stated her understanding
that the next step would be to decide as a community whether to form a sanitation
district. She said if the County were to sponsor a community meeting at the school
for this purpose, the space would be provided free of charge. She referred to the
likelihood of having to obtain grants to offset costs and concluded that the TPOA
system is limited in terms of the volume it can handle.
Jim Dunn agreed that the TPOA system is undersized. Noting that a sewer system
would serve as the foundation for growth, he said Tumalo residents desire to
maintain their rural community and do not want more commercial development. He
believed the study should have looked at the option of a sand filter or AdvanTex
system, as many who live in Tumalo could not afford a $35,000 hook-up fee and
then to pay $95 per month.
Commissioner Chang reiterated that the County is not doing this to or for the
Tumalo community. Rather, how to proceed from this point is for the community to
decide.
Commissioner Adair invited other interested persons to email their comments to the
Board.
11. Planning Commission Representation /Tumalo Area / Recruitment
Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Director, reviewed previous
discussion of and public input on the subject of designating a specific position
on the Planning Commission to represent Tumalo. Gutowsky said staff seeks
guidance on whether to initiate a Code amendment to establish an ex officio
member until the at -large position with a term expiring June 30, 2023 could be
converted to a position representing Tumalo. Alternatively, the person who lives in
Bend and currently serves in one of the at -large positions could be switched to one
of the two Bend positions, freeing up the at -large position.
BOCC MEETING
DECEMBER 21, 2022 PAGE 5 OF 13
Chair Adair noted that several persons signed up to comment on this issue.
Jessica Kieras, current chair of the Planning Commission, said the Commission is
supportive of waiting until the regular appointment process to address this matter
rather than temporarily adding a non -voting member to its roster. She invited all
interested persons to become involved and attend the Commission's meetings.
Jeannie Fraley said Deschutes County Code states that the Planning Commission
shall include representation from Tumalo and also from Terrebonne. Noting that
both of these communities are growing, she proposed increasing the Commission's
membership to nine from seven.
Tammy Harty said it was critical that Tumalo have a representative on the
Commission with full voting rights, and asked that the community be allowed to
review candidates in the selection process before finalists are presented to the
Board for consideration.
Jack Farley stated he had applied for the most recent at -large opening on the
Planning Commission, but although he resides in Tumalo, he was not appointed. He
recounted his efforts to determine when the geographic representation for Tumalo
was changed to an at -large seat.
Following discussion, Gltow>k y said this matter VVi11 be brought back to the Board
in
early 2023 with options for proceeding.
At 11:30 am, the meeting was recessed for a short break.
The meeting reconvened at 11:37 am.
12. Findings of the Ambulance Service Area (ASA) Advisory Committee with
respect to allegations from St. Charles Health Systems and the La Pine
Community Health Clinic against the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District
Chris Bell, Senior Assistant Legal Counsel, introduced Tom Kuhn, Ambulance
Service Area (ASA) Administrator, who reviewed the authority of the ASA Advisory
Committee and described allegations from St. Charles Health Systems and the La
Pine Community Health Clinic against the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District. Kuhn
stated that upon receiving the allegations, the Committee conducted an
investigation into whether the available evidence supported them. The Committee
ultimately substantiated two of the five allegations.
Bell explained that, in accordance with Deschutes County Code Chapter 8.30 and the
Deschutes County ASA Plan, the Board can direct staff to issue a written notice to
BOCC MEETING
DECEMBER 21, 2022 PAGE 6 OF 13
the District of the two violations that were substantiated by the ASA Advisory
Committee. The District would then have the opportunity to request a hearing.
Commissioner Chang stressed it is important to convey that the violations should be
remedied so they are no longer issues. Commissioners Adair and DeBone
concurred.
Following discussion about the improper billing of St. Charles and La Pine
Community Health by the District and indications that this practice is continuing,
albeit under a different ordinance passed by the District, Bell said this practice could
conceivably become the subject of a second investigation.
Commissioner Adair was concerned that patients were discouraged from utilizing
transport and asked if this has changed. Courtney lgnazzitto, Communications
Manager of the La Pine Community Health Clinic, said she has not heard that this is
continuing to happen.
Commissioner DeBone supported substantiating the two findings. Commissioner
Adair wanted to ensure that the letter is adequately firm.
DEBONE: Move to accept the recommendations, support the five
findings as identified, and direct staff to proceed with drafting
a notice of violation for the Board's review prior to issuance
CHANG: Second
VOTE:
DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion carried
13. Request Board signature of Document No. 2022-870, a contract with Allied
Universal Security for security at the Deschutes County Stabilization Center
Holly Harris, Program Manager, and Kimberly Bohme, Program Supervisor,
presented a proposed contract with Allied Universal Security for the provision of
private security services at the Stabilization Center.
CHANG:
DEBONE:
VOTE:
BOCC MEETING
Move approval of Board signature of Document No. 2022-870,
a contract with Allied Universal Security for the provision of
private security services at the Deschutes County Stabilization
Center
Second
DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DECEMBER 21, 2022 PAGE 7 OF 13
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion carried
14. Consideration to hear a land use matter involving commercial activity
in conjunction with farm use (meadery)
Nathaniel Miller, Associate Planner, said an applicant seeking approval of a meadery
(honey winery) and associated uses along Highway 20 near Sisters has asked that
the Board hear its appeal of a Hearings Officer decision. Miller shared the history of
this matter and said the Hearings Officer denied the proposal for failure to
demonstrate that the meadery use will be incidental and subordinate to the farm
use on the property, and for failure to adequately address impacts to farm uses in
the area.
The three options before the Board are as follows:
• Decline to hear the appeal;
• Agree to hear the appeal with a limited de novo review; or
• Agree to hear the appeal with a de novo review which would allow the Board
to consider the entire record as well as new evidence and testimony.
Commissioner Chang spoke to the desperate need for honeybees around the
country and questioned how using land for bee hives to produce honey to make
wine is different from using land to grow grapes for wine.
Miller said the applicant proposes to have events such as indoor and outdoor
tasting, a food cart, and wine club gatherings, in addition to other events such as
concerts on a limited basis.
Will Groves, Planning Manager, said the legislature adopted special winery land use
provisions with the goal of preventing traffic and other activities from negatively
affecting agricultural and farming uses. An essential question is whether these types
of uses constitute agri-tourism, or commercial activity that happens in conjunction
with a farm use.
CHANG: Move to hear de novo an appeal of a Hearings Officer decision
on a proposal for a commercial activity in conjunction with
farm use (meadery) in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion carried
15. Request to purchase a MRL Model 1-660-ALS Paint Truck Striping Body
BOCC MEETING
DECEMBER 21, 2022 PAGE 8 OF 13
Randy McCulley, Road Department, referred to the Board's previous action to
authorize purchasing this key piece of traffic safety equipment. The final price of
$608,850.00 is $43,850.00 above the budgeted amount due to rising material
costs; the total amount will be paid from the Road Department's
Building/Equipment Fund.
CHANG: Move approval of Document No. 2022-987 to purchase a paint
truck striping body from Mark Right Lines Equipment
Company, Inc. in the amount of $608,850
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion carried
16. Request approval to apply for OHA Workforce Incentives grant
Holly Harris, Interim Deputy Director of Health Services, sought approval to apply for
a non-competitive grant in the amount of $883,216 for workforce recruitment and
retention efforts and to provide training and supervised clinical experience. Harris
said the funds could also be used to offer paid internships, stipends for those who
offer to supervise interns, and more tuition reimbursement. Other potential uses
%Aunt be to exnanri Hart -time Pmnlnyment nnnorti initiPS nr nntcihly nffer hnucing
stipends for rural areas.
DEBONE: Move to authorize staff to apply for a OHA Workforce Incentives
grant in the amount of $883,216
CHANG: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion carried
At 12:54 pm, the meeting was recessed for a short break.
The meeting reconvened at 1:03 pm.
17. Adult Parole & Probation Expansion Project Skanska USA Building, Inc.
Change Order No. 1—Secure Parking Lot
Lee Randall, Facilities Director, and Captain William Bailey explained the proposal
to modify the contract with Skanska for the Adult Parole & Probation project to
include expanding the secure parking area for the Sheriff's Office. The $300,243
change order would be paid from the Campus Improvements Fund, FY 2023.
BOCC MEETING
DECEMBER 21, 2022 PAGE 9 OF 13
DEBONE: Move approval of Chair signature of Document No. 2022-991, Change
Order to the Adult Parole & Probation Expansion Project contract with
Skanska USA Building, Inc. for construction of a secure parking lot
expansion
CHANG: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion carried
18. Adult Parole & Probation Expansion Project Skanska USA Building, Inc.
Change Order No. 3—Shell Space Finish
Facilities Director Lee Randall introduced Deevy Holcomb, Community Justice
Director, and Tanner Wark, Deputy Director of Adult Parole & Probation.
Holcomb described the proposal to modify the contract with Skanska to proceed
with finishing 1,038 square feet of shell space at the Adult Parole & Probation work
center now rather than later. The contractor is 80% done with the addition, and
sufficient funds exist to cover this additional expense. Holcomb explained how the
space will be used, emphasizing that the collaboration gained will improve
timeliness of services.
CHANG: Move approval of Chair signature of Document No. 2022-993, Change
Order No. 3 to the Adult Parole & Probation Expansion Project contract
with Skanska USA Building, Inc. for interior finish of shell space
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion carried
19. Board selection of Chair and Vice Chair for 2023
Commissioner Chang indicated his interest in serving as Chair for 2023.
Commissioner Adair supported having Commissioner DeBone serve as Chair in
2023. Commissioner DeBone responded that he would accept this role.
Commissioner Chang objected to the deviation from the traditional chair rotation,
which he took to mean that his fellow Commissioners seek to limit his input on the
Board's meeting agendas, silence his voice, and force him to pursue his agenda
through outside channels.
BOCC MEETING
DECEMBER 21, 2022 PAGE 10 OF 13
Commissioner DeBone responded that Commissioner Chang was presuming
motivations that did not exist and reaching inaccurate conclusions as a result.
Commissioner Adair said the Board has many things to work on together, and
hoped that next year would be more positive.
