The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-09-15 Work Session Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 1 of 11 Pages For Recording Stamp Only Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney and Anthony DeBone; Commissioner Alan Unger attended via conference call for a portion of the meeting . Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Dave Doyle, County Counsel; and, for a portion of the meeting, Judith Ure, Administration; Chris Doty, Road Department; Scot Langton, Assessor; Steve Reinke, 9-1-1; Jane Smilie, Health Department; Susan Ross, Property & Facilities; Chuck Fadeley, Justice Court; Ed Keith, Forester; Nick Lelack, Community Development; Wayne Lowry and Lani Burke, Finance; Justen Rainey and J. L. Wilson of Public Affairs Counsel; and Ted Shorack of the Bulletin. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. ___________________________ 1. Public Affairs Counsel Update and Legislative Planning. J. L. Wilson said he is the new principal partner, working with Mark Nelson at this time. Mr. Wilson gave an overview of his experience. Revenue Forecast Mr. Wilson said they expect tempered growth mode. Over 17 forecasts in the past were uncertain. This time there appears to be additional State revenue. State budgets are built on this. This is $235 million additional from the last forecast a year ago. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 2 of 11 Pages The personal tax kicker may come in to play, $13 million, which will negatively impact the total and does not make sense. More revenue is anticipated for 2015-17, but it will be perhaps 8-10% steady growth. Mr. Rainey said that hearings are taking place now to develop concepts. This happens quickly, and his firm needs to know the issues that are key to the County. They hold organizational days in January and bills will be assigned at that time to committees as appropriate. There will be quite a bit of turnover. In February, the session starts. If there is a legislative concept the County wants to pursue, this needs to be ready by January 12, his firm needs it in September. Public Safety Mr. Rainey said AOC has a 911 tax proposal going to committee. Commissioner DeBone stated he has been involved in committee discussions on this, and he is surprised to see it on the list already. Mr. Rainey stated that 911 funding would always be a topic of discussion. He asked for more information on Justice Court funding. Judge Fadeley said that this is always a concern because what they can take in for small claims is limited. They would still be less expensive than circuit court. This allows an alternative to having small claims handled in circuit court. He has a document with this breakdown. Small claims can take up a lot of time. Chair Baney said the idea is not the increase in fees, but that it needs to be equitable so they can offset general fund expenses and the demand on circuit court time and resources. Mr. Rainey stated they are tracking many activities, and there is a joint interim task force for Juvenile Court, relating to foster homes. There may be a pilot program involving four to six counties. The task force on public safety has been established, and much has to do with court fee adjustments, and there will be discussions on youth. Chair Baney said they may have a mental health readjustment program, and she wants to be sure that the County is held harmless for changes that result in jail population increases. She said they historically had low uses of this because of successful programs, and if there are incentives for increased improvement, they need to be held harmless and not be penalized for already having successful programs in place. No other issues were brought up in this category. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 3 of 11 Pages Health & Families HB 4134 was a priority of the Speaker regarding funding, and it is anticipated this will come back. Early education and the hub is a big issue now. He is hearing there will be more changes on early education. The hubs are not fully operational yet, so there is still more work to be done. The Speaker wants fully funded kindergarten and employee related daycare coverage. Mental health issues are a hot topic, and needs to be integrated into health care. Much of this is in draft form. There needs to be a way to get the money to counties to help those with mental health issues out of the jails. The other big issue is how public health will be handled going forward. There will be legislative recommendations. Chair Baney said there is legislation being drafted now, with the main piece being what is foundational for public health. The eight region concept is part of this and how to fund or incentivize. The foundational pieces need to be agreed upon, and this should not really be politically motivated. Jane Smilie said meetings are taking place with AOC and others, and they will have concepts to present. Land Use/Natural Resources/Transportation Mr. Rainey worked with Commissioner DeBone regarding biomass efforts. This is a priority. Commissioner DeBone said the DOE and others know there is an opportunity there and a lot of players ready to discuss this now. Chair Baney asked if they should be more proactive. Mr. Rainey stated there is time to develop the concept and move it forward. Ed Keith said that they are talking about a bigger bill in this regard, and he will try to find out more. Mr. Rainey said that DEQ is considering a new diesel contracting bill, which would contain certain requirements such as using cleaner diesel fuel. The Truckers' Association is watching this especially. It starts with the state, then move to the larger counties. Mr. Doty said that at first glance, it is concerning to him. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 4 of 11 Pages Regarding the Cyrus property, Mr. Rainey asked about new development. Tom Anderson said it is bigger than this, and there needs to be local control, although it should be statewide so Deschutes County is not singled out. Mr. Lelack feels it is a Cyrus specific bill and it is not known if it is still connected with the Metolius bill. Chair Baney said it needs to be statewide and not site or County specific. Commissioner DeBone stated the concept of open space is being debated, and it would be good to get clarity on the options. Law and the history of the issue are important. Mr. Anderson said they historically had a cluster development but want to open it up for more development. A large part of it is what to do with the open space that was dedicated when they first developed. Commissioner DeBone would like clarity on other options. SB 838 involved a task force for water legislation, and how the funds would be administered. The Deschutes River basin is a part of this and the City of Bend has a representative on this committee. They will be watching this closely. Chris Doty asked about the transportation funding bill. There may be a UGB related bill as well, called ‘close enough’. Mr. Anderson stated that this will make the process more streamlined for appeals. It has a lot to do with the cities but the County would be involved at some level. Mr. Rainey said the wrongful death bill is coming back but it started out regarding a specific issue in Colombia County. He asked about the Clerk and Assessor. Scot Langton stated that AOC is working on certain concepts and some legislators are involved. He and others end up having to deal with unintended consequences when the legislature passes bills relating t o taxation. Chair Baney asked if Washington County is looking to lift a specific tax incentive issue and wanted support. Mr. Rainey was not familiar with this. Commissioner DeBone said that the low carbon fuels issue has come up in the past. He has gotten into this regarding diversifying fuels , especially the use of natural gas, and creating jobs, and he may get more involved. Chair Baney asked about process. Mr. Rainey feels the conference calls works well. He can then update the legislators. Regarding priorities, Ms. Ure gets the bills to the department heads and asks which are priorities. Quick turnaround is important, along wit knowing how urgent it is. There will be fewer bills but answers need to come within hours. There is less time for turnaround in a short session. Calls from the Commissioners and department heads are important. Every other week calls might be appropriate unless there is an urgent issue that needs weekly calls. Chair Baney wants to be sure they get feedback quickly when needed. Mr. Rainey said they set up meetings with the legislators that are involved and need to have information from the County with specifics on the impacts to the County. It needs to be concise and streamlined. Ms. Ure said e-mails with specific information could be appropriate as well. The first meeting should be in late December or early January to see how things are going. Conference calls should take place starting in mid-January and bills need to be prioritized soon after that. There will be hundreds of bills introduced and his firm will weed through them as to what affects the County, and prioritize them accordingly. They will put together recommendations. Mr. Anderson stated that they would try to get legislators here for a meeting before they end up in Salem. Ms. Ure noted that they need to determine which day of the week works best. Mr. Rainey said that early in the morning is best for his team. 2. Financeffax Update. Mr. Lowry said that revenues are low but this is typical for this time of the year, prior to tax payments. Interest rates are coming up so they are not investing much now in anticipation of this change. They are in compliance for the pool investments. They will collect about $180 million this year that for the most part will be turned around to the districts. Some vacancies at 911 will be filled soon. HealthlBehavior Health and the Sheriffs Office also have vacant positions. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 15,2014 Page 5 of II Pages Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 6 of 11 Pages Most variances in the report are in beginning fund balances. Regarding the Health funds, revenue estimates have changed but most of it was moved around. Expenditures for staff are lower, but materials are higher. A big revenue piece is for a contract which is mostly pass-through. Often the department does not know about changes at the State level right away. Community Development has had a solid start and should have revenue over estimates. The PILT payment came in higher for the Road Department. Solid Waste revenue is higher than anticipated. 911 is starting out with more than anticipated due to less expenditure. The Fair & Expo fund started out with a negative balance on the resource side. The Fair generated more than anticipated, and they are putting the new tax revenue to work. Mr. Anderson said they are tracking that revenue and will report on it. Mr. Lowry said that some of this amount will be held until they reimburse expenses. Other departments are about the same. The Sisters Health Clinic grant for $460,000 finally arrived last week. 3. Discussion of Financial Policies. Mr. Lowry stated that in the budget process, the budget committee reviewed a set of financial policies that have been in place for some time. He compared this to those of other agencies and recommended some additions. These things are already being done, but the work should be formalized. He went through the changes, as highlighted on the attached copy. Commissioner DeBone asked about retaining outside services to analyze the policies. Mr. Lowry said none of this information addresses that, but a bond counselor is required if you go to the bond market. They use outside professionals as needed, and go out to bid for those services as appropriate. On the last page, there is a significant change regarding bank accounts. The Board has a policy regarding Policy F-7, bank accounts. The Board has to approve all of these. Policy F-3 has to do with credit cards, which is very restricted. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 7 of 11 Pages Most agencies have the finance director make these decisions. He would like to be able to set up bank accounts as needed. He added that sometimes it is a good business practice to have credit cards for certain users. Mr. Anderson said credit cards are going to be very few. He agreed that there are situations when there should be one issued, as they did for the Sheriff’s Office. Mr. Lowry said some jurisdictions have a purchasing card for those in the field to utilize. There are also travel cards, and all have procedures in place. His concern is the administrative side. Chair Baney said the bank account opening is not a concern, but they would like to be notified. It is not a concern now, but future administrators need to know the reasons. Mr. Lowry stated that the exiting policy would only be changed from the Board to the Finance Director or the County Administrator. A letter is sent each year to all banks to make sure there are no new accounts that were not authorized. The process would still be in place. Chair Baney would like the credit card issue to be in consultation with the County Administrator for checks and balances, and because the Administrator is the responsible person if something does not go well. Commissioner DeBone wants to see minimal use of credit cards. The Board suggested this is appropriate from the Finance Director in consultation with the Administrator. Regarding contingencies and working capital, Chair Baney said there has been some differences of opinion between the Finance Director, the Administrator and the department heads as to the amount. Mr. Lowry said that the Administrator is the budget officer, and the contingency and reserve fund aspects are very strict. Mr. Anderson stated that some is arbitrary and should be agreed upon, with some flexibility in mind for certain circumstances. Commissioner DeBone asked if 8.3% is the required reserve. Mr. Lowry stated that some funds need more than that earlier in the year to avoid shortfalls at the end of the year. The different accounts can vary. Mr. Anderson said that this could be reviewed each year with the Budget Committee as well. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 8 of 11 Pages 4. Discussion of Tax Payments at Banks. Mr. Lowry said that tax payments can be made as follows:  In person at banks.  Mail the payment.  Drive through or pay at the County counter.  Pay through lenders.  Call or go on line to use a credit card. The bank method is one of the earliest established, but use of this method is dwindling. It generates about $10 million at this time. Accounts are maintained at the banks and eventually the checks and tax coupons come to the County. He has been thinking about possible changes. They want to offer customer service, but he recommends discontinuing this method, which requires hiring an additional person at the County to process the payments, and there is a delay involved for processing the checks. They also have to reconcile with the bank’s records. There are many ways to make these payments now. In addition, customers can also pay through their own bank on line. Also, the County does not get electronic images of the checks unless requested, to find out who made the payment. Loni Burke stated that on-line bill payments did not have a postmark in the past, but they do now. It can be a lot more difficult if the check comes without the tax coupon. U.S. Bank will collect and send a copy of the payments electronically to the County. Mr. Anderson said that about 4,000 people use this method of paying taxes , and if this changes, there is a risk that those people will not know what to do at the time, especially if they wait until the last day. Mr. Lowry stated details would go out with the tax bill so people will know their options. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 9 of 11 Pages Commissioned DeBone noted that there are limits geographically. Ms. Burke said they could provide the banks with an envelope to the County. Mr. Lowry said they get late payments a lot from those that want the discount. Ms. Burke stated that it has been based on the postmark, but it might not be postmarked in time if the post office has already collected it from the boxes. So, the County has been giving a day’s grace time. Statute is loose in this regard. Mr. Lowry said they need temporary help for at least two days. The bank process takes twice the time as other options. They notified people last year that some options may be eliminated. There may be some implications to certain customers. Chair Baney likes the idea of having information at the banks along with envelopes addressed to the County, postage paid. Commissioner DeBone will ask around to get an idea of how people feel about it. Mr. Lowry stated that the banks would probably prefer not to be a collection point anyway. Ms. Burke said that neither Crook nor Jefferson counties use the banks for this. Because of this, Deschutes County has to maintain relationships with almost every bank. 5. Other Items. Susan Ross said that the Bulletin is running editorials regarding the veterans ’ plaque at the Courthouse. At the time the memorial was to be designed, representatives of veterans groups met to decide what they wanted for the memorial. They provided the quote. She made sure it was written as appropriate. Since 2008, there has been discussion about the quote purportedly from George Washington that is on the plaque. This question came up during the John McCain campaign. In 2005, the County was not aware of the possible error. Chair Baney stated they could change it to ‘unknown’. Mr. Anderson said the committee members could be contacted to make them aware, or at least the agencies. The Commissioners are surprised of the focus on this issue by the newspaper. The statement still resonates even if is unknown if George Washington ever said it. ___________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 10 of 11 Pages Ms. Ross said they have reached agreement regarding the industrial land in La Pine, with the City asking for 50% of the proceeds from any sales there. Mr. Anderson recommended this be accepted. The initial capital cost of platting can come out of the current fund. Ms. Ross stated that the community came together to develop this, with the County bei ng a conduit. Mr. Anderson said this is on the City Council agenda this week. Commissioner DeBone explained that the City can get its own Realtor in place. Ms. Ross stated they used the Desert Rise agreement language, so some of the language had to be changed. They intend to include the La Pine data center transaction. Commissioner DeBone hopes the final draft version is approved by the City, and would then come to the Board with any proposed changes. ___________________________ Regarding County College, because the locations had to change due to Board scheduling issues, a review is needed at this time. Mr. Anderson said that the order of the slides is an issue. The attendees will have less time to introduce themselves. Mr. Kropp likes to hear where they work. Chair Baney feels it is a way to create dialogue and increase the comfort level. Anna Johnson said that they did this last year and they went way over on the time. The Board will not be at the first part of the meeting. Chair Baney wants to engage the attendees, but perhaps stay away from why they applied for County College. Mr. Kropp said they could keep it short since they know each other already. Mr. Anderson said the overview can be kept brief as well. ___________________________ The Board discussed and prepared for the combined south County (Sunriver and La Pine) Chambers presentation at Thousand Trails on September 19. ___________________________ Mr. Anderson said the department head meeting today will include a discussion on reporting to the Board on performance measures and other aspects. The departments have been allowed to do this as appropriate, or they can list a deliverable that helps to implement some of the annual goals. He has asked for success stories that relate to this, and several will be brought to the Board to report. The highlights will come to the Board on a quarterly basis, so it is not overwhelmed with details or a huge report that requires a lot of review. Chair Baney said the objectives need to be tracked, and she wants to hear about more than the positives. Judith Ure said the highlights will be quarterly, but they still have to report for the budget document. Chair Baney wants to hear about the struggles as well, or of any barriers to success. She wants to know if there are outcomes that are not being met, and why. Commissioner DeBone added that it is important to know the challenges as well. Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. DATED this J1J:t Dayof ~~ 2014 for the Deschutes County Board of Commission~rs: Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair Ta ATTEST: Alan Unger, Commissioner ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 15, 2014 Page 11 of 11 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15,2014 1. Public Affairs Counsel Update and Legislative Planning -Judith Ure; representatives ofPAC 2. Finance/Tax Update -Wayne Lowry 3. Discussion of Financial Policies -Wayne Lowry 4. Discussion of Tax Payments at Banks Wayne Lowry 5. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or DRS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other issues under DRS 192.660(2), executive session. Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board a/Commissioners' meeting rooms at J300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated, Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, please ca1l (541) 388-6571, or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker@deschutes.org. -- V'I ' ~ V'I , 1Q) . J (, '-j ~ ,~ "0 : '.' "0 1 Q 10 GI v , ~ == ! ( ~ 10 I '1 c.: ~ ~ E , .!.. ~0I . 1 Q); :I ~ '" 1 -{." ""> I , I 1 I ~ \R\ I ~ , 7 1 ~ u IA I I . I .~ ~ ~ I01 t ': Ci.> V> Q) co I 0..I ~ C ~ , t l 0.'" Q) I ~I~'" Q) '~ I E ' 4V\ IO ! o~ .:Y. ~ Z"~ ~ 0 ~ "*I:: Q) co I 0.. I -------------------- Deschutes County Agenda Deschutes County Courthouse Monday, September 15,2014 1:30pm I. INTRODUCTIONS a. J.L. Wilson -New Principal Partner at Public Affairs Counsel II. 2015 SESSION BUDGET/REVENUE OVERVIEW a. September Revenue Forecast III. LEGISLA TIVE DATES OF INTEREST a. Legislative Days a. September 15-17,2014 b. December 8-10, 2014 b. Organizational Days a. January 12-14,2014 c. 2015 Session a. February 2,2015 Session Convenes IV. 2015 COUNTY ISSUES FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNSEL TO MONITOR a. Public Safety 1. 911 Tax (AOC proposal) 11. Justice Court Fee Adjustments 111. Joint Interim Task Force On Juvenile Court Dependency Proceedings (HB 3363) IV. Task Force on Public Safety v. Other Issues for Public Affairs Counsel to Monitor? PO BOX 12945, SALEM, OR 97309 . 867 LIBERTY STREET NE . PH 503.363.7084' FAX 503.371.2471 E.tIL-\IL: pacounsel@aoLcom b. Health and Families i. Youth Development Council Funding (HB 4134) 11. Early Education Funding (Speakers Proposal) 111. AOC Mental Health Concepts IV. Public Health Workgroup v. Other Issues for Public Affairs Counsel to Monitor? c. Land UselNatural Resources/Transportation 1. Biomass (SB 1578) 11. DEQ's New Diesel Contracting Proposal 111. Cyrus Property IV. SB 838 Workgroup v. Other Issues for Public Affairs Counsel to Monitor? d. Finance/County Administration/County Clerks i. Wrongful Death (HB 4048) ii. Other Issues for Public Affairs Counsel to Monitor? PO BOX 12945, SALEM, OR 97309 . 867 LIBERTY STREET NE . PH 503.363.7084· FAX 503.371.2471 EMAIL: pacounsel@aol.com Mark Nelson 867 Liberty St Ne Salem, OR 97301 Work: (503) 363-7084 Cell: (503) 949-9228 Email: pacounsel@pacounsel.org JL Wilson 867 Uberty St Ne Salem, OR 97301 Work: (503)363-7084 Cell: (503) 569-8054 Email: jlwilson@pacounsel.org Justen Rainey 867 Uberty St Ne Salem, OR 97301 Work: (503) 363-7084 Cell: (503) 816-3075 Email: justenr@pacounsel.org David Reinhard 867 Liberty St Ne Salem, OR 97301 Work: (503) 363-7084 Cell: (503) 910-4930 Email: davidr@pacounsel.org Public Affairs Counsel Contact List 3 ., STAFF BIOGRAPHIES Mark W. Nelson is a principal of Public Affairs Counsel and is Oregon's leading business lobbyist and political strategist. Since 1980, Nelson has represented a multitude of diverse interests before the Oregon legislature, has provided campaign management for over 30 statewide ballot measure campaigns, and has built a leading public opinion survey research firm that specializes in polling for political campaigns, statewide ballot measures, local school districts, and local projects. Nelson will serve as the overall project/campaign manager. J.L. Wilson is a prinCipal of Public Affairs Counsel. Wilson has a 14 year history in public affairs and lobbying as past Executive Director of NFIB/Oregon and past Senior Vice President of Government Affairs at Associated Oregon Industries. Wilson has been a full-time lobbyist representing various interests since 2000. Prior to that, he served as legislative Director for two Speakers of the Oregon House. Wilson's history also includes leadership, steering committee and management roles in seven statewide ballot measure campaigns since 2001. Justen Rainey is a full time lobbyist and political strategist for Public Affairs Counsel. He joined the firm in March of 2012, and helped with the No on 81 campaign. Prior to joining Public Affairs Counsel, Justen served as the legislative Director for Oregon House of Representatives Co-Speaker Bruce Hanna during the 2011 and 2012 session. Justen held a similar legislative position with the Oregon Senate Republican office. During that time, Rainey worked with the campaign arm of the Senate Republican Office, The leadership Fund, to help Republicans pick up two contested state senate seats during the 2010 election cycle. Rainey began his political career in 2001, where he spent 7 years as an aide to u.S. Congressman Greg Walden working out of both his field office in Bend and later his Washington D.C. office. David Reinhard is a lobbyist and communications specialist for Public Affairs Counsel. Prior to joining the firm in 2008, Reinhard was a columnist and editorial writer at The Oregonian newspaper for 22 years. His background also includes work as a staff assistant at the US Department of Energy as well as a legislative assistant in the US Congress. Reinhard specializes in message development and management for the firm's clients with issues before the Oregon legislature. He has also played key roles in message development and media relations for two statewide ballot measure campaigns (No on 66/67 in 2010, No on 81 in 2012) and, as a consultant, for two statewide candidate campaigns (Chris Dudley for Governor in 2010 and Jason Conger for U.S. Senate in 2014). 4 ~, "', Blackout for State Newsletters 2014 Interim tTl 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12 22 23 24 25 26 18 29 30 25 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 24 31 8 9 10 15 16 17 22 23 24 29 30 11 18 25 12 13 14 19 20 21 26 27 28 6 13 20 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 J 31 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I 24/31 II 25 I 26 27 Re'llenue Forec.ast 28 29 30 11 12 13 18 19 20 25 26 27 en 1 2 1 I I 1 2 3 4 liijl~.ml 6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2. 3 5 6 7 8 I I 7 11m 11 I 12 I 13 11: 13 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 lJ.rw~:: 12 Revel1ue 14 15 'bll'/ "', forecast 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 27 26 27 28 29 30 31 23/30 24 25 26 28 29 28 29 30 2015 Session 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 13 Dreson's s8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Day 15 16 17 15 ,PriI.JdOnr' 17 18 19 20 21 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 , o·v 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27 I 28 29 30 31 29 30 31 "" " Public Affairs Counsel Subject: September Revenue Forecast Attachments: 20140903154620568.pdf All Clients, Last week the Oregon Department of Administrative Services (DAS) released the September Revenue Forecast. While the econonmy is slowly improving, the forecast is pretty close to what was anticipated at the close of the 2013 session. GF Revenue The forecast for 2013-15 General Fund/Lottery Fund revenue is estimated to be $17.204 billion. This is an increase of $85.9 million from the June forecast. Lottery resources are down $15.9 million from the June forecast. The combined GF/LF resources are up $ 70 million since June. Ending fund balances are down $50.7 million since the Close of the 2013 Session. The Rainy Day fund is projected to receive a $159.1 million transfer following the 2013-15 biennium, which would leave the state with a forecasted remaining balance of $91.6 million. Kicker A corporate kicker of $43 million is projected for 2015-17, which will be dedicated to K-12 spending. No personal income kicker is projected at this time. For additional information from the state economist please visit http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/OEA/pages/economic.aspx#most recent forecast If you have any questions, please let us know. Thanks, Public Affairs Counsel 1 7 STATE OF OREGON LEGISLATIVE REVENUE OFFICE STATE CAPITOL BUILDING 900 COURT ST. NE RM 143 SALEM. OREGON 97301 PHONE (503) 986-1266 FAX (503) 986-1770 Revenue Officer LRO FORECAST SUMMARY September 2014 NEW FACTS SINCE THE LAST FORECAST Paul Employment Personal Income ($ billion) Personal Income Tax ($ million) Withholding Other Payments less Refunds Total Corporate Income Tax 2nd Qtr 2014 Forecast 2nd Qtr 2014 Actuals Difference 1.712,048 1,710,443 -1,605 163.4 164.5 1.1 1,395.9 1,420.3 24.4 729.8 733.6 3.8 2,125.7 2,153.9 28.2 180.4 203.2 22.8 LRO: 812612014 Forecast 0914.xlsx 8 Forecast Summary Page 2 of7 CHANGE FROM CLOSE OF SESSION General Fund Resources Beginning Balance Transfer to Rainy Day Fund Personal Corporate Kicker Other Gross GF Revenue Shared Services Fund Rainy Day Fund Net GF Revenue Lottery Resources"* Anticipated Administrative Actions ....