After further discussion, Commissioner Adair nominated Commissioner DeBone to
serve as Chair of the Board in 2023.
VOTE:
DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: No
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion carried 2 - 1
Following Commissioner Chang's declination to serve as Vice Chair in 2023,
Commissioner DeBone nominated Commissioner Adair to serve as Vice Chair of the
Board in 2023.
VOTE:
DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
OTHER ITEMS:
• Commissioner DeBone relayed a request from the Sunriver/La Pine
Economic Development Program to help sponsor its annual luncheon on
April 11th. He suggested sponsoring two tables for $500 each. Commissioner
Adair was supportive of funding this sponsorship from video lottery funds.
Commissioner Chang preferred that the Board determine its 2023 committee
assignments before making this kind of investment.
DEBONE: Move to sponsor the Sunriver/La Pine Economic Development
Program's annual luncheon by purchasing two tables at a
combined cost of $1,000, paid from video lottery funds
ADAIR: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Abstain
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion carried 2 - 1 - 0
• Commissioner DeBone expressed his support for signing on to the amicus
brief to be put forward by the Eastern Oregon Counties Association
regarding the statewide ballot measure concerning firearm regulations,
BOCC MEETING
DECEMBER 21, 2022 PAGE 11 OF 13
which failed to pass in all eastern Oregon counties including Deschutes
County.
• Commissioner DeBone reported that the City of La Pine may request ARPA
funding for sidewalks which would cost about $300,000.
• Commissioner Chang presented a draft letter advocating for a State change
to allow counties between 200,000 and 650,000 in population to pool and
use tax -foreclosed property receipts to help youth and families with children
attain stable housing rather than distribute those monies across various
taxing districts as is currently done. He noted that this letter can be signed by
the full Board of Commissioners or on an individual basis.
Commissioner Adair was unsure if diverting funding from fire districts and
others would be the right thing to do.
Commissioner Chang provided an example of the estimated impact to a
service district and reiterated the proposal would benefit youth and families
with children by creating a revenue source for new low-income housing,
flexible rental assistance, and housing placement and retention support
services. He said the positive impacts of using pooled funds for these
targeted programs would outweigh the revenue reduction to each district.
Commissioner DeBone said if the proposal proceeds to assignment of a bill,
the County could consider directing its lobbyist to advocate for it. He was not
supportive at the present time, however, as he did not want to take funding
away from local jurisdictions.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: None
ADJOURN:
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 1:53 p.m.
DATED this ) Day of
BOCC MEETING
2027 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
PATTI ADAIR, CHAIR
DECEMBER 21, 2022 PAGE 12 OF 13
ATTEST:
RECORDING SECRETARY
BOCC MEETING
ANTHONY DEBONE, VICE CHAIR
PHIL CHANG, COMMISSIONER
DECEMBER 21, 2022 PAGE 13 OF 13
Hello Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners and thank you so much for
welcoming me to your conversation today.
Introduction - I am here to thank you for your consistent support for the advocacy for
children in foster care.
Thank you for being advocates for our community's most vulnerable members.
215 Children in foster care
104 CASA Volunteers
Children waiting
18 New CASAs needed
■ In Deschutes County today there are currently 284 children in foster care. These
are youth who have come into foster care because they have experienced abuse
or neglect and they are no longer safe in their homes. These are the stories that
we fear the most for youth, and they happen in our community every day.
■ Children who enter foster care have experienced profound abuse and neglect and
are found to be in an imminent threat of harm if they stay in their homes. They
are victims of physical abuse and sexual abuse, they have been exposed to illegal
drugs, domestic violence, and unsafe adults. Their basic needs have often been
neglected, including medical, dental, and mental health care.
® That's why we are here. it's our mission to recruit, train and support volunteers
who advocate for the best interests of abused and neglected children in the court
system. CASA volunteers work within the courts in collaboration with key
agencies, legal counsel and community resources to ensure that every child
in foster care in Central Oregon can transition into a safe and permanent home.
■ Our CASA advocates are usually assigned directly by a judge to become the
primary advocate for a child who has been removed from their home and placed
in foster care.
■ Our advocates become the champion, cheerleader and chief of staff for this
child —ensuring that their needs are met and they have what they need to thrive in
the face of the adversity they have experienced and will continue to experience as
they move through the foster system.
2
Community close-up
Deschutes County.
250
CASA service in Deschutes County
7/2019 - 1012019 - 1.12020 - 412020 - 712020 - 1012020- /2021 - 412021 - 712021 - 1012021 - 112022 - 4//2022 - 7/2022 -
912019 12/2019 312020 612020 9/2020 1212020 312021 612021 912021 1212021 312022 6/2022 1012022
Pi Children in foster care oo Children served with a CASA volunteer
Contrary to state trends, the number of children in foster care has increased in the
past few years.
With the support of the Deschutes County BOCC, we have consistently served
between 85% and 90% of children in foster care with personalized advocacy.
We have one of the highest service percentages in the state. But it's not
enough.
3
A CASA is an ordinary person who does
extraordinary things for children in foster care.
CENTRAL. OREGON
• To serve 100% of children, we are actively seeking CASA volunteers.
• CASAs come from rooms just like this one. CASAs are grandmas, they are young
professionals, they are retired teachers or librarians. It's any one of you. AD you
have to do is step forward and we will move forward in this work together
beginning with our very next CASA training starting the last week in January.
Training will be online and in -person in Bend. Sign up at our website
• Session 1 (Online): 01/24/23-03/14/23 - Tuesdays 5:00-8:30pm
• Session 2 (In -person, Bend): 01/26/23-03/16/23 - Thursdays
12:00-3:30pm
Just to give you some context.
[READ GRAPHIC ON SLIDE]
Our CASAs are truly the one stable presence in the life of a child in foster care.
Children with a CAA...
• Move into a safe, permanent home more quickly
• Are more likely to succeed in school
• Are less likely to re-enter foster care
• Are more likely to receive support to heal and thrive
[READ BULLETS FROM SLIDE]
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 21, 2022
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Representation / Tumalo Area / Recruitment
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Board direction sought on the subject of Planning Commission representation and
recruitment as described below.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Staff is seeking direction from the Board of County Commissioners as it pertains to the
Deschutes County Planning Commission and whether:
• Geographic areas representing the seven voting members of the Planning
Commission should be revisited as early as next month, specifically as it pertains to
Tumalo's boundaries?and
• An interim ex-nffirin nncitinn chni ilrl ha ectahlicherl to allow a renrecentative of the
Tumalo area to participate in Planning Commission proceedings until June 30, 2023,
at which time the position could rollover to one of the seven voting members for a
four year term?
If the Board wishes to revisit the geographic areas next month, it will delay amendments to
Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter 2.52, Deschutes County Planning Commission and
the recruitment process for an interim ex-officio member.
Alternatively, if the Board wants to prioritize an interim ex-officio member for the Tumalo
area, the following expedited process and schedule could be initiated:
1. Convert the first of two forthcoming Planning Commission vacancies (Dale
Crawford) from an at -large position to a Tumalo area position.
2. Amend DCC Chapter 2.52, Deschutes County Planning Commission to allow for one
ex-officio member.
3. Upon adoption in January, initiate a Planning Commission recruitment for one
interim ex-officio member representing the Tumalo area. The recruitment notice
would acknowledge that the successful candidate serves from the appointment date
to June 30, 2023 as an ex-officio member and then rolls over from July 1, 2023, to
June 30, 2027, as one of the seven voting members of the Planning Commission.
4. Effective on July 1, 2023, convert an existing at -large Planning Commission position
(Nathan Hovekamp) to a forthcoming vacancy in the Bend area (Maggie Kirby). The
Bend area position would encompass a full term through June 30, 2027.
5. Initiate a Planning Commission recruitment notice in March for a forthcoming
vacancy in the second of two at -large positions (Nathan Hovekamp) for a full term
from July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2027.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Peter Gutowsky, CDD Director
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Director
DATE: December 14, 2022
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Representation / Tumalo Area / Recruitment
I. DIRECTION
Staff is seeking direction from the Board of County Commissioners (Board) as it pertains to the Deschutes
County Planning Commission and whether:
• Geographic areas representing the seven voting members of the Planning Commission should be
revisited as early as next month, specifically as it pertains to Tumalo's boundaries? 1 and
• An interim ex-officio position should be established to allow a representative of the Tumalo area to
participate in Planning Commission proceedings until June 30, 2023, at which time the position could
rollover to one of the seven voting members for a four year term?
If the Board wishes to revisit the geographic areas next month, it will delay amendments to Deschutes County
Code (DCC) Chapter 2.52, Deschutes County Planning Commission and the recruitment process for an interim
ex-officio member. As noted in Figure 1 below, changing a geographic boundary of one area will undoubtedly
affect others.
Figure 1— Planning Commission Membership
Alternatively, if the Board wants to prioritize an interim ex-officio member for the Tumalo area, the following
expedited process and schedule could be initiated:
1 https://deschutescounty.municipalcodeonline.com/book?type=ordinances#name=CHAPTER 2.52 DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION.
DCC 2.52.040(D). The membership of the commission shall, as much as possible, be representative of the various geographic areas of the County.
This should generally consist of the following: One member from the south County area of La Pine and Sunriver (Townships 19-22); two members
from the Bend area (Townships 17 and 18); one member from the Tumalo area (Townships 16, Ranges 11 or 12); one member from the Sisters
area (Townships 14 or 15, Ranges 9, 10 and 11); one member from the Redmond area (Townships 14 or 15, Ranges 12 or 13); and one member
at large. Failure to achieve such geographic representation shall not affect the validity of any action taken by the planning commission.
1. Convert the first of two forthcoming Planning Commission vacancies (Dale Crawford) from an at -large
position to a Tumalo area position.
2. Amend DCC Chapter 2.52, Deschutes County Planning Commission to allow for one ex-officio
member.
3. Upon adoption in January, initiate a Planning Commission recruitment for one interim ex-officio
member representing the Tumalo area. The recruitment notice would acknowledge that the
successful candidate serves from the appointment date to June 30, 2023 as an ex-officio member and
then rolls over from July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2027, as one of the seven voting members of the
Planning Commission.