• Net GF and Lotte Resources •• All lottery resources including dedicated funds. ($ Million) Close of Session September 2014 Forecast Difference 543.5 -136.9 486.8 -136.7 -56.7 0.2 13,558.2 1,056.6 -20.3 1,027.9 15,622.3 13,851.4 1,046.7 0.0 1,002.5 15,900.6 293.2 -9.9 20.3 -25.3 278.4 -57.5 -43.0 15,521.8 -62.3 -10.4 15,828.0 -4.7 32.6 306.2 1,059.5 1,039.1 -20.4 -18.2 -12.7 5.6 16,969.6 17,204.5 234.9 _. Administrative Actions equal expenses associated with cash flow management, exclusive of internal borrowing. Revenue Source Persona! & Other Corporation * EFFECT ON 2% KICKER ($ Million) 2% Kicker September 2014 Amount +/Close of Session Threshold Forecast Kicker Threshold 14,528.5 14,819.1 14,791.7 -27.4 976.5 996.0 1,019.5 23.5 • As per the AG. !he corporate kicker calculation excludes the minimum lax paid by S-<XlIPorations because it is a flat tax. 9 .. Forecast Summary Page 3 of7 CHANGE FROM PRIOR FORECAST Combined Revenue Beginning Balance Transfer to Rainy Day Fund Personal Corporate Other Gross GF Revenue Shared Services Fund Rainy Day Fund Net GF Revenue Anticipated Administrative Actions** Net General Fund Resources Lottery Resources' Net Combined Resources • All lottery resourr:es i ncludi ng cledicaled funds. ($ Million) June 2014 Forecast September 2014 Forecast Difference 486.8 -136.9 486.8 -136.7 0.0 0.2 13,816.7 1,007.6 990.7 15,815.0 13,851.4 1,046.7 1,002.5 15,900.6 34.8 39.1 11.8 85.6 -62.3 -10.5 15,742.3 --62.3 -10.4 15,828.0 0.0 0.1 85.7 -12.7 -12.7 0.0 16,079.5 16,165.4 85.9 1,055.0 1,039.1 -15.9 17,134.5 17,204.5 70.0 H Administrative Aclioos equal expenses associated with cash flow management. exclusive of internal borrowing. 10 Forecast Summary Page 4 of? EFFECT ON ENDING BALANCE Current VS. Close of Session ($ Million) General Fund Close of Session September 2014 Forecast Difference Beginning Balance 543.5 486.8 -56.7 Transfer to Rainy Day Fund -136.9 -136.7 0.2 Revenue 15,521.8 15,828.0 306.2 Administrative Actions -18.2 -12.7 5.6 Total Resources 15,910.1 16,165.4 255.3 Expenditures 15,60B.7 15,914.7 306.0 Ending Balance* 301.5 250.8 -50.7 Rainy Day Fund Transfer 156.1 159.1 3.1 Remaining Balance 145.4 91.6 -53.B • Indudes the Supplemental Ending Balance. Current VS. Prior Forecast ($ Million) General Fund June 2014 Forecast September 2014 Forecast Difference Beginning Balance 486.8 486.8 0.0 Transfer to Rainy Day Fund -136.9 -136.7 0.2 Revenue 15,742.3 15,828.0 85.7 Administrative Actions -12.7 -12.7 0.0 Total Resources 16,079.5 16,165.4 85.9 Expenditures 15,914.7 15,914.7 0.0 Ending Balance* 164.9 250.8 85.9 Rainy Day Fund Transfer 159.1 159.1 0.0 Remainin Balance 5.7 91.6 85.9 • Indudes the Supplemental Ending Balance. 11 , Forecast Summary Page 50f7 Beginning Balance $7.4 $61.9 $69.3 Deposits $167.7 $147.2 $314.9 Interest $1.0 $1.4 $2.5 Withdrawals -$1.0 $0.0 -$1.0 Projected Ending Balance $175.1 $210.5 $250.8 $636.4 *Excludes funds in the Oregon Growth and the Oregon Resource and Technology Development subaccounts. CHANGE FROM PRIOR FORECAST ($ Million) Combined Revenue Beginning Balance Transfer to Rainy Day Fund Personal Corporate Other Gross GF Revenue Shared Services Fund Rainy Day Fund Net GF Revenue Net General Fund Resources Lottery Resources· Net Combined Resources June 2014 Forecast 164.9 -159.1 15,627.4 1,046.6 967.9 17,641.9 -86.2 -9.7 17,546.0 17,551.7 1,141.8 18,693.5 September 2014 Forecast 250.8 -159.1 15,613.1 1,042.4 965.5 17,621.1 -86.2 -9.7 17,525.2 17,616.9 1,107.4 18,724.2 Differehce 85.9 0.0 -14.2 -4.1 -2.4 -20.8 0.0 0.1 -20.7 65.2 -34.4 30.7 12 • Forecast Summary Page 6 of7 CHANGE FROM PRIOR FORECAST ($ Million) Combined Revenue Personal Corporate Other Gross GF Revenue Shared Services Fund Rainy Day Fund Net GF Revenue Lottery Resources* Net Combined Revenue • All lottery resources induding dedicated funds June 2014 Forecast 17.055.8 1,012.3 1.027.8 19,095.9 -46.2 -37.7 19,012.1 1,302.8 20,314.9 September 2014 Forecast 16.985.4 1,006.7 1,025.9 19,018.1 -46.2 -37.9 18,934.0 1,257.8 20,191.8 Difference -70.4 -5.6 -1.9 -77.8 0.0 -0.3 -78.1 -44.9 -123.0 CHANGE FROM PRIOR FORECAST ($ Million) Combined Revenue Personal Corporate Other Gross GF Revenue Shared Services Fund Rainy Day Fund Net GF Revenue Lottery Resources'" Net Combined Revenue June 2014 Forecast September 2014 Forecast Difference 18,810.5 18,729.4 -81.1 1,041.5 1,036.1 -5.3 1,104.7 1,103.5 -1.2 20,956.7 20,869.1 -87.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 -39.0 -39.4 -0.4 20,917.6 20,829.7 -88.0 1,420.6 1,362.2 -58.4 22,338.3 22,191.9 -146.3 • All lottery resources induding dedicaled funds 13 Forecast Summary Page 7 of7 CHANGE FROM PRIOR FORECAST ($ Million) Combined Revenue Personal Corporate Other Gross GF Revenue Shared Services Fund Rainy Day Fund Net GF Revenue Lottery Resources* Net Combined Revenue June 2014 Forecast September 2014 Forecast Difference 20,717.3 20,668.3 -49.0 1,114.3 1,112.1 -2.2 1,170.5 1,170.1 -0.4 23,002.2 22,950.5 -51.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 -42.1 -42.5 -0.4 22,960.0 22,907.9 -52.1 1,554.2 1,477.9 -76.3 24,514.2 24,385.8 -128.3 • All lottery resources including dedicated funds Personal Corporate Other Total 1993-95 to 1995-97 17.1% 18.8% 28.4% 18.3% 1995-97 to 1997-99 13.0% -13.9% -17.6% 7.7% 1997-99 to 1999-01 22.6% 28.2% 2.8% 21.5% 1999-01 to 2001-03 -11.9% -44.4% 97.9% -7.5% 2001-03 to 2003-05 16.8% 52.5% -35.4% 11.4% 2003-05 to 2005-07 22.8% 31.7% 6.4% 22.1% 2005-07 to 2007-09 -8.6% -18.9% 10.2% -8.0% 2007 -09 to 2009·11 3.7% 20.9% 29.8% 6.8% 2009-11 to 2011-13 15.7% 6.8% -4.1% 13.1% 2011·13 to 2013·15 13.9% 17.2% -14.7% 11.7% 2013·15 to 2015-17 12.6% -0.3% -3.7% 10.7% 2015-17 to 2017-19 9.1% -6.2% 6.3% 8.0% 2017-19 to 2019·21 10.6% 2.9% 7.6% 10.0% 2019-21 to 2021-23 10.4% 7.3% 6.0% 10.0% 14 ---------- ' Association of / Oregon Counties COMMUNICATIONS Steering Committee Meeting Monday, September 8,2014 Local Government Center, Room 118 8:30AM -9:30AM 1201 Court Street NE, Salem, Oregon To attend this meeting by telephone: 1-877-366-0711 Pass code: 39984287# :--" PAGE ••.•...• SPEAKER .••..'l"IME' IT~M .. """----~-;--. 1. : 08:30AM Call to order, welcome, introductions , Co-Chairs Tony DeBone & Mike Smith 2. 08:35AM Agenda approval (ACTION) . Co-Chairs Tony DeBone & Mike Smith 3. 08:40AM Next Gen 9-1-1 (INFORMATION) Dave Stuckey, : Oregon Emergency ___;'Y1.<!rli3~t:.I11~nt Dep~._._. 4. '08:55AM State Radio Project/FirstNet/State Interoperability Executive Council Tom lauer, Dept. of (INFORMATION) Transportation; Steve Noel, Dept. of Administrative Services 5. 09:10AM 9-1-1 Tax Inc~ease ~«=gisl<l.ti~e Concept (F»O~I!llE ACTION) .!>~. 2 S~rlg 6.• 09:20AM Stakeholder Reports (INFORMATION) Stakeholder Group .... ~epr«=sentati~_ , Other Business Co-Chairs Tony I DeBone & Mike , Smith ...._.__. ,-_._-_................ 8. 09:30AM Adjourn Co-Chairs Tony : DeBone & Mike • Smith Next Meeting -October 13, 2014 1 15 LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEMO DATE: September 8, 2014 TO: President Earl Fisher, Legislative Committee FROM: Co-Chairs Tony DeBone & Mike Smith, Communications Committee STAFF: Rob Bovett, Legal Counsel & Patrick Sieng, Public Safety Manager SUBJECT: 9-1-1 Tax Increase (AOC Concept 003) REQUESTED ACTION: Support committee action on increasing the 9-1-1 tax (AOC Concept 003) BACKGROUND: The 9-1-1 tax has remained at $0.75 since 1995. In the 2014 session, the tax was expanded to prepaid cellular and voice over internet protocol phones and a current hybrid project is underway to collect this tax using a point of sale system. During AcC Public Safety Summits held around the state, commissioners, sheriffs, and other stakeholders discussed the need to modernize this tax to help offset many counties who have to fund their public safety answer points. AOC Concept 003 seeks to increase the tax by $0.50 to $1.25 and then attach further increases to the consumer price index. 2 16 II Association of . Oregon Counties AOC CONCEPT 003 2015 Regular Session 06112114 (REB) DRAFT SUMMARY Increases and extends emergency communications tax. Applies to telecommunication services on or after January 1, 2016. Takes effect on 91st day following adjournment sine die. 1 A BILL FOR AN ACT 2 Relating to emergency communications taxes; amending ORS 403.200 and section 4, chapter 5, 3 Oregon Laws 2002 (first special session); prescribing an effective date; and providing for 4 revenue raising that requires approval by a three-fifths majority. 5 Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: 6 SECTION 1. ORS 403.200 is amended to read: 7 403.200. (1) There is imposed on each paying retail subscriber who has 8 telecommunication services with access to the 9-1-1 emergency reporting system a tax [equal to 9 75 cents per month] at the rate provided in subsection (6) of this section. The tax must be 10 applied on a telecommunications circuit designated for a particular subscriber. One subscriber 11 line must be counted for each circuit that is capable of generating usage on the line side of the 12 switched network regardless of the quantity or ownership of customer premises equipment 13 connected to each circuit. For providers of central office based services, the tax must be applied 14 to each line that has unrestricted connection to the switched network. Those central office based 15 service lines that have restricted connection to the switched network must be charged based on 16 software design in the central office that restricts the number of station calls to and from the 17 network. For cellular, wireless or other radio common carriers, the tax applies on a per 18 instrument basis and only if the subscriber's place of primary use, as defmed and determined 19 under 4 U.S.c. 116 to 126, is within this state. 20 (2) The subscriber is liable for the tax imposed by this section. NOTE: Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new; matter {italic and bracketed] is existing law to be omitted. New sections are in boldfaced type. 1201 Court Street HE, Suite 300 I Salem, Oregon 97301-4110 I 503.585.8351 I www.aocweb.org 3 17 AOC 00306/12114 1 (3) The amounts of tax collected by the provider are considered as payment by the 2 subscriber for that amount of tax. 3 (4) Any return made by the provider collecting the tax must be accepted by the 4 Department of Revenue as evidence of payments by the subscriber of amounts of tax so 5 indicated upon the return. 6 (5) The tax imposed under subsection (1) of this section does not apply to prepaid 7 wireless telecommunications service provided on or after January 1,2015. 8 (6) The tax imposed under subsection (1) of this section is 75 cents per montb, until 9 December 31, 2015, one dollar and 25 cents per month, beginning January 1, 2016, until 10 December 31,2016, and beginning January 1,2017, the rate applicable to 2016, as adjusted 11 by the Department of Revenue under this paragraph. Beginning in 2016, and every year 12 thereafter, the Department of Revenue shall determine the percentage increase or decrease 13 in the cost of living for the previous calendar year, based on changes in the Portland-Salem, 14 OR-WA Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for All Items as published by the 15 Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. On or before July 1 16 of each year, the department shaD adjust the tax rate for the following calendar year by 17 multiplying the amount applicable to the calendar year in which the adjustment is made by 18 the percentage amount determined under this paragraph. The adjustment may not exceed 19 three percent for any year. The department shall round the adjusted amount to the nearest 20 cent, but the unrounded amount shall be used to calculate adjustments in subsequent years. 21 The adjusted tax rate becomes effective on January 1 of the next year. 22 SECTION 2. Section 4, chapter 5, Oregon Laws 2002 (first special session), as amended 23 by section 1, chapter 4, Oregon Laws 2002 (third special session), section 1, chapter 629, Oregon 24 Laws 2007, and section 1, chapter 749, Oregon Laws 2013, is amended to read: 25 Sec. 4. Taxes imposed under ORS 403.200 apply to subscriber bills issued on or after 26 January 1,2002, and before January 1, {2022] 2032. 27 SECTION 3. This 2015 Act takes effect on the 9lst day after the date on which the 28 2013 regular session of the Seventy-ninth Legislative Assembly adjourns sine die. 29 [2] "Ole I As5oc:iation of ...... I Onegon Counties 4 18 51.310 Schedule of fees; payment of fees to county treasurer. (1) Except as provided in ORS 105.130, the justice of the peace shall collect, in advance except in criminal cases, and issue receipts for, the following fees: (a) For the first appearance of the plaintiff, $125 [$40]. (b) For the first appearance ofthe defendant, $125 [$40]. (c) (A) For plaintiff filing a claim in the small claims department: $40 when the amount or value claimed does not exceed $2,500, or, $75 when the amount or value claimed exceeds $2,500; and, (B) For defendant requesting a hearing: $40 when the amount or value claimed does not exceed $2,500, or, $75 when the amount or value c1aimed exceeds $2,500 [In the small claims department,for a plaintifffiling a claim, $28; andfor a defendant requesting a hearing, $28]. (d) For transcript ofjudgment, $12 [$6]. (e) For transcript ofjudgment from the small claims department, $12 [$6]. (t) For certified copy ofjudgment, $12 [$6]. (g) For issuing writs of execution or writs of garnishment, $30 [$6] for each writ. (h) For issuing notices of restitution as provided in ORS 105.151, $12 for each notice. [For taking an affidavit ofa private party, $1.] (i) For filing a motion described ORS 21.200 in an action filed under paragraph (a) of this subsection, ~of the amount set forth in ORS 21.200. [For taking depositions, for each folio, 70 cents.] (j) For supplying to private parties copies of records and files, the same fees as provided or established for the county clerk under ORS 205.320. (k) For each official certificate, $12 [$1]. (L) For taking and certifying for a private party an acknowledgment of proof of any instrument, $12 [$3]. (m) Costs in criminal cases, where there has been a conviction, or upon forfeiture of security, $5. (2) Not later than the last day of the month immediately following the month in which fees set forth in subsection (l) of this section are collected, the justice of the peace shall pay all such fees, other than those for performing marriage ceremonies, over to the county treasurer of the county wherein the justice of the peace was elected or appointed, for crediting to the general fund of the county, and shall take the receipt of the treasurer therefor. 52.410 Trial fee. (1) Parties to judicial proceedings injustice courts are required to contribute toward the expense of maintaining justice courts, or a particular action or proceeding therein, by the payment of a trial fee. (2) The trial fee in ajustice court, for every trial by jury, is $125 [$17] for each full or partial day of trial, payable by the party demanding the jury trial at the time the demand is made; for a trial without a jury, the trial fee is $75 for each full or partial day of trial, payable by tbe plaintiff when the action or proceeding is set for trial. The amount of the fee for subsequent days of trial shall be paid in advance each day the trial continues by the party responsible for the fee. 19 JUSTICE COURT FEES Present & Proposed as compared to Present Circuit Court Fees May 2014 Justice Court Justice Court -Circuit Court Filing Fees Present Proposed Present Civil Action Filing Fee (PI & Def) $40 $125 $158 Small Claim Filing Fee (PI & Def) $28 $40 (claim S $2500) $53 (claim S $2500) $75 (claim> $2500) $95 (claim> $2500) Forcible Entry & Detainer (FED) $79 No Change $79 Transcript of Judgment Transcript of Judgment from Small Claim Dept. Certified copy of Judgment Writ of Execution or Garnishment Official Certified copy of Satisfaction Of Judgment Notice of Restitution (ORS 105.151) Miscellaneous Fees $6 $12 $16 $6 $12 $16 $6 $12 $16 $6 $30 $37 $1 $12 $16 $0 $12 $16 Trial Fee's (Civil Actions -Excluding Small Claims) Bench $0 $75 $125 Jury $17 $125 $225 Motion Fees Fees set forth in ORS 21.200 $0 $75 $100 20 , Oregon Legislative InfOlmation System Page 1 of2 Help! Staff Lcgin 2013 -2014 Interim Joint Interim Task Force On Juvenile Court Dependency Proceedings (HB 3363) Overview Assigned Measures Membership Chair Patricia A. Sullivan Member Member Member Nancy Cozine Lois Day Lori Fellows Member Lene Garrett Member Valeri L Love Member Member Member Member Member Leola L. McKenzie Angela Sherbo Megan Shultz Joanne Southey Elizabeth Welch Staff 9/10/2014https://olis.1eg.state.or.us/liz!2013I1/CommitteesIWGJCD/Overview 21 HB 3363 Task Force DRAFT, Foster Care Reduction Through Effective Representation in Juvenile Court Proceedings Pilot Program ("Pilot") Problem: The juvenile court dependency system is complex and under-resourced and, as a result, children and families suffer through Ie hy foster care stays, experience reduced visitation, endure long waits fo~, anency, and often feel devalued and ignored. Proposed Solution: HB3363, passed dUlin charged with examining the juvenile co reducing delays, identifying specific ac such delays, and reporting to the legisJ atur The workgroup recommended 1i ould provide adequate resources to enable optimal func court dependency system. The components of.' parents and chi1 urces, and well-advised r. ""<I,'n!p Assembly finds that children need a safe, to grow into healthy and productive adults. b. The Ore 've Assembly finds that not all children have a safe, stable family home. c. The Oregon Legislative Assembly finds that children do best if the child's home can be made a safe, stable, family home. DRAFT, Foster Care Reduction Through Effective Representation in Juvenile Court Proceedings Pilot Program pagel of 4 22 d. The Oregon Legislative Assembly finds that if a child must be removed from his or her home, the State of Oregon must establish a safe, stable, family home for the child. e. The Oregon Legislative Assembly finds that placing a child in foster care for prolonged periods of time with many different placements is not in the best interests of the child or the State of Oregon. f. The Oregon Legislative Assembly reducing the use of foster care is both cost effective and in of Oregon's children. g. The Oregon Legislative Asse shows high-quality legal r . h. I. the Judicial Department resources to reduee caseloads and rer,re!;entat1[on to parents and children. II. IS to create a juvenile dependency court pilot Reduction Though Effective Representation in roc~e(lm~~s Pilot Program. b. take place in a minimum of four and maximum of six Oregon counties. c. The Pilot will: 1. Improve the quality of representation for parents and children by reducing caseload, providing adequate compensation, DRAFT, Foster Care Reduction Through Effective Representation in Juvenile Court Proceedings Pilot Program page2 of 4 23 ensuring additional oversight, and providing multidisciplinary support and training. 11. Increase resources to the Department of Justice so it can provide additional legal representation to DHS Child Welfare thereby ensuring caseworkers are represented. 111. Increase resources to the Judicial D~partment for additional judges and referees in order to a, tate dependency cases more expeditiously. IV. Measure outcomes to dete declined. III. Process a. Linn and Yamhill Countie b. attorneys to represent VUIU.,,,,.;) and shal1 adopt ploy attorneys to represent DHS appropriate and shall attorneys representing DHS Child Commission or an independent evaluator "",,,nT',, participating in the program. e. any other provision of law, the Judicial Department judges or judicial referees to reduce workload for in dependency matters in the circuit court of a county chosen to participate in the Pilot Program. f. The Judicial Department, together with the Office ofPubIic Defense and the Department of Justice, shall submit an annual report to the judiciary committee on the Pilot Program. IV. Appropriations DRAFT, Foster Care Reduction Through Effective Representation in Juvenile Court Proceedings Pilot Program page3 of 4 24 -- a. There is appropriated to the Court Administrator's Office for the biennium beginning July 1,2015 out of the General Fund the amount of for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of section of this 2015 Act b. There is appropriated to the Office of Public Defense Services for the biennium beginning July 1,2015 out ofthe General Fund the amount ___for the purposes of provisions of section of this 2015 Act. c. There is appropriated to the Dep beginning July 1, 2015 out 0 for the purposes of carryi~ .. of this 2015 Act. d. There is appropriat\(d to the independent eval ijel~"i" the General Fund v. DRAFT, Foster Care Reduction Through Effective Representation in Juvenile Court Proceedings Pilot Program page4 of 4 25 Public Affairs Counsel From: Justen Rainey <JustenR@pacounsel.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 12:14 PM To: Public Affairs Counsel Cc: JL Wilson; Justen Rainey; Public Affairs Counsel Subject: Head Start Mark/JL This is a note/reminder for the working file for agenda for the next Head Start meeting. Donna talked with Speaker Kotek's staff today. Kotek is gearing up and focusing on $250,000 for Early Learning/Early Care type programs in 2015-17. Apparently the rough plan is for $150 million to go to implementing full day Kindergarten. Then $100 million to be split between (ERDC -$60 million) and Childcare Quality programs ($40 million). According to Donna, the plan is to leave the current HS funding for aPK the same for 2015-17 and not change it. The feeling is the Hubs are not ready to do that. Justen 1 26 DRAFT RULES (REB; 8/12/14) DIVISION 70 MENTAL HEALTH JUSTICE REINVESTMENT PROGRAM 213-070-0010 Authority These rules are promulgated pursuant to Chapter 2015 Oregon Laws. Stat. Auth.: 2015 c._ §§ 1-10 Stats. Implemented: 2015 e._ §§ 1-10 213-070-0020 Purpose The purpose of these rules is to administer the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program established by Chapter __,2015 Oregon Laws. Stat. Auth.: 2015 c._ §§ 1-10 Stats. Implemented: 2015 c._ §§ 1-10 213-070-0030 Definitions As used in OAR 213-070-0005 to 213-070-0080, unless the context indicates otherwise: (1) "Commission" means the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. (2) "Community-based programs" may include one or more of the following: (a) Intercept] Law Enforcement Diversion: (A) Crisis outreach response team. (B) Mobile crisis response. (C) Voluntary mental health database. (D) Forensic assertive community treatment. (E) Respite centers. Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program Draft Rules -Page 1 of5 pages 27 (F) Acute care centers. (G) Drop-off centers for law enforcement. (H) Psychiatric crisis centers. (I) Peer navigators and mentors. (J) Crisis intervention training for law enforcement officers. (K) Sobering stations. (L) Access to medications. (b) Intercept 2 -Initial Detention and Court Hearings: (A) Peer services. (B) Transitional, supported housing (C) Access to medications. (D) Judicial and attorney training. (c) Intercept 3 -Jails and Courts: (A) Transition services with peer navigators and case management. (B) Transitional, supported housing. (C) Access to medications. (D) Specialty courts. (E) Other programs that divert or otherwise reduce referrals to the state hospital under ORS 161.370. (d) Intercept 4 -Reentry: (A) Wraparound services. (B) Dual diagnosis. (C) Peer navigators and mentors. (D) Peer provider organizations. (E) Transitional housing. Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program -Draft Rules -Page 2 of5 pages 28 (F) Supported housing. (e) Intercept 5 Community Corrections: (A) Wraparound services. (B) Dual diagnosis. (C) Peer navigators and mentors. (D) Peer provider organizations. (£) Transitional housing. (F) Supported housing. (3) "County" includes a regional collection of counties. (4) "Grant Review Committee" means the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review Committee established under Section 53, Chapter 649,2013 Oregon Laws. Stat. Auth.: 2015 c._ §§ 1-10 Stats, Implemented: 2015 c,_ §§ 1-10 213-070-0040 Grant Applications (1) At the beginning of each mental health justice reinvestment grant application cycle, the Commission will determine the proportion of grant funds available to each county in accordance with the formula used to distribute baseline funding under ORS 423.483, The Commission will include those amounts in its grant application solicitation, (2) An application for a justice reinvestment grant to fund one or more community-based programs must be submitted by a county, after consultation with that county's local public safety coordinating council convened under ORS 423.560 and the local mental health authority operating under ORS 430.630. (3) The Commission may negotiate with an applicant to clarify its application or to effect modifications that will make the application acceptable or in furtherance of the Mental Health Justiee Reinvestment Program. (4) The Commission may, in its sole discretion, waive solicitation requirements or eancel any solieitation in whole or in part if it deems sueh action to be in the best interests of the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program. Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program Draft Rules -Page 3 of5 pages 29 (5) At the conclusion of the grant application period, the Commission will make awards to counties in accordance with these rules. (6) If unallocated funds remain at the conclusion of the grant acceptance period, the Commission may: (a) Establish a supplemental grant period and distribute some or all of the unallocated funds in the manner provided in OAR 213-070-0070. (b) Use some or all of the unallocated funds to evaluate the community-based sanctions, services and programs funded under the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program. Stat. Auth.: 2015 c. §§ 1-10 Stats. Implemented: 2015 c._ §§ 1-10 213-070-0050 Grant Application Review Criteria In general, grant applications should provide for ways to measure efficacy. There should be a specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely design. The Grant Review Committee and the Commission will review and evaluate each grant application based on whether the applicant's program is designed to prevent persons with mental illness from entering the criminal justice system, or from further involvement in the criminal justice system, including, but not limited to, reducing referrals to the state hospital under ORS 161.370. Stat. Auth.: 2015 c. §§ 1-10 Stats. Implemented: 2015 c._ §§ 1-10 213-070-0060 Grant Application Processing (1) Commission staffwill evaluate each application based on the criteria provided in OAR 213-070 0050, and will make recommendations to the Grant Review Committee. (2) The Grant Review Committee will review each grant application, and the recommendations of Commission staff, and will make recommendations to the Commission. (3) The Commission will notify applicants of the decision of the Commission. The Commission will prepare a grant award agreement for each grant awarded, which will set forth the tenns, conditions, and requirements of the grant. (4) The Commission may amend a grant awarded under this rule. Stat. Auth.: 2015 c._ §§ 1-10 Stats. Implemented: 2015 c. §§ 1-10 Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program -Draft Rules -Page 4 of5 pages 30 213-070-0070 Supplemental Grant Period Ifunallocated funds remain at the conclusion of the grant acceptance period, and the Commission decides to establish a supplemental grant period to distribute some or all of those unallocated funds, the Commission may: (I) Use those funds to supplement and expand the scope of one or more grant programs that were awarded, without the need for further grant solicitation, but using the criteria provided in OAR 213 070-0060. (2) Issue a supplemental competitive grant application solicitation, and allow counties to submit applications to provide community-based programs, using the criteria and process provided in OAR 213-070-0050 and 213-060-0060. Stat. Auth.: 2015 c,_ §§ 1-10 Stats, Implemented: 2015 c._ §§ 1-10 213-070-0080 Evaluating Efficacy; Termination; Report to Legislature (1)( a) Each Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Grant that is awarded will be evaluated by the Commission on a quarterly basis, based on the measurable benchmarks provided in the grant application and grant award agreement. (b) Programs that lack efficacy will be given notice of that deficiency, and an opportunity to adjust or modifY the program. (c) Programs that persistently lack efficacy may be terminated, The Commission will notifY a program of intention to terminate, and allow for a hearing before the Commission under ORS 183.411 to 183.471. (2) In order to establish model programs, each grant cycle the Commission will select one or more programs funded under the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program for close evaluation. In selecting programs for close evaluation, the Commission shall take into consideration existing research, as well as the need to establish the efficacy of new programs, or program models being implemented in Oregon. (3) The Commission will report the results of its evaluation conducted under this rule to a committee of the Legislative Assembly related to the judiciary. Stat. Auth.: 2015 c,_ §§ 1-10 Stats, Implemented: 2015 c,_ §§ 1-10 Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program -Draft Rules Page 5 of5 pages 31 .. IAssociation of . Oregon Counties AOC CONCEPT 002 2015 Regular Session 08/18114 (REB) DRAFT SUMMARY Establishes Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program for the purpose of preventing persons with mental illness from entering the criminal justice system, or from further involvement in the criminal justice system, including but not limited to, reducing referrals to the state hospital due to lack of fitness to proceed in criminal cases. Directs Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, in consultation with advisory body, to administer program. Sunsets July 1,2025. Declares emergency, effective on passage. 