4. Effective on July 1, 2023, convert an existing at -large Planning Commission position (Nathan
Hovekamp) to a forthcoming vacancy in the Bend area (Maggie Kirby). The Bend area position would
encompass a full term through June 30, 2027.
5. Initiate a Planning Commission recruitment notice in March for a forthcoming vacancy in the second
of two at -large positions (Nathan Hovekamp) for a full term from July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2027.
I. BACKGROUND
Last January, Deschutes County initiated a recruitment for a volunteer Planning Commission member. There
was a vacancy on the Planning Commission for an at -large member to complete an existing term through
June 30, 2024. CDD received twelve applications. In coordination with the Planning Commission Chair and
the Board, five candidates were interviewed. While one of the candidates was from the Tumalo Area, the
Board ultimately appointed a resident from Bend.
Following the appointment, Tumalo community members expressed their displeasure to CDD and the Board,
citing DCC 2.52.020(D), Membership; Qualifications, and its emphasis for one of the seven members to be
from Tumalo. Many passionately advocated for representation, emphasizing that the previous at -large
Planning Commissioner (Les Hudson) identified himself as living in the Tumalo area. They cited several
notable projects affecting Tumalo, including but not limited to:
• Comprehensive Plan Update • Tumalo Community Plan
• Transportation Growth Management • Tumalo Sewer Feasibility Study
(TGM) grant for bicycle, pedestrian, and • U.S. 20 Roundabout at Cook Avenue-O.B.
transit facilities Riley
• Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update
II. PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATION / TERMS
As noted in DCC 2.52.020(D), there are seven Planning Commission members. They represent: At -large (2),
Bend (2), Redmond, Sisters, and South County (1 each).2 Their respective terms are shown in Table 1.
Commissioners Crawford and Kirby complete their second and final terms on June 30, 2023.
2 Ibid.
-2-
Table 1— Planning Commission Terms
Commissioner
Area
First or Second Term
Term Expiration
Susan Altman
Bend
First
June 30, 2024
Dale Crawford
At -large
Second
June 30, 2023
Matt Cyrus
Sisters
First
June 30, 2026
Nathan Hovekamp
At -Large
First
June 30, 2024
Jessica Kieras
Redmond
Second
June 30, 2026
Maggie Kirby
Bend
Second
June 30, 2023
Toni Williams
South County
First
June 30, 2025
III. PLANNING COMMISSION RECRUITMENTS / PROPOSED GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION
The Board could direct CDD to initiate two Planning Commission recruitments next year, one for the Tumalo
area and the other for an at -large position. Staff offers the following approaches to maximize geographic
area representation:
Tumalo Area
• Convert a forthcoming vacancy in the first of two at -large Planning Commission positions (Dale
Crawford) to the Tumalo area.
• Amend DCC Chapter 2.52, Deschutes County Planning Commission, to allow for one ex-officio
member.
• Upon adoption, initiate a Planning Commission recruitment for one interim ex-officio member
representing the Tumalo area. The recruitment notice would acknowledge that the successful
candidate serves from the appointment date to June 30, 2023 as an ex-officio member and then rolls
over from July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2027 as one of the seven voting members of the Planning
Commission.
Bend Area
• Effective on July 1, 2023, convert an existing at -large Planning Commission position (Nathan
Hovekamp) to a forthcoming vacancy in the Bend area (Maggie Kirby). The Bend area position would
encompass a full term through June 30, 2027.
At -Large
• Initiate a Planning Commission recruitment notice in March for a forthcoming vacancy in the second
of two at -large positions (Nathan Hovekamp) for a full term from July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2027.
Table 2 illustrates how the geographic composition of the Planning Commission could change starting on
July 1, 2023.
-3-
Table 2 — Planning Commission / Potential Geographic Representation / July 2023
Commissioner
Area
Term Expiration
Susan Altman
Bend
June 30, 2024
Board Appointment
Tumalo
June 30, 2027
Matt Cyrus
Sisters
June 30, 2026
Nathan Hovekamp
Bend
June 30, 2027
Jessica Kieras
Redmond
June 30, 2026
Board Appointment
At -Large
June 30, 2027
Toni Williams
South County
June 30, 2025
CDD believes the above process could provide a timely response to the concerns of Tumalo area residents
and be consistent with the language and intent of DCC Chapter 2.52 while allowing the Planning Commission
to provide uninterrupted service to the entire county.
IV. TIMELINE
Table 3 shows a tentative timeline for initiating the two Planning Commission recruitments:
Table 3 — Planning Commission Reappointment Schedule
Task
Timeline
Tumalo Area Recruitment
1.
Draft amendments to DCC Chapter 2.52
December 22 to 28
2.
Public notice
December 23
3.
Board hearing, deliberation and adoption by emergency
January 4
4.
Press release announcing Tumalo Area Planning Commissioner recruitment
January 6
5.
One month recruitment period
January 6 to February 3
6.
Board identifies candidates to interview
February 6 to 17
7.
Board conducts interviews
Week of February 20 or 27
8.
Board appointment
March 1 or 8
At Large Recruitment
9.
Press release announcing At -Large Planning Commissioner recruitment
March 1
10.
One month recruitment period
March 1 to 31
11.
Board identifies candidates to interview
April 3 to 14
12.
Board conducts interviews
Week of April 17 or 24
13.
Board appointment
May 3 or 10
-4-
Subject: l
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING
Citizen Input or Testimony
PC`R4ot-eSer } \4-cr
Phone #s au?) .-- 3 C
E-mail address (s SAS ' i , C
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Date:
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
(cm- C
DiLk
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Opposed
Q
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: c5-�� Date:
Name/
Address S 0 1114So �.
Phone #s 5-0 5 % l ~5-7
-
E-mail address (P 4,7vAAT
InFavor
Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes L
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT CbMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
0
ES
Subject:
Name
Address
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
C v ry t StD'f�t
�— C7#X
10441 . v S•CkLe--e- ,i1416A Oa_ 72
ct) Date: l2 2 1-2
Phone #s 64 f• "'T Z t
E-mailaddress Cil..tVNlE.-2--
In Favor
Td-1 [>C'r3
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Angie Powe.
From: Tammy Harty <tammyharty@msn.com>
Sent Tuesday, December 20, 2022 9:07 PM
To: Patti Adair; Phil Chang; Tony DeBone
Cc: citizeninput
Subject Letter for County Commissioners Meeting 12-21-2022
Attachments: Memo to County Commissioners for meeting 12-21-2022.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Please see attached letter from the citizens of Tumalo regarding discussion about Action Item 11 for the meeting 12-21-
2022:
Planning commission representation / Tumalo area / Recruitment
Thanks so much !!
Tammy Harty
541-815-0203
tammyharty@msn.com
12-20-2022
Dear County Commissioners,
Thanks so much for addressing our concerns regarding representation on the planning commission for the
Tumalo area. The citizens of the Tumalo area care deeply about what is happening in our community and
want to be more involved in shaping the plans for our future. We believe it is critical for Tumalo to be
represented on the planning commission at this time:
Thank you again for addressing our concerns. In the process of selecting a Tumalo planning commissioner, we
also ask that we have a part in the review of candidates in the selection process before finalists are submitted
to the County Commissioners for consideration.
The community wants and supports a fully functioning planning commissioner from Tumalo. It is important
that this position be a voting position. There is much going on in Tumalo at this time that we want a voice in
shaping the recommendations that will be made to the County Commissioners. We do support a look at the
geographical areas that make up Tumalo, but it is not as pressing an issue as getting a voting representative on
the planning commission right away.
Just a few clarifications to the staff report that should be noted
Deschutes County Code currently states that there shall be a representative from the Tumalo
community on the Deschutes County Planning Commission (DCC 2.52.020). This seat was
established in Deschutes County Board in 1994
• The rightful Tumalo seat has been exchanged for a 2nd "at large" position. This change never appears
in the minutes of the DC Board of County Commissioners;
The rightful Tumalo Io seat was errantly filled recently Rend City resident and not a resident of the
rigrr�rurrurriarvv�u4 was errantly �nr*-•:+ ..��,:�y by a city resident
unincorporated area of the county.
• The Tumalo seat was reaffirmed in the Planning Commission Policy Manual updated in 2020.
CHAPTER 2.52 DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
2.52.020 Membership; Qualifications
The membership of the commission shall, as much as possible, be representative of the various
geographic areas of the County. This should generally consist of the following: One member from the
south County area of La Pine and Sunriver (Townships 19-22); two members from the Bend area
(Townships 17 and 18); one member from the Tumalo area (Townships 16, Ranges 11 or 12); one
member from the Sisters area (Townships 14 or 15, Ranges 9, 10 and 11); one member from the
Redmond area (Townships 14 or 15, Ranges 12 or 13); and one member at large. Failure to achieve such
geographic representation shall not affect the validity of any action taken by the planning commission.
CORRECTIONS TO THE STAFF REPORT:
I. Background section clarification The recruitment in January included 2 applicants from the
Tumalo area.
II. PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATION /TERMS: Clarification — The current code as noted
in DCC 2.52.020 includes only 1 at large position and already includes a Tumalo area member —
see above.
Thank you for your consideration. Concerned citizens in the Tumalo area
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Subject:`.., :: Date: (-d .
Name
Address
Phone #s
E-mail address
In Favor
Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
VIM
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST AND STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 21, 2022
SUBJECT: Informational presentation on the Tumalo Wastewater Feasibility Study
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
None at this time —information only.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
In the spring of 2022, the BOCC was approached by a group of Tumalo business owners and
commercial property owners with a request to fund a Wastewater Feasibility Study for the
community of Tumalo. The County hired the engineering firm of Murraysmith (now Consor)
to perform the feasibility analysis and prepare options for consideration by interested
stakeholders in the community. The Feasibility Study evaluated three options and included
estimates for capital construction, hookup fees, and utility rates, as well as governance and
Sanitary District fnrmatinn The study and process documents have been published to the
Project website: www.TumaloSewerOptions.org.