1 A BILL FOR AN ACT 2 Relating to crime; creating new provisions; and declaring an emergency. 3 Be It Enacted by the People ofthe State of Oregon: 4 MENTAL HEALTH JUSTICE REINVESTMENT PROGRAM 5 SECTION 1. The Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Account is established, 6 separate and distinct from the General Fund. All moneys in the account are continuously 7 appropriated to the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission for the purpose of making grants 8 to counties in accordance with section 2 ofthis 2015 Act 9 SECTION 2. (1) In consultation with the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review 10 Committee established under Section 53, Chapter 649, 2013 Oregon Laws, the Oregon 11 Criminal Justice Commission shall administer the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment 12 Program described in this section. From funds appropriated to the commission for 13 purposes of the program, the commission shall award grants to counties that establish 14 services and programs that are designed to prevent persons with mental illness from 15 entering the criminal justice system, or from further involvement in the criminal justice 16 system, including, but not limited to, reducing referrals to the state hospital under ORS 17 161.370. NOTE: Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new; matter {italic and brac/reted] is existing law to be omitted. New sections are in boldfaced type. 1201 Court Street NE, Suite 300 I Salem, Oregon 97301-4110 I 503.585.8351 I www.aocweb.org 32 5 10 15 20 25 30 ,. AOC 002 08118114 1 (2) After consulting with the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review Committee, the 2 commission shall adopt rules to administer the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment 3 Program. The rules must include: 4 (a) A methodology for reviewing and approving grant applications and distributing grant funds. Rules described in this paragraph must provide the Justice Reinvestment 6 Grant Review Committee with the ability to approve grant applications, subject to final 7 approval by the commission. 8 (b) A process for evaluating the efficacy of services and programs funded under this 9 section. (3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, upon receipt of a letter of 11 intent to participate in the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program submitted by a 12 county, the commission shall distribute to the county a proportional share of funds 13 deposited in the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Account. The proportion shall be 14 determined in accordance with the formula used to distribute baseline funding under ORS 423.483. 16 (4) Funds distributed under this section must be spent on the provision of services 17 and programs that are designed to prevent persons with mental illness from entering the 18 criminal justice system, or from further involvement in the criminal justice system, 19 including, but not limited to, reducing referrals to the state hospital under ORS 161.370. SECTION 3. Section 2 of this 2015 Act is amended to read: 21 Sec. 2. (1) In consultation with the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review Committee 22 established under Section 53, Chapter 649, 2013 Oregon Laws, the Oregon Criminal Justiee 23 Commission shall administer the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program described in this 24 section. From funds appropriated to the commission for purposes of the program, the commission shall award grants to counties that establish services and programs that are designed 26 to prevent persons with mental illness from entering the criminal justice system, or from further 27 involvement in the criminal justice system, including, but not limited to, reducing referrals to the 28 state hospital under ORS 161.370. 29 (2) An application for a grant described in this section must be submitted by a county, after consultation with the local public safety coordinating council convened under 31 ORS 423.560 and the local mental health authority operating under ORS 430.630. [2] 1I.4OC I AssocIation ofI.'7IJ. i On:gon Couoties 33 5 10 15 20 25 30 AOC 002 08/18114 1 (3)(a) During a grant application period established by the commission, the 2 proportion of grant funds available to each county shall be determined in accordance with 3 the formula used to distribute baseline funding under ORS 423.483. 4 (b) At the conclusion of the grant application period, the commission shall award grants to counties in accordance with rules adopted by the commission. If unallocated 6 funds remain at the conclusion of the grant acceptance period, the commission may 7 establish a supplemental grant period and distribute the unallocated funds. 8 (4) The commission shall regularly evaluate the services and programs funded 9 under this section. The commission shall report the results of an evaluation conducted under this section to a committee of the Legislative Assembly related to the judiciary. 11 [(2)J (5) After consulting with the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review Committee, the 12 commission shall adopt rules to administer the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program. 13 The rules must include: 14 (a) A methodology for reviewing and approving grant applications and distributing grant funds. Rules described in this paragraph must provide the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review 16 Committee with the ability to approve grant applications, subject to final approval by the 17 commission. 18 (b) A process for evaluating the efficacy of services and programs funded under this 19 section. [(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, upon receipt of a letter of 21 intent to participate in the Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Program submitted by a county, 22 the commission shall distribute to the county a proportional share offunds deposited in the 23 Mental Health Justice Reinvestment Account. The proportion shall be determined in accordance 24 with the formula used to distribute baseline funding under DRS 423.483.] [(4) Funds distributed under this section must be spent on the provision of services and 26 programs that are designed to prevent persons with mental illness from entering the criminal 27 justice system, or from further involvement in the criminal justice system, including, but not 28 limited to, reducing referrals to the state hospital under DRS 161.370.J 29 (6) As used in this section, "county" includes a regional collection of counties. SECTION 4. The amendments to section 2 of this 2015 Act by section 3 of this 2015 31 Act become operative on July 1,2017. [3] .jOC I' Association of ~ , Oregon Counties 34 5 10 15 20 25 30 AOC 002 08/18/14 1 SECTION 5. Section 53, Chapter 649, 2013 Oregon Laws, as amended by section 54, 2 Chapter 649,2013 Oregon Laws, is further amended to read: 3 Sec. 53. (l)(a) In consultation with the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review Committee 4 established under subsection (2) of this section, the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission shall administer the Justice Reinvestment Program described in this section. From funds appropriated 6 to the commission for purposes of the program, the commission shall award grants to counties 7 that establish a process to assess offenders and provide a continuum of community-based 8 sanctions, services and programs that are designed to reduce recidivism and decrease the 9 county's utilization of imprisonment in a Department of Corrections institution while protecting public safety and holding offenders accountable. 11 (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, no less than 10 percent of grant 12 funds awarded under this section must be distributed to community-based nonprofit 13 organizations that provide services to victims of crime. 14 (2) The Justice Reinvestment Grant Review Committee is established, consisting of the following members: 16 (a) The Governor shall appoint the following [five] seven members: 17 (A) [On] One member shall be a district attorney. 18 (B) One member shall be a county sheriff. 19 (C) One member shall be a chief of police. (D) One member shall be a county commissioner. 21 (E) One member shall be a community corrections director who is not a sheriff. 22 (F) One member shall be a local mental health authority designee. 23 (G) One member shall be a treatment professional experienced with people who 24 have co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorder. (b) The President of the Senate shall appoint two nonvoting members from among 26 members of the Senate. 27 (c) The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall appoint two nonvoting members 28 from among members of the House of Representatives. 29 (3)(a) A majority of the voting members of the committee constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business. 31 (b) The committee shall elect one of its members to serve as chairperson. [4] 35 5 10 15 20 25 30 t AOC 002 08/18/14 1 (c) If there is a vacancy for any cause, the appointing authority shall make an 2 appointment to become effective immediately. 3 (d) The committee shall meet at times and places specified by the call of the chairperson 4 or a majority of the voting members of the committee. (e) Legislative members of the committee shall be entitled to payment of compensation 6 and expenses under ORS 171.072, payable from funds appropriated to the Legislative Assembly. 7 (4) An application for a grant described in this section must be submitted by a local 8 public safety coordinating council convened under ORS 423.560. 9 (5)(a) During a grant application period established by the commission, the proportion of grant funds available to each county shall be determined in accordance with the formula used to 11 distribute baseline funding under ORS 423.483. 12 (b) At the conclusion of the grant application period, the commission shall award grants 13 to counties in accordance with rules adopted by the commission. If unallocated funds remain at 14 the conclusion of the grant acceptance period, the commission may establish a supplemental grant period and distribute the unallocated funds. 16 (6) The commission shall regularly evaluate the community-based sanctions, services and 17 programs funded under this section. The commission shall report the results of an evaluation 18 conducted under this section to a committee of the Legislative Assembly related to the judiciary. 19 (7)(a) Before applying for grant funds to administer a community-based program described in subsection (9)(a)(D) of this section, the county must obtain the consent of the 21 presiding judge of thc judicial district in which the county is located. 22 (b) A grant application to administer a community-based program described in subsection 23 (9)(a)(D) of this section must include the costs of appointed counsel. 24 (8) After consulting with the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review Committee, the commission shall adopt rules to administer the Justice Reinvestment Program. The rules must 26 include: 27 (a) A methodology for reviewing and approving grant applications and distributing grant 28 funds. Rules described in this paragraph must provide the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review 29 Committee with the ability to approve grant applications, subject to final approval by the commISSIon. ajDC l AssoclatJoaof[5] ~ 1Oftgon Counties 36 ., AOC 002 08/18114 1 (b) A process for evaluating the efficacy of community-based sanctions, services and 2 programs funded under this section. 3 (9) As used in this section: 4 (a) "Community-based programs" includes: 5 (A) Work release programs; 6 (B) Structured, transitiona11eave programs; 7 (C) Evidence-based programs designed to reduce recidivism that include the balanced 8 administration of sanctions, supervision and treatment; 9 (D) Administering a reentry court under section 29 of this 2013 Act; and 10 (E) Specialty courts aimed at medium-risk and high-risk offenders. 11 (b) "County" includes a regional collection of counties. 12 SECTION 6. The amendments to section 53, Chapter 649, 2013 Oregon Laws, by 13 section 3 ofthis 2015 Act become operative on July 1, 2016. 14 SECTION 7. (1) Not less than once per biennium, the Oregon Criminal Justice 15 Commission shall identify: 16 (a) The avoided costs to state government resulting from the passage of this 2015 17 Act; and 18 (b) Any increased or decreased costs to local governments resulting from the 19 passage of this 2015 Act. 20 (2) No later than January 1 of each odd-numbered year, the commission shall 21 submit a report to the Justice Reinvestment Grant Review Committee established under 22 Section 53, Chapter 649, 2013 Oregon Laws,and to the Legislative Assemblyin the manner 23 provided by ORS 192.245, that includes the determinations described in subsection (1) of 24 this section and describes the methodology employed by the commission in reaching those 25 determinations. 26 (3) As used in this section, "avoided costs" includes the costs of operating the state 27 hospital, and the costs associated with additional state hospital capacity. 28 SECTION 8. Sections 2,3,5, and 7 ofthis 2015 Act are repealed on July 1,2025. 29 Aloe j As5odatioDof[6] ~ 1Oregon Count' 37 AOC 002 08/18114 1 UNIT CAPTIONS 2 SECTION 9. The unit captions in this 2015 Act are provided only for the 3 convenience of the reader and do not become a part of the statutory law of this state or 4 express any legislative intent in the enactment of this 2015 Act. S EMERGENCY CLAUSE 6 SECTION 10. This 2015 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the 7 public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2015 Act takes 8 effect on its passage. 9 [7] AOC1=~ 38 XXXXXXXXX, 1014 Joint Interim Task Force on Primary and M ental Health Care Reimbursemellt ltlehtbership: ruck Kincade. MD, Co-Chai Mary Grallt, RN, MS, ANP, Co-Chair SelL Tim Knopp Sen, Laurie Mannes A:lderson Rep, John Lively Rep, Julie Parrish Robin Henderron, PsyD Boh Gluckman, MD Sean Kolmer Cor-dee Koning, MS, PA-C -Staif: Sandy 'Thiele -eirka Task Force on to the 39 Executive Summary In 2013, the 77th Legislative Assembly enacted House Bill 290i (Appendix A), which established a thirteen-member Task Force on Primary and Mental Health Care Reimbursement, to study payment reform options in support of primary and mental health care, specifically addres,sing payment parity for physicians, physician a~sistant'!, and nurse practitioners in Oregon. The Task Force has been directed to prepare this report recommending an array of potential changes to statute in support of sustainable payment models for primary and mental health care services. The Task Force is scheduled to sunset at the convening of the 2016 Regular Session of the Oregon Legislative Assembly. The charge of the Task Force is to: (a) Study and make recommendations for a payment eirrlbu:rselnetltby insurers of licensed physicians, physician assistants and (b) The payment structure must promote the mental health care workforce in Oregon (c) The payment structure must ensure that thcse licensed specialty designations arc The Task Force began convening testimony was presented concerning: • Primary Care workforce; • Patient-Centered • Behavioral • • j"trihnj',{)n ofhealth care expcnditure; and • APlpenOlxB} in the process of to organize the findings and ofthe TaskForce that while there are many no singkeffort has come forth as the learning ofthc five meetings of the Task Force, Oregon's payer environment, prior to the passage of House Bill 2902 (2013) experienced several payers not reinlbursing physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician a'>sistants at the same rates for the same services being provided. The providers used the Evaluation and Management (E&M) or Health and Behavior (H&B) coding system. This inequity particularly affected a number of behavioral health NPs, which resulted in substarltial economic impaet There were no reports of payment inequity in the physical health environments. Testimony clarified the uniform use ofllie E&MIH&B coding system. This system is used in Fee-For Service (FFS) payment structure, for defining the level of serviee (illS) provided and the corresponding 40 2 payment by: • Using documentation elements from a visit encounter, • Elements include specific information in history of present illness, review of systems, past medical, surgical and social history, as well as physical exam., diagnosis and treatment plan; • Based on the level of complexity a LOS is assigned; • Specific WS have a graduated fee schedule, increasing with advancing levels ofbistory, examination and decision making; and • Providers submit an WS code for each encoooter to the insurer for payment Testimony also pointed out the limitations of the coding directly and indirectly related to the visit encounter' • The LOS does not reflect the level of training, cumulative experience of a provider, even within • The LOS is entirely dependent on tbe ability dependent on the documentation skills of ' during the visit; • New electronic medical record (EMR) can impact the detail in a visit's dO~;W;llerltal1( • Coding rules and req[Uu'ernlen'ts CPT and ICD-9flO systems, willie potentially helpful, • The current U.S. coding system payment system for FFS billing, in describing several factors quality outcomes, or specialty; and completely, thus is what actually occurred )cumenta:tlOln, which ""l"'V\_l~. in the as Physicians, NPs, and including: • training for physicians, particularly those addiction medicine, and geriatrics specializing in behavioral health, 2015 Legislative Assembly: 1. Maintain sunset in current ORS 743A.036 and that tbe Task Force continue to evaluate; 2. Clarify the definition of "independent practice" as it pertains to billing for services impacted by House Bill 2902; 3. Assure compliance of current statute through the In!.'1lrance Division. Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS); and 4. Monitor and report any clirrical and financial impact of the provisions enacted by House Bill 2902 on the mental health delivery system. 41 3 Findings Regarding Support for Primary and Mental Health Care Workforce: The Task Force heard consistent testimony that the shortage of primary care and behavioral health care providers (of all types) is significant and multi -factorial. The workforce shortage is even more dramatic in the rural areas of Oregon, particularly for psychiatric physician access. The provider shortage is not unique to Oregon, but testimony implied that it was more profound than in other regions of the country. Common elements contribut.ing to the shortage ofproviders in these specialties include: • Low reimbursement for services rclative to specialty and procedural care; • Limited training oppor1unities (residency slots, MDIDOIPNRN degree positions) in Oregon for primary care and behavioral health for Physicians, NPs an.." ,which is currently under study by the Health Care Workforce Conunittee, Oregon HCl:\'" icy Board (Appendix C); • Challenges of serving complex patient populations; Increasing demands on primary care providers fo gement, care coordination, chronic disease care, documentation., and pati } a corresponding increase in reimbursement; • Large debt burden for physicians conlin residency programs to those specialties • Limited loan reimbursement programs in O'r Several options were presented to the ge of primary ~aP~~and behavioral health Physicians, NPs and PAs' • ",ow its current rate of growth; • FFS'system, such as care virtual visits, and bi • payment for primary care and behavioral • care models, particularly unifoml Care Medical Home • nurse practitioners and physician assistants in • and other fmancial incentives to include all Oregon . shortages; and • cal Graduates in primary and behavioral health care settings The Health Care Oregon Health Policy Board (OHPB) is currently evaluating and charged to: coordinate efforts in Oregon to recruit and educate health care professionals and retain a quality workforce to meet the demand created by the expansion in health care coverage system transformation and an increasingly diverse population. The Health Care Workforce Conunittee focuses its work on identifying resources, needs, and supply gaps, and ensuring a culturally competent workforce that is reflective of Oregon's increasing diversity. The Conunittee advises, develops recommendations and action plans to be presented to the OHPB for consideration. In addition, the Health Care Workforce Committee receives senior-level staff support from the Oregon Healthcare Workforce Institute, as well as from the Office for Health Policy and Research. The duties ofthe Committee are to: • Coordinate efforts to recruit, educate, retain quality workforce; 42 4 Conduct inventory of all grants and other state resources available for expanding workforce; and • Establish goals to guide grants awarded from the Healthcare Workforce Strategic Fund. . Recommendations: Provider Workforce Support for Primary Care and Behavioral Health Thc Task Force recommends that the 2015 Oregon Legislative Assembly: 1. Support all current work of the Oregon Health Authority and the Health Care Workforce Comrrrittee, OHPB, as wcll as other statewide initiatives in tracking provider shortage areas and offering options to address issues influencing the shortage; 2. Should develop options for strategic funding . and communities to provide eeonomic incentives for providers to practice in Oregon; 3. Expand and fund loan repayment programs to . shortages in primary care and behavioral 4. Increase funding for residency training and primary care!behavioral health training 5. Investigate through the Health Care W barriers exist for Foreign Medical behavioral health in Oregon; and 6. Support efforts for technical health-focused clinics to health and physical health, • • (Triage, Registry, Virtual Care) + CC + FFS • • paid as per member per month (PMP1.f) with a portion of payment tied to quality outcomes, experience, and cost control (Triple Aim). Patient populations would need to be risk-stratified based on historical utilization data in order to fairly compensate providers for the complexity of their patient panels. Data systems with capability to track populations, monitoring for mUltiple variables, would be essential for the payers and providers. Provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) related to technology have been intentional with respect to creating this level of data exchange, but at tbis time are not uniform across Oregon's health care settings. The Task Force acknowledges the early successes of Coordinated Care Organizations (CCOs) across Oregon in cost containment, emergency ~crvices utili7.ation and quality improvement during the first year of operation. It remains unclear as to whether this can be sustained over time, but the lessons 43 5 learned during this experience over the next 24-36 months will be telling. Proof of a sustainable model in the Medicaid delivery system will help infonn the futllre direction of the insurance marketplace. Total cost of care for health services continue to escalate nationally, and in Oregon as welL The Oregon Health Authority has targeted a reduction in the rate of cost growth from 5,4 percent to 3.4 percent for the CCOs. Control of the total cost of care is critical for a sustainable payment model for Oregon. Consideration for a state-wide, all payer, capitation to growth has been considered ill several states, including Massachusetts, where state-sponsored insurance was put in place prior to the ACA. Thus far, investments in primary care and behavioral health have shown savings in emergency room, hospital, specialty care and pharmaceutical costs. Recommendations: Alternative Payment Models The Task Force recommends that the 2015 Legislative Ass I. Utilize the OHPB's Sustainable Health Care (SHEW) to set a target for total health care cost growth reductio ssOregon; 2. Develop a multi-payer consensus agree t methods for services delivered in a Primary-Care M are Dot currently reimbursed including care c' services and phone consultati d 3. Instruct the OHPB to establis risk -stratified global payment health, provided that experience i demonstrate sustai ., alternative payment methods undled payments for certain procedures, ship "with tbe OHPB will be critical for 44 6 • MEMBERS The task force is made up of 15 members appointed by the Legislature, Governor, director of the Oregon Health Authority and director of the Department of Human Services. Task Force members are: Governor appointees Tammy Baney -commissioner, Deschutes County Liz Baxter -director, Oregon Public Health Institute Carrie Brogoitti -public health administrator, Union County Carlos Crespo -professor of community health and director, School of Community Health, Portland State University Charlie Fautin -public health administrator, Benton County Nichole Maher president, Northwest Health Foundation John Satlenspiel-chief medical officer, Trillium Community Health Plan At-farge members Jennifer Mead -healthy aging coordinator, Department of Human Services Gary Oxman -former Multnomah County public health officer Alejandro Queral director of systems planning and performance, United Way of the Columbia Willamette Eva Rippeteau -political coordinator at Oregon AFSCME Council 75 Legislators Rep. Jason Conger (R-Bend) . Rep. Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland) Sen, Bill Hansell (R-Pendleton) Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson (D-Gresham) 45 Future of Public Health Task Force Implementation Work Group IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (August 29,2014) The focus of this draft implementation plan --in combination with the foundational capabilities & programs --is establishing a new approach to providing Governmental Public Health (GPH) services in Oregon within the context of health system transformation, early learning reform, and community p,;}' .. ership. This requires taking a "public health system" perspective -that aligns appr and bridges differences in state/local, public/private, health care/population' d interdisciplinary perspectives. The proposal promotes appropriat ffi~i~l1t integration and coordination of GPH, medical care systems, hood"s'~~~ms, community goals, activities and leaders to improve the pUblic: h for peopl~;tQ· .. d to be addressed prior to a state-wide i areas that need additional detail are not limited to; lic Health Division? ,'~alth Division and CLHO \;;{:t • The be worked out prior to ofthe document/or schematic representations. l,nto succeed and to maintain a public health system perspective, appropriate sharing of governance is necessary. Inclusion of three perspectives is essential: 1) Community which includes medical care community, community members and organizations, and early childhood community; 2) State Governmental Public Health, and 3) Local Governmental Public Health 2.. There are two underlying governance needs: a) To embrace a PH system perspective that is statewide in its scope, and 46 b) to address local governance chaJlenges that arise from the differing implementation pathways described below. Adoption of a given pathway by a county or region win occur in the context of differing community situations with regard to operational approach, local political culture, history, community resources, and other factors. As a result. it is appropriate to offer flexible governance approaches that allow for some variation while maintaining overarching commonalities across all localities to ensure a strong statewide public health system. State-Level Goyernance Needs The main tasks of state-level governance are: • Participation in and adoption of a statewide co palth assessment (CHA) • Approval of Community Health Improvement "'prioritization of health improvement outcomes arising from the s • Approval and policy-level oversight ofR outcome priorities • Monitoring of progress towards meeting 3' b J foundational capability targets • Approvaloffundingjresource • Advocacy for and actively purs governor, and external funders in . Coordination and of the Public Health Advisory 431:195 (n=15) seems adequate. must include appropriate demographic expertise, including representatives from rural Additionally, PHAB 2.0 should have representation groups: -At least one representative -At least one non-CCO health system representative -Local public health administrator -Local public health association (CLHO) -Academic PH representative -State PH technical expert staff State Health Officer - A local Health Officer 47 2 ! • -Population Health metrics expert -Representative of front line