With a host of other infrastructure and planning projects in the area, the Wastewater
Feasibility Study has been a source of confusion in the community. It is important to note
that Deschutes County is not a utility service provider and will not take any direct action to
develop a community system. If the community desires a wastewater system, this study will
provide stakeholders with options for consideration and a roadmap to implement - similar
to how the community established and formed the Laidlaw Water District in the early 1980s.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
This study was funded with federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARPA) funds
at a cost of approximately $150,000.
ATTENDANCE:
Chris Doty, Road Department
Susanna Julber, Senior Associate, Consor
Justin Moman, PE, Civil Engineer, Consor
0
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: `/ i .� � � l�t� J- Date: /2
Name 1)4 Pt 5/17
Address Jgc95Z) z' $-
/3d770
Phone #s 48 0 406
E-mail address, 'fr.,-t-;,,,.1 a,koo
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record,
Opposed
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
0
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: &. 'S I "b i I
Name c_SPLU .ntL- Ffe0-2c.f
Address Ca -1/1 b &t &C C
Date: 1'Z 2! 22_
fib.
Phone #s
€ • Y7t 4�0.
E-mail address csQ.n n.t
In Favor
?<.
syvt94-a eo rh
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Opposed
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
,4.,:zoi/
Subject:. 7 � �� Date: 3 -z;
Name- tip/ ,i/;'
Address ct o 7 G ` vy a d
Phone #s
E-mail address
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 21, 2022
SUBJECT: Findings of Ambulance Service Area (ASA) Advisory Committee with Respect to
Allegations from St. Charles Health Systems and the La Pine Community Health
Clinic Against the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Review and consider the findings of the ASA Advisory Committee and direct staff on how to
proceed
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
On September 28, 2022, the ASA Committee adopted findings arising from its
investigation into allegations made against the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District
in complaints from St. Charles Health System and La Pine Community Health
Center. The Committee's findings are attached. The allegations made in these
complaints were distilled into five primary allegations by the Committee, each of
which alleged that the District had violated Chapter 8.30 of the Deschutes County
Code and/or relevant provisions of the Deschutes County ASA Plan. After its
investigation, the Committee substantiated two of these allegations. After the
presentation, it is recommended the Board briefly deliberate and then direct staff
on how to proceed. That decision should be guided by the terms of DCC Chapter
8.30 and the ASA Plan.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Tom Kuhn, ASA Administrator
Members of the ASA Committee
Chris Bell, Legal Department
Deschutes County ASA Advisory Committee
Investigation of Allegations from St. Charles Health
System and La Pine Community Health Center
Against Deschutes County Franchisee La Pine
Rural Fire Protection District
Investigation Summary and Findings
Prepared by: ASA Advisory Committee
Authority of the ASA Advisory Committee
The Deschutes County ASA Advisory Committee ("Committee") and the Deschutes County
Board of Commissioners ("Board") are authorized to investigate alleged violations of the
Ambulance Service Area Plan for Deschutes County ("ASA Plan") and/or Chapter 8.30
(Deschutes County Ambulance Service Areas) of the Deschutes County Code ("DCC Chapter
8.30") by County ambulance service franchisees. See ASA Plan, §8.2 and DCC 8.30.070.1 If, as
here, the Committee is assigned by the Board to investigate such allegations, the Committee's
task is to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate a franchisee has violated
applicable local laws or regulations, such as the ASA Plan or DCC Chapter 8.30, state or federal
law or regulations, or whether the franchisee materially misrepresented facts or information
given in either the application for assignment of its franchise or as part of a review of the
performance of services furnished by the franchisee. Id. Upon completion of its investigation
the Committee will provide its findings to the Board for its review and determination as to
further action or sanctions against the franchisee. Id.
If the Board determines that a franchisee has willfully violated applicable local laws or
regulations, such as the ASA Plan or DCC Chapter 8.30, state or federal law or regulations, or
that a franchisee has materially misrepresented facts or information given in the application for
assignment of its franchise or as part of a review of the performance of services furnished by
the franchisee, the Board may revoke or suspend the assignment of a franchise to a franchisee.
ASA Plan, §8.4. In lieu of suspension or revocation, the Board may take other remedial
measures to ensure any violations are corrected. ASA Plan, §8.4; DCC 8.30.070.
Overview of Allegations
The Board assigned the Committee the task of investigating two complaints received by the
Board against the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District ("District"), including one from St.
Charles Health System ("St. Charles"), and one that was submitted jointly by St. Charles and La
1 The ASA Plan and Chapter 8.30 of the Deschutes County Code were amended subsequent to the Committee's
receipt of the complaints from St. Charles and LCHC. All citations to the ASA Plan and Chapter 8.30 of the
Deschutes County Code are to the May 2018 versions of each, which were effective at the time of receipt of the
complaints by the Committee.
Investigation of La Pine Rural Fire Protection District - 1 1 Page
Pine Community Health Center ("LCHC"). (Where appropriate, St. Charles and LCHC will be
referred to collectively as "Complainants.") The first complaint was submitted by St. Charles on
or about November 16, 2020. (A copy of the November 6, 2020 Complaint is attached as
Attachment 1.) The second complaint was submitted by St. Charles and LCHC on or about
February 3, 2021. (A copy of the February 3, 2021 Complaint is attached as Attachment 2.)
Taken together, the complaints include several allegations against the District, which are
summarized below:
1. The District discouraged patients from utilizing the District for emergency transports.
2. The District provided inaccurate determinations about whether emergency
transportation was necessary for patients in order to support the fees it charged to St.
Charles and LCHC.
3. The fees charged to St. Charles and LCHC pursuant to District Ordinance #2019-03 and
District Policy #02-03 were invalid.
4. The District is currently unable to meet ASA Franchise requirements.
5. There are documentation discrepancies between St. Charles and LCHC provider chart
notes and the chart notes of the District concerning the patients who were transported
by the District.
Summary of Investigation
After being assigned the task of investigating the complaints from St. Charles and LCHC, the
Committee formed a subcommittee to review the allegations contained therein and obtain
information relevant to such allegations. Substantial documentation was received from
Complainants in response to requests for information relevant to the complaints from the
Committee. (Copies of the Committee's requests for information to Complainants are attached
as Attachment 3.) The Committee also obtained information relevant to its investigation from
the record of documents that are publicly available from the Deschutes County Circuit Court
pertaining to pending litigation in St. Charles, Inc., and La Pine Community Health Center v. La
Pine Rural Fire Protection District, Case No. 20CV39845.
Requests for information were also sent to the District. The Committee sent its first request to
the District on March 4, 2021. After receiving no response from the District, on April 21, 2021,
the Committee sent a follow-up letter to the District renewing its requests for information.
(Copies of the original requests for information from the Committee and its follow-up letter to
the District are attached as Attachment 4.) Citing a pending lawsuit with St. Charles and LCHC,
in a letter dated April 27, 2021, the District notified the Committee that it would not provide
information responsive to the Committee's requests.2 (A copy of the District's response is
2 St. Charles Health System, Inc., and La Pine Community Health Center v, La Pine Rural Fire Protection District,
Deschutes County Case No. 20CV39845.
Investigation of La Pine Rural Fire Protection District - 2 ( P
attached as Attachment 5.) On June 17, 2021, the Committee again requested information
from the District as part of its investigation, although it significantly narrowed the scope of its
requests for information. (A copy of the Committee's renewed requests for information is
attached hereto as Attachment 6) To date, the Committee has received no further response
from the District, nor has it received any material information in response to its requests.3
On behalf of the Board, the subcommittee hired private investigator Lori Miller to assist in the
investigation by interviewing witnesses from St. Charles and LCHC, as well as relevant witnesses
identified by the Committee during its investigation. The witnesses interviewed by Ms. Miller
include Oliver Tatum, clinic manager at St. Charles Family Care in La Pine (hereinafter referred
to as "St. Charles La Pine"), Charla DeHate, chief executive officer at LCHC, and La Pine
community members Laura Beebe, Gloria Fleming, and Dennis Robinson.
The subcommittee members have reviewed the information obtained during the investigation
over the course of several months. Based on their review, the subcommittee submitted
proposed findings, along with relevant information supporting the proposed findings, to the full
Committee on September 28, 2022. After reviewing the proposed findings and relevant
information from the subcommittee's investigation, the Committee adopted the proposed
findings. The Committee's findings were determined using the substantial evidence standard.4
Exhibits
1. Copy of District Ordinance #2019-03
2. Copy of District Policy #02-03
3. Copy of District Ordinance #2021-01
4. Copy of Report of Interview of Oliver Tatom from Investigator Lori Miller, dated
November 16, 2021
5. Copy of email from Kacie Talcott to Oliver Tatom, dated December 27, 2020
6. Copy of Report of Interview of Charla DeHate from Investigator Lori Miller, dated
November 15, 2021
7. Copy of Declaration of Charla DeHate, dated September 12, 2022
8. Copy of Declaration of Oliver Tatom, dated September 9, 2022
9. Copy of Report of Interview of Dennis Robinson from Investigator Lori Miller, dated
August 23, 2021
10. Copy of Report of Interview of Laura Beebe from Investigator Lori Miller, dated August
31, 2021
11. Copy of Report of Interview of Gloria Fleming from Investigator Lori Miller, dated August
23, 2021
3 The District did provide copies of District Ordinances #2021-01 and #2021-02 with its April 27, 2021 letter to the
Committee, but has otherwise failed or refused to provide information requested by the Committee.