public health worker -OPHD Director, ex-officio Remaining to be determined by governor 2. Repurposing: Address "State-level Governance Needs" identified above Local Governance Structures Notes 1. It is assumed that local governance approaches customized to address a) the challenges of the chosen local implemen way. and b) the unique circumstances and arrangements of the c 2. Local governance has some tasks that p te-level governance. [t also has some distinct tasks, largely . . on, and related monitoring and modification of j 3. The Conference of LocaJ Health 0 repurposed to improve collaboration 2.0 will help support: i. Implemen· Framework;, ii. Ensure that o· unity health assessment (CHA) outcomes (i.e., beyond common 3 48 IMPLEMENTATION PATHWAYS Assumptions: Technical assistance will be available to help detennine currentgaps infoundational capabilities and to ensure localities are able to implement the foundational capabilities and programs within an established timeline. All implementation pathways mandate coordination and plo,pning with community partners as outlined in the Foundational Capabilities Fra rk. These partners include, but are not limited to: CCOs, community health NGOs,' rning hubs, Aging and Disability Resource Connections, academic instituti mmunity based organizations, medical care providers, etc. LHAs and their LHDs will submit an appli funding and assistance to support imple programs. The goal of the implementation population health outcomes. LH d LHDs assistance for implementation. propose to implement the foundati are intended to allow for significan 1. Single County. A al Framework approach in a is solely responsible for assuring that , dationa program services/activities are available wit' munity partners are still critical in this ith a single Local Health Authority L ty judge). Program services/activities ~ .... ving primary responsibility will remain Z. atur single county may implement the Foundational ay that the LHD is primarily, but not solely responsible and foundational program serVices/activities. However ty for certain operations (e.g., communicable disease control program, t... control program) or supports (e.g., epidemiology, health officer, health education) with other jurisdictions (state/OPHD or other LHDs) or other organizations. Jurisdictional governance rests with the LHA with participation of other entities in.governance as specified in intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) or other contracts. 3.... Multi-County District. Two or more counties may implement the Framework for Governmental Public Health Services through forming a legally binding partnership (e.g., [GA or similar mechanism). The operating organization ("district') created by 49 4 the IGA is solely responsible for foundational capabilities and foundational program services/activities in all participating counties. The operating organization may rely on a variety of approaches 'to sharing responsibility for services and supports e.g., a single district structure, a consortium with certain services and supports provided by one or more specified counties, or other structures as determined by the participating LHAs. Jurisdictional governance is shared among the LHAs of the participating counties with terms of sharing defined by the negotiated intergovernmental agreement. CRITERiA: Choosing participa""n"""-''"'"''''-.......,''''''-I........r..u..Lll>oJLU • Desire one or more qualified applicants f ~ • Balance of sizes of jurisdictions: • Balance of rural and urban jurisdicti • Varying levels of current availabili" spectrum of current/historical comp o Basic services only o Basic plus limited' o Comprehensive ser • Geographic balance: • A spectrum of tjhistori o Low o Me High • n advisory role for implantation and . ies and programs. 0: 1. lie health system that encourages shared responsibility ''ers in order to achieve health improvement goals 2. ing and policy/political investment 3. support GPH with an emphasis on measuring and paying for performance 4. Maintain or increase current federal funding and promote flexibility on how federal funds can be used Incentive-based Approach to Funding 1) Establish an equitable baseline state investment in GPH 2) Establish an equitable baseline for local investment in GPH while maintaining existing LPH investments 50 5 3) Establish a state match for local investment above the established baseline 4) Using PHAB-2.0 governance structure, establish consequences for inadequate operational performance, while continuing to assure the public's health through continuity of services. Options could include: a) Payback of state funding (base and/or incentive match funds) b) Decreased eligibility for state funding for a defined future period c) Establish a quality pool and hold back a % of state funding to be paid out based on achievement of defined outcome metrics. ' d) Develop corrective action plans that include tech 5) Utilize global budgeting approach to avoid fragmen focus on achieving Foundational Capability and ni . assistance. siloing and promote a provement outcomes ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITONS; This implementation straw proposal following assumptions; nization" principles d structured approaches to accountability through problems and plans to address them utilizing quality improvement improving process, programs and to the community and its leaders on progress incentives for successes and mechanism lUVlV/;''-approach to planning -one that features robust and clear expressions ofthe causes and potential address health problems, !ll using SMART capability and health improvement objectives (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant. Time-bound) .:i Initial implementation wave will test and evaluate multiple implementation pathways so that future waves can benefit from the lessons learned ,6~ Initial wave will: a) be substantial in scale (e,g., 10-30% of state's counties and/or population), b) embrace the diversity of Oregon's communities -rural/urban, small/medium/large populations, etc.) 51 6 !• £1 be organizationally and financially sustainable through a period long enough to allow implementation at the chosen scale, and evaluation of process and outcomes L Definitions: .! Local Health Authority (LHA): The entity with political authority and responsibility to provide GPH services in a given county .! Local Health Department (LHD): The operating department that is responsible for providing GPH services under the direction of the LHA 7 52 Figure 1: PH System Governance -Overview Oregon leglslabJretGovemor j Administration 1 AdmInistration 2 Administration L Local/Regional PH , I' /',, It' OI"egon Health Policy Board OHA Director I' /' I', /'" /' /' locallRegional PH 1 I I I 'f' Local/Regional PH 53 8 aaSJ2014 """"ion Figure 2: PH System Governance -State Components PHAB-2.0 Membership ceo representative non-Ceo health system representative Local public health administrator Locat public health association (CLHO) Academic PH representative . State PH technical expert staff Slate HO A IocaIHO Population Hearth metri1::s expert Representative of front line public health wOlkei' OPHD Djrecior is ex-<lfficio Remaining to be determined by govemor Advise on slatewide CHA Advise on statewide CHIP Approve statewide CHIP Es1lIblish and monnor progress on population hearth Approve statewide funding distribution plans Reports 10 OHPB Can form commrt1ees and CLH02.0---rParl.nership Policy. operational and i developmental direction & I support 1 Policy and priority direcDon re: local/regional prod/./Cts/fimc!ions LocaURegional PH Administration ._---' [ 54 9 .'" Figure 3: PH System Governance -Single County Implementation Pathway Components Oregon leglslatuflllGollernor 1 Oregon Health Policy Board COUnty LHD Administration ProductsJfunctions Staff support feN local PH advisory process Coordinate local paI1nersl:llps Can)' out local CHA Implement local CHIP Ongoing local progress evaluation aod mod"lfieaIlon of local CHIP to 55 Clean Diesel Contracting Proposal Summary: State, county, city and regional governments would be required to specify clean diesel vehicles and equipment in contracts for public works projects as well as for goods delivered to government agencies. Clean diesel requirements would be met by any fleet in compliance with the LEED phase-in schedule or operating with alternatively fueled vehicles and equipment. • Requirements for clean diesel would apply to state agencies after July 1, 2016 for contracts over $2 million, and clean diesel preferences would apply to all other contracts. • After July 1, 2017 comparable requirements apply to any project for which state funds exceed a certain percentage of overall project costs undertaken by county, city and regional governments in Benton, Clackamas, Columbia, Deschutes, Jackson, Josephine, Lane, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Washington and Yamhill counties. Detailed description: By clean diesel we mean: a. any diesel powered vehicle with an USEPA certified model year 2007 or newer engine, or b. non-road diesel equipment certified as USEPA Tier 4\ or c. any diesel powered vehicle or non-road diesel equipment that has been retrofitted with a diesel particulate filter verified by USEPA or the California Air Resources Board, or d. any medium-duty or heavy-duty vehicle or non-road equipment powered by alternative fuels like propane, natural gas, electricity or biodiesel blends greater than 20 percent. Contracts include public improvement projects and/or the final delivery of goods and services secured through procurement by a state or local contracting agency. State contracting agencies For all state agency contracts over $2 million and awarded after July 1, 2016: • Require 95 percent of all diesel powered on-road vehicles used in the course of contracted activities to meet the clean diesel standard. • Prohibit the use of Tier 0 and Tier 1 non-road diesel equipment. • Require non-road equipment to meet the clean diesel standard for the specified horsepower outlined in the table below. 1 Federal new engine emission standards have become progressively more stringent since first adopted in 1988 for heavy-duty highway vehicles and for non-road equipment in 1994. Emission standards for trucks are designated by the model year of the engine and by "tiers" for non-road engines. 1 56 • Percent of Engines that Must Comply with Clean Diesel Standard Contract Awarded After 25-74 hp 75-149 hp 175 hp and above July 1, 2016 25% 50% 95% July 1, 2017 50% 95% 95% July 1, 2018 95% 95% 95% For contracts less than $2 million, beginning on July 1, 2016, all state contracting agencies will provide a contracting preference for diesel vehicles and non-road diesel equipment that meet the clean diesel standard. Local governments2 When the state offers funding for local government contracts, the contract's value exceeds $2 million and state funds represent at least XX% of total costs, the following conditions apply: • Require 95 percent of all diesel powered on-road vehicles used in the course of contracted activities to meet the clean diesel standard. • Prohibit the use of Tier 0 and Tier 1 non-road diesel equipment. • Require non-road equipment to meet the clean diesel standard for the specified horsepower outlined in the table below. Percent of Engines that Must Comply with Clean Diesel Standard Contract Awarded After 25-74 hp 75-149 hp 175 hp and above ! July 1, 2017 25% 50% 95% July 1, 2018 50% 95% 95% July 1, 2019 95% 95% 95% J I For contracts less than $2 million, beginning on July 1,2017, local government contracting agencies will provide a contracting preference for diesel vehicles and non-road diesel equipment that meet the clean diesel standard. State of Emergency The requirements do not apply to contracts awarded during a declared state of emergency that are . '. intended to prevent or alleviate actual or threatened damage due to the emergency. Procurement Guidance DEQ is requesting new staff in a policy package to identify vehicles and non-road equipment that meet the clean diesel standards. This list would be updated continuously and would make it easy for state and local contracting agencies to identify fleets that comply with the requirements. 2 Counties and local governments in Metropolitan Statistical Areas, which are more heavily popUlated and developed areas. As of July 2014, this includes Benton, Clackamas, Columbia, Deschutes, Jackson, Josephine, Lane, linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Washington and Yamhill counties. 2 57 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Businesses certified by the state of Oregon as a Minority Business Enterprise, Women Business Enterprise and/or Emerging Small Business may meet the applicable clean diesel standard with the use of petroleum diesel fuel blended with at least 20 percent biodiesel fuel. The provisions of this bill are in effect for contracts awarded before July 1, 2035. 3 58 • 5B 839 Task Force Ground Rules Principles for Cooperation • Members should bring concerns from the interests they represent to the attention 'of the group, so that later surprises are avoided. Members should also work constructively to understand the concerns of others, and help to find ways to address those concerns. All meetings of the task forces will be open to the public. At the close of each meeting, the facilitator wilf typically allow lime for public comment, taking into consideration the length of the agenda and the opportunity for Task Force members to speak on all issues. Members willireat each other with respect throughout the will listen to each other to seek to understand each other's perspective, even if they disagree. • One person will speak at a time and stay focused on the To indicate an interest in speaking, members will turn name tent cards vertical. Members in letting the group know their perspective on issues, their concems, and their effort to achieve a shared understanding and find common ground. At the ime constraints, and will share the speaking lime with others. Members and reach consensus. All members will act in good faith in all aspects being honest and refraining from undertaking any actions Ihat wil All task force members agree to maintain the including all email correspondence. Any reporting to issues and not individuals. • Members will refrain from itions taken by other participants during the process Members will not characterize or but will refer questions about others' • Members are likely subject to . E-mails for the • • • be made by consensus. Pursuant to SB 839, 'consensus" force formally objects to the decision. along with recommendations, either in active support of it or not to be expected in a group with such diverse perspectives and the • to the methodology developed by the task force may provide a • ronnn,-tll'''tv to review, make corrections, and then sign-off on the report and recommendations. 