' "Substantial evidence" means more than a mere scintilla; it means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Investigation of La Pine Rural Fire Protection District - Wage
12. Copy of Emergency Medical Services Page from the District's website,
https://lapinefire.org/emergency-medical-services/n taken February 23, 2021
13. Summary of Payor Information Obtained from Complainants on June 10, 2022
Copies of Materials Related to invoicing to St. Charles for "intrafacility transfer fee"
pursuant to District Ordnance #2019-03
14. Call #1695 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
to appeal of fee
15. Call #1762 — 911 Call for Service Report,
to appeal of fee
16. Call #1779 — 911 Call for Service Report,
to appeal of fee
17. Call #1790 — 911 Call for Service Report,
to appeal of fee
18. Call #1950 — 911 Call for Service Report,
to appeal of fee
19. Call #1955 — 911 Call for Service Report,
to appeal of fee
20. Call #2058 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
to appeal of fee
21. Call #2066 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
to appeal of fee
22. Call #2221— 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
to appeal of fee
23. Call #2300 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
to appeal of fee
24. Call #2303 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
to appeal of fee
25. Call #2357 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
to appeal of fee
26. Call #2418 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
to appeal of fee
27. Call #2441— 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
to appeal of fee
28. Call #2445 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
to appeal of fee
29. Call #2496 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
to appeal of fee
30. Call #2503 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
to appeal of fee
District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
Investigation of La Pine Rural Fire Protection District - 4 1 Page
31. Call #2518 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
to appeal of fee
32. Call #2566 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
to appeal of fee
33. Call #2582 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
to appeal of fee
34. Call #8 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to St. Charles, materials related to
appeal of fee
35. Call #32 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to St. Charles, materials related to
appeal of fee
36. Call #40 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to St. Charles, materials related to
appeal of fee
37. Call #116 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to St. Charles, materials related
to appeal of fee
Copies of Materials Related to invoicing to LCHC for "intrafacility transfer fee" pursuant
to District Ordnance #2019-03
38. Call #1988 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to LCHC,
appeal of fee
39. Call #2039 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to LCHC,
appeal of fee
40. Call #2062 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to LCHC,
appeal of fee
41. Call #1113 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to LCHC,
appeal of fee
42. Call #2233 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to LCHC,
appeal of fee
43. Call #2239 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to LCHC,
appeal of fee
44. Call #2285 — 911 Call for Service Report, District invoice to LCHC,
appeal of fee
materials related to
materials related to
materials related to
materials related to
materials related to
materials related to
materials related to
45. Letter Opinion of Circuit Court Judge Beth Bagley on Partial Motion for Summary
Judgment, dated August 17, 2021
46. Order on Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, Circuit Court Judge Beth Bagley, dated
August 31, 2021
47. Limited Judgment on Writs of Review and Claim for Declaratory Relief, Circuit Court
Judge Beth Bagley, dated September 21, 2021
48. Copy of Declaration of Charla DeHate in Support of Plaintiffs'/Petitioner's motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, dated March 17, 2021
Investigation of La Pine Rural Fire Protection District - 5 1 Page
49. Copy of Letter from Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, to Rep. Cliff Bentz, dated June 21, 2021
50. Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Chapter 10 — Ambulance Services (rev. 243, 04-16-
2018)
51. Memorandum from Mike Supkis to Board of Directors re: District Ordinance Process,
prepared on November 19, 2020
52. La Pine Rural Fire Protection District Board Policy # 600.2, dated September 13, 2018
53. La Pine Rural Fire Protection District Board Meeting Minutes, dated November 12, 2020
54. La Pine Rural Fire Protection District Board Meeting Minutes, dated April 8, 2021
55. La Pine Rural Fire Protection District Board Meeting Minutes, dated January 14, 2021
56. Bend Bulletin article, "La Pine fire district now charging St. Charles for ambulance trips
to Bend" dated February 3, 2020
57. Public comment received by The District in response to The District's request for such
comment concerning Ordinance #2019-03
Discussion of Findings
1. The District discouraged patients from utilizing the District for emergency transports.
SUBSTANTIATED.
The District, like other ambulance service franchisees of the County, has an affirmative duty to
respond to "emergency calls for service" when an ambulance is available for service. (See DCC
8.30.085(B)). Emergency calls for service typically arise after a patient or someone on the
patient's behalf calls using 911 to request emergency medical services and County franchisees
such as the District respond. Generally, Oregon law provides that when a call for emergency
medical services is made and an ambulance staffed with emergency medical technicians
("EMTs") responds, competent patients — those who are not incapacitated and are otherwise
able to interact with their providers and make decisions for their care — have the right to refuse
ambulance transport even when such care is recommended by their medical providers, and
may also choose their own means of transportation to a medical facility. See OAR 333-250-
0330.5 Therefore, if a competent patient makes an informed choice to refuse an emergency
transport after interacting with EMTs, the patient is well within their rights to do so. However,
if responding EMTs actively discourage patients who desire to be transported via ambulance in
an emergent situation after calling 911, or if responding EMTs simply refuse to provide such
transport to patients who have requested it, the EMTs violate their duty to respond to such
calls under DCC Chapter 8.30 and undermine the primary purpose of their employer's franchise.
The information considered by the Committee in its analysis of the above allegation includes
statements from the interviews of Oliver Tatom, the clinic manager at St. Charles La Pine,
Charla DeHate, the chief executive officer at LCHC, and La Pine residents Dennis Robinson and
5 See also the discussion of OAR 333-250-0330 and the rights it provides to patients with regard to ambulance
transports found in the Committee's findings pertaining to Allegation #3.
Investigation of La Pine Rural Fire Protection District - 6 1 Page
Laura Beebe. The Committee also considered an email, dated December 27, 2020, from Kacie
Talcott to Mr. Tatom, which was referenced in his interview, as well as emails from Mr.
Robinson and Ms. Beebe to the District that were each sent in response to the District's request
for public comment in January of 2021 concerning District Ordinance #2019-03, and the
interview of La Pine resident Gloria Fleming. (Exhibits 4 — 6, 9 —12, and 57)
During his interview, Mr. Tatom stated that while on duty as an RN at St. Charles La Pine, he
had personally heard from patients that they had been told by the District's EMTs that they
were not suffering from an emergency and did not need to go to the emergency department or
be transported by ambulance. Mr. Tatom said that his understanding from these conversation
is that in such instances the District's EMTs had made a "recommendation" to patients in their
home and subsequently had them sign a document indicating they had refused or denied
transportation by ambulance.
Mr. Tatom referenced a specific encounter he had been informed about by Kelcie Talcott, a
nurse he worked with at St. Charles La Pine. Ms. Talcott informed him in a December 27, 2020
email that she had a negative experience with a District EMT. She stated that this EMT had told
her he would refuse to transport a patient to the emergency department at St. Charles Hospital
in Bend if providers administered medications that were "outside of his practice." According to
Ms. Talcott, the EMT's statement was in response to the medications the providers at St.
Charles La Pine planned to administer to the patient as part of the patient's care. Because of
this, after consulting with a doctor at the clinic, she and the doctor deferred treatment to the
emergency department in order to expedite emergency transport for the patient. Essentially,
they did not provide the treatment they believed was appropriate for the patient in order to
ensure the patient was transported to the emergency room in Bend. Ms. Talcott described the
EMT as brusk, dismissive, and unprofessional, and refused to provide an adequate explanation
for his refusal to transport for the patient if they administered medications as planned.
Just prior to being transported, the patient expressed concern over the cost of transport. After
the EMT told the patient the District's services could cost between $1,000 and $4,000, the
patient refused to be transported via ambulance due to the potential financial burden.
Ultimately, the patient chose to have his father drive him to Bend rather than utilize a District
ambulance.
While the EMT's conduct toward staff in this instance are in many ways concerning, the
Committee does not believe such statements support allegations that the EMT or other District
staff actively tried to discourage the patient in this instance from using District resources to be
transported to the emergency room in Bend. As discussed above, competent patients have the
right under Oregon law to refuse ambulance transport, even when their providers recommend
it, and choose their own means of transportation to a medical facility. By answering the
patient's questions about the potential expense of accepting District services to transport him
to Bend, the EMT's statement to the patient can reasonably be interpreted as his efforts to
respond to the patient's concerns. The EMT's response, by itself, does not appear to
Investigation of La Pine Rural Fire Protection District - 7 J Page
demonstrate that he was actively trying to discourage the patient from utilizing the District's
services. For these reasons, Mr. Tatom's reference to the above -described incident does not
tend to support the above -stated allegation.
For the reasons below, however, statements from Ms. DeHate, Mr. Robinson, and Ms. Beebe
provide strong support for the allegation that the District discouraged patients from utilizing
their services. According to Ms. DeHate, prior to 2019 the District would often decline 911 calls
originating from LCHC. She stated her observations that after such calls District EMT staff
would evaluate the patient after arriving at LCHC, tell the medical provider the patient did not
qualify as an emergent transport, and convince the patient not to be transported using District
resources. At times, District EMTs would wait to have such conversations with patients until
after the doctor had left the room. As a result of this behavior, LCHC began requiring its
providers to remain in the room when District EMTs evaluated their patients. Ms. DeHate
further observed that after District Ordinance #2019-03 went into effect, District staff
transported patients every time LCHC called to request an emergency transport, and then the
District would bill LCHC, rather than the patient, for the expense of the transport.
Ms. DeHate also stated the District had, at times, refused emergency transports to patients
who had requested it by calling 911 from their homes. She was aware of such behavior
happening during the summer of 2020, and referenced a patient who was refused treatment in
that timeframe, and that she received confirmation from the doctor who spoke with the patient
that this had occurred. Ms. DeHate provided a specific example as evidence of the District's
behavior concerning patients who call 911 from home to request emergency medical services,
referencing a patient named Dennis Robinson. According to Ms. DeHate, Mr. Robinson had
suffered a stroke and had bleeding on his brain, and was refused transport by District EMTs.
The investigator also interviewed Mr. Robinson. During his interview, Mr. Robinson recalled
that on June 26, 2021, his wife called 911 to request an ambulance because he was slurring his
words, having trouble speaking, and the side of his face was drooping. When the District's
ambulance arrived he stated he was "doing a little better," but told the District's responding
staff that his symptoms had lasted almost the entire 30 minutes since his wife had called. He
recalled being told that he likely suffered a mini stroke and "those happen all the time." They
told him that he could see his doctor the next day and that he didn't need to go to the
emergency room at that time. He claimed the EMTs "very strongly suggested that everything
was okay with him and that there was no reason to go to the hospital."
Mr. Robinson said he followed up with his doctor at LCHC less than a week later because his
symptoms got worse. Upon examining him, he recalled that his doctor immediately sent him to
the emergency room at St. Charles Hospital in Bend. His daughter drove him. Medical staff at
the hospital determined that he had bleeding in his brain. He was on a prescription blood
thinner which may have contributed to the bleeding. According to Mr. Robinson, his
emergency room doctor told him that if he had been transported to the hospital the day
Investigation of La Pine Rural Fire Protection District - 8 1 Page
District EMTs had responded to his 911 call, he may have suffered less damage to his brain. Mr.
Robinson stated that he was not released until the first week of August.
Mr. Robinson claimed that he has since spoken to other locals in La Pine and some people at
the LCHC about the ambulance service provided by the District. According to him, the
consensus was that the District often "strongly suggests not taking the ambulance" because
they are worried about collecting payment from insurance companies and making enough
profit. Mr. Robinson speculated that the District may lose money when they agree to transport
patients to Bend.
The investigator also interviewed Laura Beebe. Ms. Beebe submitted a public comment via
email on January 11, 2021 opposing Ordinance #2019-03. Her email was submitted in response
to a request for public comment from the District regarding Ordinance #2019-03. In her email,
Ms. Beebe claimed that District EMTs had refused to transport her after responding to her call
to 911 requesting an ambulance, despite the fact that she was suffering from appendicitis.
According to Ms. Beebe, District EMTs told her she was suffering only from "a stomach bug."
She also claimed the EMTs forced her to sign a document stating that she refused to be
transported via ambulance. Because of these allegations, the Committee requested the
investigator to interview Ms. Beebe.
During her interview Ms. Beebe confirmed the details of the incident she reported in her
January 11, 2021 email. She added that District EMTs told her she "just had a cold like
everyone else had or possibly the flu," told her she would be fine, and told her she could
transport herself to the hospital. She reiterated that the EMTs forced her to sign a form stating
that she refused transport via ambulance, even though she had called 911 because she believed
she needed to be transported via ambulance. Ms. Beebe added that her husband was home at
the time, and he also requested that she be transported, but the District's EMTs refused his
request as well. Ultimately, Ms. Beebe's husband transported her to St. Charles Hospital in
Bend, where she was admitted and diagnosed with appendicitis. Her appendix was removed
the next morning.
Ms. Beebe also told the investigator that she had been told by District staff to sign the "refused
transport" form on more than one occasion. She stated that she is diabetic, and has called 911
in the past for low blood sugar levels.
While Ms. DeHate's statements summarized above are somewhat general and based to a large
extent on hearsay from patients, what she described is consistent with the statements from Mr.
Robinson and Ms. Beebe concerning the conduct of District EMTs. The Committee also finds
the consistencies between what Ms.Beebe and Mr. Robinson each described as to their
separate interactions with District EMTs to be compelling. Their descriptions demonstrate that,
at least in the interactions described, District EMTs did much more than simply advise them of
their rights to refuse ambulance transportation or the cost of providing it. Instead they actively
discouraged Mr. Robinson from accepting transport via ambulance, to the point of convincing
Investigation of La Pine Rural Fire Protection District - 9 1 Page
him he did not need it. They went further with Ms. Beebe, and refused to transport her despite
her desire to be transported. More disturbing to the Committee is Ms. Beebe's recollection
that she was forced to sign a form indicating that she refused transport from the District, when
in fact she had actually requested to be transported in an ambulance. The stories of Mr.
Robinson and Ms. Beebe therefore support the broader statements from Ms. DeHate, and
make them far more credible.
For these reasons, the Committee finds that District staff actively discouraged Mr. Robinson
from utilizing its resources to transport him to St. Charles Hospital. The Committee also finds
that that District staff actively discouraged Ms. Beebe from utilizing its resources to transport
her to St. Charles Hospital, and ultimate refused to provide such resources to her. Finally, the
Committee finds that, at least prior to the enactment of Ordinance #2019-03, District EMTs
engaged in similar conduct with the patients of LCHC.
2. The District provided inaccurate determinations about whether emergency
transportation was necessary for patients in order to support the fees it charged to St.
Charles and LCHC.
NOT SUBSTANTIATED.
While this allegation is concerning, there is no provision in the ASA Plan, DCC Chapter 8.30, or
federal or state law providing the Board or the Committee with oversight authority to review
the accuracy of medical determinations by District EMS staff concerning whether an emergency
existed for patients at the time they were encountered by District EMS staff or the medical
providers at St. Charles La Pine or LCHC. While there is a definition for "emergency care" in the
ASA Plan (See ASA Plan, Section III (15)), and the District has an affirmative duty to respond to
"emergency calls for service" when an ambulance is available (See DCC 8.30.085(B)), there is no
indication in the information provided to the Committee demonstrating or even suggesting that
providers from the District failed to respond to any emergency calls for service from St. Charles
or LCHC.
To the extent Complainants ask the Committee to discern whether medical emergencies
actually existed and justified emergency transportation in the situations involved in each of the
31 calls referenced in the exhibits forming the basis for this investigation, such determinations
are outside of the purview and expertise of the Committee. Rather, they appear to be
governed by applicable professional standards outside the scope of the ASA Plan or DCC
Chapter 8.30. Therefore, allegations requesting such determinations by the District are not
appropriate for review by the Committee or the Board.
Finally, to the extent Complainants ask the Committee to weigh-in on the ability of the District's
chief to impose fees against them based on an after -the -fact determination that no emergency
existed during particular calls, the Committee again believes that such allegations are beyond
its purview. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the District certainly has the authority under
Oregon law to impose fees for the services it provides. See ORS 478.410. However, other than
Investigation of La Pine Rural Fire Protection District - 10 1 Page
the basic constraints on fees placed on rural fire protections districts in ORS 478.410, neither
the ASA Plan nor DCC Chapter 8.30 appear to regulate or even touch upon the types of fees
charged by rural fire protection districts or the basis for such fees.
3. The fees charged to St. Charles La Pine and LCHC pursuant to District Ordinance #2019-
03 and District Policy #02-03 were invalid.
SUBSTANTIATED.
As an ambulance service franchisee of Deschutes County, the District has a duty to conduct its
operations in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and
the terms of DCC Chapter 8.30 and the ASA Plan. See DCC 8.30.070(B), 8.30.085(A); and ASA
Plan, §8.4. For the following reasons, the Committee finds the fees charged to St. Charles and
LCHC under District Ordinance #2019-03 and District Policy #02-03 fail to comply with
applicable state law and are therefore invalid.
- The fees charged to St. Charles and LCHC by the District pursuant to Ordinance #2019-
03 and District Policy #02-03 are fail to comply with ORS 478.410(4).
ORS Chapter 478 governs the formation, duties and general operations of rural fire protection
districts such as the District, including the authority of such districts to raise revenue through
levying taxes and imposing fees. The District has the express authority to create fees for the
services it provides pursuant to ORS 478.410(4), which states in relevant part:
Unless expressly prohibited by the documents creating the district, a district board may
adopt an ordinance as provided under ORS 198.510 to 198.600 to create a fee for any
service provided by the district. A fee created under authority of this section may not
exceed the cost to the district of providing the service.
The Oregon Supreme Court has weighed -in on the nature of a fee charged by a government
entity for a service the entity provides. As opposed to a tax, which is "any contribution imposed
by government upon individuals for the use and service of the state," a fee is "imposed on
persons who apply for or receive a government service that directly benefits them." McCann v.
Rosenblum, 355 Or 256 (2014) (citing Qwest Corp. v. City of Surprise, 434 F.3d 1176, 1182 (9tn
Cir. 2006) (explaining the distinction between a tax and a fee is whether the "charge is
expended for general public purposes, or used for the regulation or benefit of the parties upon
whom the assessment is imposed.") (Emphasis added.) Therefore, ORS 478.410(4) empowers
the District to impose a fee for a service it provides only upon parties who actually receive the
service. The corollary to this, of course, is that the District cannot impose a fee against a party
that did not directly receive that service from the District.
In each of the 31 calls presented to the Committee by Complainants, the patients were
transported to the emergency department at St. Charles Hospital in Bend by District EMS
personnel. During each of these transports, patients received pre -hospital care from District
Investigation of La Pine Rural Fire Protection District - 11 1 Page
EMS staff. Therefore, during each transport it was the patients who received services from
District staff.
After each of these transports, however, rather than charge the patients for these services, the
District charged St. Charles and LCHC a "facility transfer fee" of $2013 and mileage of $642, for
a total charge of $2655. (Exhibits 14-44) These fees were charged pursuant to District
Ordinance #2019-036 and District Policy #02-03, which ostensibly authorized the District to
charge "the requesting medical and/or care facility for transporting a patient from one
professional care facility to another using 911 emergency resources," as well as mileage fee for
"all transports." (Exhibits 1 and 2)
For this reason, the District failed to comply with ORS 478.410, because by their terms
Ordinance #2019-03 and District Policy #02-03 authorized the District to charge fees to
Complainants rather than to the patients who actually received services form the District.
Indeed, it is clear from the express terms of Ordinance #2019-03 and District Policy #02-03, as
well as the history behind each that the District's intent in passing each was to shift the costs of
providing ambulance transport services from the patients who received such services to LCHC
and St. Charles. However, in each of the situations referenced in the 31 calls at issue, it was
clearly the patients who were transported to St. Charles Hospital in Bend, and it was the
patients who received pre -hospital care from the District's EMS staff during these transports.
This is true regardless of whether the District's services were provided as a result of an
emergency or non -emergency transport. ORS 478.410(4) does not authorize the District to
provide services to a patient and then charge a third -party other than the patient for such
services, but that is precisely what the District attempted in charging such fees to
Complainants. (Exhibits 1, 2, and 51-56)
For several reasons, the Committee's findings in this regard are supported by the information it
obtained in pursuing its investigation. Oliver Tatom and Charla DeHate were each interviewed
regarding their understanding of relationship between the clinics and the patients concerning
the provision of ambulance services, the relationship between ambulance providers and the
clinics, and who benefits from ambulance transports in situations such as those presented in
the 31 calls at issue. (Exhibits 4 and 6) Mr. Tatom and Ms. DeHate also provided declarations
to the Committee to clarify statements made during their interviews. (Exhibits 7 and 8) Ms.
DeHate also provided a declaration in support of a motion for summary judgment filed by
Complainants in pending litigation with the District.
With respect to transports that originate from calls to 911 requesting transports for medical
emergencies, Mr. Tatom and Ms. DeHate provided the following:
6 District Ordinance #2019-03 was repealed by the District on April 8, 2021.
Investigation of La Pine Rural Fire Protection District -12 1 Page
• Local clinics such as St. Charles La Pine and LCHC are not transporting agencies, and
therefore may not bill insurance or government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid
for patient transports they do not provide
• Because St. Charles La Pine and LCHC are not ambulance franchisees authorized to
perform such services pursuant to the Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area Plan,
neither can provide emergency transport services
• Neither LCHC nor St. Charles can bill patients, their insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid for
such transports because neither of the clinics provided the transports
• When an ambulance service provider provides ambulance transportation services in this
context, the ambulance service provider serves the patient, not the clinic who called to
request the transport
• The "contract" for the ambulance transportation service is between the patient and the
ambulance service provider
• Clinics such as LCHC and St. Charles La Pine cannot be charged for ambulance transports
originating from 911 calls involving Medicare or Medicaid patients
With respect to transports provided by the District as referenced in the 31 calls at issue in this
investigation, each of which originated from calls to 911 by medical providers at LCHC or St.
Charles La Pine to request transports for potential medical emergencies, Mr. Tatom and Ms.
DeHate provided the following:
• For the same reasons as stated above, neither LCHC nor St. Charles can bill patients,
their insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid for transport services provided by the District
• For the same reasons as stated above, neither LCHC nor St. Charles billed the patients
for the transports provided by the District
• Until recently, the District has always billed patients or their insurance, Medicare or
Medicaid for emergency transport services it has provided
Such evidence clearly supports a conclusion that when, as in the 31 calls at issue in this
investigation, ambulance transportation services are requested through a 911 call and such
transportation is provided, ambulance service providers such as the District provide services to
the patients involved, not the medical providers or facilities that may have requested the
transport. Such evidence makes equally clear that neither St. Charles La Pine nor LCHC
benefitted directly from the services provided by the District in any of the calls reviewed by the
Committee. It was the patients, not St. Charles, LCHC, or their medical providers, who were
transported to the emergency department at St. Charles Hospital in Bend and received care
from District EMS staff while being transported.
The Committee also finds it significant that this conception of the relationship between the
patient and the ambulance provider matches the understanding and experience of each
member of the Committee who works in the EMS/ambulance services field.
Investigation of La Pine Rural Fire Protection District - 13 1 Page
There is additional support for the Committee's conclusions found in Oregon law. In Oregon
competent patients have the right to choose to accept or refuse ambulance transportation
even when recommended by their medical provider. Such patients also have the ability choose
their own means of transportation when it is necessary to visit a medical facility, and can
choose to be treated at a medical facility of their own choice, rather than what is
recommended to them by their medical provider. See OAR 333-250-0330(3)(c),(e), and (d).'
The Committee believes several conclusions can be drawn from the rights given to patients
pursuant to OAR 333-250-0330. First, medical providers such as St. Charles and LCHC cannot
control the decision of their patients to accept ambulance transportation; patients are not
forced to accept transportation from ambulance service providers such as the District even
when their providers recommended it. Rather, patients who are able to make a choice, i.e.
patients who are not unconscious or otherwise incapacitated, have the ability to choose to
accept or refuse ambulance transportation, to choose their own method of transportation, and
to choose to be transported to a different facility than recommended by their provider. Given
that that the law expressly reserves such choices for patients, it follows that the patients, not
their medical providers, can choose whether to receive services provided by their ambulance
service provider. This in turn supports a conclusion that patients, not their medical providers,
are the beneficiaries of such services from ambulance services providers such as the District.
It is also clear that under Oregon law ambulance service providers such as the District must
maintain written policies and procedures regarding patient rights, and must distribute "to each
employee or volunteer" and make "available in the business office and in each satellite
location" a written statement of patient rights which includes the rights described above. OAR
333-250-0330(1) and (2). The Committee presumes the District complies with the above
requirements, and that District staff was familiar with the patient rights described above at the
time of each of the interactions referenced in the 31 calls presented to the Committee.
Therefore, at the time District staff encountered each of the patients referenced in the 31 calls
at issue they were aware of the patient's rights to refuse their medical provider's
transportation, to choose their own mode of transportation, and to choose the facility where
they were to be transported.
The District's own documentation indicates the patients involved in each call were conscious
and aware enough to answer questions and interact with EMS staff. (Exhibits 14-44) Yet in in
each interaction, despite the observations of District staff indicating that the patients involved
were aware, able to answer questions, and were not in acute distress, District staff transported
these patients to the emergency department at St. Charles Hospital in Bend. Thus, in each
circumstance the patient involved indisputably had the right to refuse transport from the
District EMS staff and still chose to be transported. There is no indication that providers at St.
Charles or LCHC somehow forced or coerced any of these patients into being transported to the
'The Committee would note that on at least one occasion the District had acknowledged the right of patients to
refuse treatment. (See Exhibit 14, Call #1695, District Response to Appeal of Fees, dated September 29, 2020)
Investigation of La Pine Rural Fire Protection District -14 1 Page
Hospital in Bend, nor is there any indication they were forced or coerced into being transported
by District staff. These facts and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom also support a
finding that the patients involved, not St. Charles La Pine or LCHC, received ambulance
transportation services by the District.
Finally, at least with respect to those patients who were on Medicare at the time they were
transported by the District, federal Medicare reimbursement rules prohibit the District from
billing St. Charles and LCHC for the services provided to their patients. The Center for Medicare
and Medicaid Services ("CMS"), a division of the Department of Health & Human Services,
publishes the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, which governs billing and reimbursement for
providers that provide services for patients covered by Medicare. Chapter 10 of the Manual
governs billing and reimbursement for ambulance services. (Exhibit 50)
On June 21, 2021, CMS sent a letter to the Office of Congressman Cliff Bentz in response to an
inquiry from his Office about the District's conduct. (Exhibit 49) The Office had been informed
of the District's conduct in billing St. Charles and LCHC for ambulance transports for patients to
St. Charles Hospital in Bend. The premise for the inquiry from the Office of Congressman Bentz
is stated in the letter:
The inquiry from Congressman Bentz office states that LaPine Fire and
Ambulance service is billing LaPine Community Health Center and St. Charles
LaPine clinic for emergency ambulance transports of Medicare patients to St.
Charles Hospital. It goes on to state that directors of medical facilities and for-
profit ambulance services believe this is against Medicare rules, and they are
seeking clarification.
In response to this inquiry, CMS responded as follows:
If the patient is seen at the clinic and then transported to the hospital, they
should not bill the facilities. Either Medicare or the patient (if the patient does
not meet Medicare coverage criteria) should be billed. ... The only time a facility
could be billed is if it was by contract with the provider supplier and it was part
of the consolidated billing (usually a non -emergent situation).
(Emphasis added.) The response later continues, citing Chapter 10 of the CMS Medicare
Policy Manual:
IOM 100-02, Chapter 10, Section 20.1 states the following:
"When an ambulance provider/supplier ... furnishes a Medicare -covered
ambulance service to a Medicare beneficiary and the service is not statutorily
excluded under the particular circumstances, the provider/supplier must submit
a claim to Medicare and accept assignment of the beneficiary's right to payment
from Medicare."
Investigation of La Pine Rural Fire Protection District -15 1 Page
This regulation explains that when a medically necessary transport from an
eligible location such as a physician's office ... the ambulance supplier/provider
must submit a claim to Medicare for adjudication. When they accept the terms
of the regulations to participate within the program.
(Emphasis added.)
The letter from CMS clarifies that, at least with respect to Medicare patients who are
transported by the District, in order to receive reimbursement for such services the District
should not bill St. Charles or LCHC, but rather "Medicare or the patient should be billed." It
states further that when an ambulance provider such as the District furnishes Medicare -
covered ambulance services to Medicare -covered patients, the provider must submit a claim to
Medicare in order to be reimbursed. This is provides a strong inference that CMS considers
Medicare patients to be the beneficiaries of ambulance transportation services; that such
services are provided to the patients themselves, not to medical providers. Otherwise
Medicare policy would not prohibit ambulance service providers such as the District from billing
clinics such as St. Charles La Pine and LCHC for their services.8
Finally, the Committee has found no evidence in the information it obtained during its
investigation that contradicts or calls into question the conclusions drawn above, nor has the
Committee found any relevant information that would tend to support a conclusion that the
services provided by the District during the 31 calls at issue were provided to anyone other than
the patients referenced in each call.
For the above reasons, it is clear that the patients, not St. Charles La Pine or LCHC, received the
services provided by the District, yet the District imposed fees for these services on LCHC and
St. Charles. This practice clearly violates ORS 478.410(4). Therefore, the fees charged to St.
Charles and LCHC by the District are invalid under Oregon law, and the District violated both the
ASA Plan and DCC. Chapter 8.30.
- The fees charged to St. Charles and LCHC by the District pursuant to District Ordinance
#2019-03 are invalid in that the District failed to comply with ORS 198.540 prior to
adopting District Ordinance #2019-03.
On September 8, 2021, Deschutes County Circuit Judge Beth Bagley entered an order granting
partial summary judgment in favor of St. Charles and LCHC in St. Charles Health System, Inc.,
and La Pine Community Health Center v, La Pine Rural Fire Protection District, Deschutes County
Case No. 20CV39845. (Exhibits 45 and 46) Judge Bagley's order invalidated Ordinance #2019-
03 itself and any fees charged thereunder to St. Charles and LCHC. Judge Bagley's order was
based on her ruling that the District failed to comply with the notice provisions of ORS 198.540
8 The Committee would note that of the 31 calls at issue in its investigation, 21 involved patients who had
Medicare coverage. This means that for these 21 patients, the District chose not to be reimbursed for its services
through Medicare as required in Chapter 10 of the Medicare Policy Manual, and instead chose to impose charges
directly against St. Charles and LCHC. (Exhibit 13)
Investigation of La Pine Rural Fire Protection District - 16 1 Page
in adopting Ordinance 2019-03. An enforceable judgment to this effect was entered on
September 21, 2021. (See Exhibit 47)
Based on the above -referenced order and opinion from Judge Bagley, and the enforceable
judgment entered against the District, it is clear the fees charged by the District pursuant to
Ordinance #2019-03 are invalid as a matter of Oregon law. Therefore, it is again clear the
District violated both the ASA Plan and DCC. Chapter 8.30.
4. The District is currently unable to meet ASA Franchise requirements.
NOT SUBSTANTIATED
The Committee has obtained no relevant information demonstrating that the District does not
currently have the financial resources to meet its obligations as a franchisee.
5., There are documentation discrepancies between St. Charles and LCHC provider chart
notes and the chart notes of the District concerning the patients referenced in the 31
calls at issue in this investigation.
NOT SUBSTANTIATED.
While this allegation is concerning, there does not appear to be any provision in the ASA Plan,
DCC Chapter 8.30, or federal or state law providing the BOCC or the Committee with oversight
authority to review or question the accuracy of medical documentation produced or submitted
by the District Findings nn thic allegations would also require the Committee to make after -
the -fact determinations regarding whether the observations of patients by providers at St.
Charles or LCHC were accurate or not, and similar determinations regarding whether the
observations of the same patients by the District's EMS providers were accurate or not. The
Committee believes such determinations are outside of its purview or expertise, and therefore
it would not be appropriate for the Committee to pursue findings on this allegation.
Investigation of La Pine Rural Fire Protection District -17 1 Page
BOARD OF.
COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 21, 2022
SUBJECT: Request approval to apply for OHA Workforce Incentives grant
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move approval to apply for a OHA Workforce Incentives grant in the amount of $883,216 to
increase access to services, provide supervised clinical experience, and increase training for
and improve recruitment and retention of behavioral health care providers
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Oregon Health Authority (OHA) has made available grant monies through HB 2949 (2021)
(as updated by HB 4071 (2022). The purpose of the funding is to a) support the
recruitment and retention of behavioral health providers and b) provide supervised clinical
experience necessary for behavioral health providers to obtain a license to practice.
G inrlina is haing rlictrihi itari by (HA to community MPntal HPaIth Prngrams_ i icing an
equitable formula, with $625,286 available to Deschutes County Health Services (DCHS) for
workforce incentives and $257,930 for Clinical Supervision.
Program Goals are as follows:
• Increase access to services that are peer and community driven and that provide
culturally specific and culturally responsive services for people of color, tribal communities,
and persons with lived behavioral health experience.
• Increase access to services for rural and underserved communities
• Increase the number of individuals training for and entering the field of behavioral health
and improve the recruitment and retention of behavioral health care providers.
• Provide supervised clinical experience to associates or other individuals who have the
necessary education but need supervised clinical experience to obtain a license to practice
If approved, DCHS plans to use the "Incentive" funding to incentivize recruitment and
retention to the south part of Deschutes County with housing stipends or other supports,
expand part-time opportunities, expand tuition reimbursement options, offer stipends to
licensed staff who provide internship supervision, and for program administration.
"Clinical Supervision" funding would be used to cover stipends offered to licensed clinicians
that provide Iicensure supervision to individuals outside of their own team.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
$883,216 revenue if awarded and approved.
ATTENDANCE:
Holly Harris, Interim Deputy Director, Health Services
December 22, 2022
Dear Senator Knopp, Representative Levy, and Representative Kropf,
We write to request your assistance to establish legislative authority for our taxing districts to help
youth and families in our community to attain stable housing. We are elected board members from
cities, school districts, park districts, Central Oregon Community College, the library district, and the
county commission within Deschutes County. Our districts are the major recipients of tax revenue
collected within Deschutes County and are the key stakeholders in discussing the revenues from
property sale outlined below.
Currently, by statute, when Deschutes County auctions tax foreclosed properties it is required to
distribute the receipts from those auctions proportionately to all of the taxing districts within the
County. While our districts welcome this revenue, the amounts are quite modest in relation to our total
operating budgets.
ORS 275.275(1)(d)(i), (ii), and (iii) authorize Counties with a population greater than 650,000 to retain
and pool the receipts from tax foreclosed property auctions rather than distribute modest portions to
each taxing district as Deschutes County currently does. These pooled funds are then invested to help
youth and families with children attain stable housing. Specifically, ORS 275.275(1)(d)(i), (ii), and (iii)
states that proceeds are to go to:
(i) Funds for housing placement and retention support services for youth and families with children;
(ii) Flexible rental assistance far housing placement fnr youth nnrl fnmiliac with children• nr
(iii) Funds to develop new low income housing that is affordable to youth and families with children
with 30 percent or lower median family income.
By reducing the population criteria in ORS 275.275 from 650,000 to 200,000, the legislature could
provide Deschutes County and the taxing districts within it with the option to use these funds to support
our youth and families. We have reviewed the actual receipts from tax foreclosed property sales in
recent years and believe that targeting pooled funds at the housing needs of youth and families may be
more beneficial for our communities than receiving the proportional slices that our districts are
currently receiving. Please see the attached spreadsheets detailing the proportional amounts that each
taxing district would ultimately receive from tax foreclosed property sales in 2019 and 2020.
An important thing we learned when we investigated the current system of distribution of tax
foreclosed property sale receipts is that school districts receive the largest amount of these receipts, but
ultimately do not get to use very much of them. For example, the Bend -La Pine School District might be
due $235,664 of the $787,676 of sale receipts generated in 2019. But the school district would then
surrender those $235,664 to the state and then get a proportion back based on how much of the total
state student population BLPSD represented (approximately 3%). So the tax foreclosed property receipts
received by Bend -La Pine, Redmond, and Sisters School Districts provide benefits for all students across
the state of Oregon, but only a small fraction of the tax foreclosed property sale receipts sent to Salem
by the districts are available to expend on students in those districts.
We know that having local fund sources for innovative programs or affordable housing projects helps to
leverage substantial amounts of federal, state, and private funding. So contributing our `shares' of tax
foreclosed property receipts to a local pool focused on housing security for youth and families with
children could have a huge impact. We would like to have the option of using receipts from tax
foreclosed properties in Deschutes County in this way, but it will require legislative action for us to have
that local control and flexibility.
Once we receive the legislative authority to have this option the taxing districts should collectively
evaluate whether we would like to exercise this option and what the governance and allocation
priorities and methods would look like.
We are signing this letter as individual Board members or Councilors. Our Boards and Councils may wish
to take collective positions on this policy item at a later date but with the short window of time to
promote legislative concepts an individual sign on letter is what was achievable right now.
Thank you for considering this request for legislative action and if we can provide any further
information to help you weigh your choices on this policy issue please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Phil Chang, Deschutes County Commissioner
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2022
Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Building - 1300 NW Wall St - Bend
(541) 388-6570 I www.deschutes.org
MEETING FORMAT: In accordance with Oregon state law, this meeting is open to the public
and can be accessed and attended in person or remotely, with the exception of any executive
session.
Members of the public may view the meeting in real time via the public meeting portal at
www.deschutes.org/meetings. To view the meeting via Zoom, see below.
Citizen Input: The public may comment on any meeting topic that is not on the current
agenda. To provide citizen input, submit an email to citizeninput@deschutes.org or leave a
voice message at 541-385-1734. Citizen input received by noon on Tuesday will be included in
the meeting record for topics that are not on the Wednesday agenda.
If in -person comment from the public is allowed at the meeting, public comment will also be
allowed via computer, phone or other virtual means.
Zoom Meeting Information: This meeting may be accessed via Zoom using a phone or
computer.
• To join the meeting from a computer, copy and paste this link: bit.ly/3h3ogdD.
• To join by phone, call 253-215-8782 and enter webinar ID # 899 4635 9970 followed by the
passcode 013510.
• If joining by a browser, use the raise hand icon to indicate you would like to provide public
comment, if and when allowed. If using a phone, press *6 to indicate you would like to
speak and *9 to unmute yourself when you are called on.
a
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all
programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities.
If you need accommodations to make participation possible, call (541) 388-6572 or
email brenda.fritsvold@deschutes.org.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT —May be provided as comment on any topic that is not on the agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2022-067, Road Name Assignment of
McClain Drive
2. Consideration of Board Signature on Document No. 2022-955, Improvement Agreement
for Phase A of the Caldera Springs Destination Resort Expansion
3. Consideration of Board Signature on Document No. 2022-954, Improvement Agreement
for Phase C-1 of the Caldera Springs Destination Resort Expansion
4. Approval of Resolution No. 2022-081, recognizing the receipt of $147,595 in grant
funding from PacificSource and increasing appropriations within the Health Services
Fund and the 2022-23 Deschutes County Budget
5. Consideration of Board signature on letter appointing Danielle Grimes to the Deschutes
County Central Oregon Housing Authority (dba Housing Works) Board
6. Consideration of Board Signature on letter reappointing James Getchell to the Newberry
Estates Special Road District
7. Approval of the minutes of the December 7 2022 BOCC meeting
ACTION ITEMS
8. 9:05AM Presentation from CASA of Central Oregon
9. 9:25AM Consideration of Board signature of Document No. 2022-984, Funding
Contribution Agreement with ODOT for the US 20/Locust Project
10. 9:30AM Informational presentation on the Tumalo Wastewater Feasibility Study
11. 10:30AM Planning Commission Representation / Tumalo Area / Recruitment
12. 10:50AM Findings of Ambulance Service Area (ASA) Advisory Committee with Respect
to Allegations from St. Charles Health Systems and the La Pine Community
Health Clinic Against the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District
13. 11:20AM Request Board signature of Document No. 2022-870, a contract with Allied
Universal Security for security at the Deschutes County Stabilization Center
December 21, 2022
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3
14. 11:30AM Consideration to hear a land use matter involving commercial activity in
conjunction with farm use (meadery)
15. 11:45AM Request to purchase a MRL Model 1-660-ALS Paint Truck Striping Body
16. 11:55AM Request approval to apply for OHA Workforce Incentives grant
LUNCH RECESS
ACTION ITEMS (continued)
17. 1:OOPM Adult Parole & Probation Expansion Project Skanska USA Building, Inc.
Change Order No. 1—Secure Parking Lot
18. 1:10PM Adult Parole & Probation Expansion Project Skanska USA Building, Inc.
Change Order No. 3—Shell Space Finish
19. 1:20PM Board selection of Chair and Vice Chair for 2023
OTHER ITEMS
These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of
the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS
192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor
negotiations; 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 media.
ADJOURN
December 21, 2022
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3