59 Page 1 of4 Senate Bill 839 Summary A Reference for Task Forces Purpose The purpose of Senate Bill 839 is to establish a means for the state to support water supply development projects that provide economic, environmental and community benefits [Section 2(1)]. The bill establishes the Water Supply Development Account [Section 3(1)) which can be used by the Department to carry out the Act. Loans and grants may be made to persons, Oregon tribes, as well as nonprofit organizations (Section 41. The requirements and conditions specified in the bill apply only to projects that receive grants or loans from the Water Supply Development Account [Section 2(2)]. Use of the Water Supply Development Account -Types of Projects and Costs Funds from the account can be used to make loans and grants to evaluate, plan, and develop both instream and out of stream water development projects that: increase water use efficiency; develop new or expanded storage; allocate federally stored water; promote water reuse or conservation; or protect or restore streamflows [Section 3(2)]. Also eligible are projects that improve operations of existing water storage facilities; create new or improved water distribution, conveyance or delivery systems; provide for water management or measurement; or determine seasonally varying flows, when that project is developed in connection with newly developed water [Section 3(2)]. Newly developed water is water that results from (1) new or expanded storage, (2) allocation of un-contracted USACE stored water, or (3) the aHocation of conserved water [Section 1(1)). Other projects that are eligible without meeting the scoring or ranking, or grant and loan procedures are comprehensive basin studies done by BOR, or ongoing studies by USACE to allocate stored water [section 3(3)]. The Department may also spend funds from the Account to pay the technical and administrative costs of the Department to carry out the bill [Section 3(2)], as well as to pay the cost of establishing a seasonally varying flow, and to pay other costs directly related to project development [Section 13]. Prior to July 1,. 2017, the Department may also use fund moneys for the task forces and SVF rule development [Sections 27 and 28]. Moneys not expended during a funding cycle are carried over to future cycles [Section 7(4)]. Application and Approval Process Application Requirements -Section 6 of the bill prescribes the information that must be included on the application form. For applications involving physical changes or monitoring on private land, the landowners must agree to the project and aware that information is public. For grants, there must be a 2S percent cost match, whereas loans must submit evidence of the ability to repay the loan and provide collateral. Tribes must be consulted, if required by the Department [Section 6]. Projects must be approved by the Water Resources Commission [Section 3(2)] and the Department must determine that the transfer of water rights will not injure existing water rights [Section 3(4)1. In addition, applicants that are required to have a water management and conservation plan must have it approved prior to submitting the grant or loan application [Section 41. 8/8/2014 60 '" · P3ge 2 of4 Pre-Application -A prospective 3pplic3nt can engage the department in a pre-3pplication conference to review the requirements of the application and the scoring system, and identify issues that may affect project eligibility. The applicant must provide the Department with project information at least 14 days before the conference, and can ask for additional consultations with the Department [Section 5). Appfication Acceptance and Funding Approval-The Commission is required to make the funding decisions once each year. Applications will be accepted year round, but a yearly deadline will be set to receive consideration for that grant cycle [Section 7(1)]. Upon receiving an application, the Department will check for completeness and eligibility. Incomplete applications must be returned. The Department must then post new applications on the Department's website for 60 days and accept public comment. The applications and public comments will be reviewed by a technical team (WRD, DEQ ODFW, ODA, OBDD, affected Tribes, Regional50lutions 1, and Experts), which will score and rank projeds, and make recommendations to the Commission. The Commission will allow an additional opportunity for public comment, and then make the final decision on scoring, and awards of loans and grants [Section 7 (2·3)]. After, the Department will make all rankings and funding decisions publicly available [Section 7(5)]. Evalua!.iQB_Qf P~oiects -Outcomes, Criteria. Scoring and Ranking The Water Resources Commission is directed to adopt rules for the scoring and ranking of projects. The Commission must base its funding decisions on the evaluation system of public benefits, selecting projects that have the greatest public benefit, and achieve the outcomes outlined below [Section 8(1)). This scoring and ranking should include minimum criteria, which shall be based on the public benefits of the proje<.1 and to achieve the following outcomes [Section 7(1) and 9(1)]: to only fund projects that provide public benefits in all three categories; give preference to partnerships and collaborative projects; fund projects of diverse sizes, types and geographic locations; give preference to projects that measurably improve streamflows if diverting water; and give preference to projects that measurable increase water efficiency, if the project proposes to do so [Section 9(1)]. The Department is required to report to the Water Resources Commission biennially to assess whether these outcomes are being achieved, and the Commission will modify the project selection process If necessary [Section 9(2)). Public Benefits -Economic, environmental, and social/cultural benefits are given equal importance in the evaluation of the project [Section 8(1)]. To demonstrate SOcial/cultural' and economic benefits3 , the project must provide sOCial/cultural and economic benefits in a sufficient amount to qualify under the --..•-..-..~------- tThe Department believes "any collaborative body established by the Governor to address challenges, opportunities, and priorities for the region affected by the project" [Section 7(311 means Regional Solutions. According to the Governor's website Regional Solutions work "at the local level to identify priorities, solve proalems, and seize opportunities to complete projects." 2The evaluation of the social or cultura! benefits shall be based on the changes in social or cultural conditions expected to result from the project, including the promotion of: (a) public health and safety and of local food systems; (b) measurable improvement in conditions for members of minority or low-income communities, economically distressed rural communities, tribal communities or other communities traditionally underrepresented in public processes; Ie) recreation and scenic values; {d} contributions to the body of SCientific data publicly available in this state; (e) state or local priorities, including the restoration and protection of native fish species of cultural significance to Indian tribes; and (f) collaborative basin planning efforts, including efforts under the state integrated water resources strategy. [Section 8]. 3 The evaluation of economic benefits shall be based on the changes in economic conditions expected to result from the project, including: (a) Job creation or retention; (b) Increases in economic activity; (cllncreases in efficiency or innovation; (d) Enhancement of infrastructure, farmland, public resource lands, industrial lands, commercial lands or lands having other key uses; (e) Enhanced economic value associated with tourism or recreational or commercial fishing, with fisheries involving native fish of cultural Significance to Indian tribes or with other economic values resulting from restoring or protecting water in-stream; and!f) Increases in irrigated land for agriculture. [Section 8J. 8/8/2014 61 Page 3 of4 scoring and ranking system. To demonstrate environmental benefits, a project may dedicate 25 percent of the new increment of water to instream use, or by demonstrating environmental benefits to qualify under the scoring and ranking4. However, these requirements do not exempt a project from meeting the minimum criteria {Section 11]. Protection of Wa!er lnstream As noted above, any project may demonstrate environmental benefits by dedicating 25 percent of the new increment of water to instream use {Section 11]. In addition, for grants to new or expaJ}~!i.?bove-ground storage facilities that impound surface water on a perennial stream, divert water from a stream with listed species, or divert more than 500 af per year, the project must provide 25 percent of the new increment of water for instream use. The applicant may include water dedicated as a result of conditions on federal, state or local permits in this amount [section 10]. In both of these instances, water dedicated instream must be protected by the Department according to its priority. Water for instream uses may come from the new increment of water, or other sources, and may be put in other locations in the tributary, if those other locations would not injure existing water rights, and the alternate location, in consultation with ODFW, provides greater or equal environmental benefits. WRD, in consultation with ODFW, will determine the timing of flows to maximize instream benefits (Section 12]. SeasQ!JallV Varying Flows (SVFs) and Task Force When a project requires a Dew water storage or aquifer recharge permit or license to store wateroutsid.~ the irrigation season, and it impounds surface water on a perennial stream, diverts water from a stream with listed species, or diverts more than 500 af per year, seasonally varying flows must be protected [Section 13J. SVFs are the duration, timing, frequency, volume of flows, that must remain instream outside of the official irrigation season in order to protect and maintain the biological, ecological, and physical functions of the watershed downstream of the point of diversion, with regard for the need to balance functions against need for water [Section 1(2)J. The functions are outlined in Section 19(4) and the economic considerations are outlined in Section 19(5). If the applicable SVFs have not been established, the Department must establish the flows in consultation with ODFW a nd affected Tribes, before issuing a grant or loan for the project. If SVFs are established for the stream, subsequent storage or aquifer recharge permits or limited licenses must be conditioned for the SVF if the project receives a grant or loan from the account and the water is for storage outside the . irrigation season, and has a diversion point subject to SVFs. Applicants can request that the SVF be altered based on new information. However, the Department must condition the new permit or license to protect the SVF that is in effect at the time the grant or loan is issued. The SVFs do not alter other Department processes for determining water availability for a permit or license [Section 13}. 4 The evaluation of environmental benefits shall be based on the changes in environmental conditions expected to result from the project, including: (a) A measurable improvement in protected streamflows that: (Al Supports the natural rydrograph; (S) Improves floodplain function; (C) Supports state or federally listed senSitive, threatened or endangered fish species; {DJ Supports native fish species of cultural importance to Indian tribes; or (EJ Supports riparian habitat important for wildlife; (bl A measurable improvement in ground water levels that enhances environmental condftions in ground water restricted areas or other areas; (c) A measurable improvement in the quallty of surface water or grouncl water; (d) Water conservation; (e) Increased ecosystem resiliency to dimate change impacts; and (f) Improvements that address one or more limiting ecological factors in the project watershed. [Section 81 8/8/2014 62 Page4of4 The SVF Task Force shall consider the economic and science subgroup reports 5 and develop a recommended methodology for determining seasonally varying flows that optimizes the functional benefits to watersheds while also recognizing that many functional benefits will not occur unless a new water storage project is financially feasible and that new storage projects will not be appropriate or feasible in many locations. The method must use the best available science. The method recommended shall be by consensus; however, any member that objects may provide a separate recommendation for a methodology [Section 19]. The SVF Task Force report will be considered by the Water Resources Commission in adopting rules to establish a methodology for determining seasonally varying flows. The task force will serve as a rules advisory committee for the rule adoption. The rules will be adopted in time to take effect on January 1, 2015 (Section 20J. The provisions requiring SVFs for storage projects (in section 13) are operative January 1,2015 [Section 21]. Moneys cannot be expended for certain projects until January 1, 2015 [Section 25 and Section 261 Requirements for Approved Proj ects Before loan or grant moneys a re expended for project construction, all a pplicable local, state, a nd federal permits must be obtained. loans Or grants may contain conditions to require the project to be completed and operated as described in the application. The Department may require that before project operation, the recipient demonstrate that identified public benefits will be realized in a timely fashion. At regular intervals and upon project completion, the recipient must submit updates to the Department describing the work completed, public benefits achieved, and expenditures. Water diverted and used from the project must be measured and reported regularly. The reCipient must monitor, evaluate and maintain the project for the life or the loan, or as specified for the grant and provide annual progress reports to the Department. The Department may impose other project conditions. Funding can be terminated, reduced, or delayed upon failure to comply [Section 14J. Loan Standards for Borrowers The Commission is directed to adopt rules establishing the standards for borrowers. The standards are to ensure a high probability of repayment, and adequately secured in case of default. The Commission, DAS, and the State Treasurers comments shall be solicited when designing the standards. The standards may require the applicant to enter into a loan contract, secured by a first lien or other collateral [Section 15]. Governance TaskForce Governance Task Force directed to review the structure established in sections 1-15 for gra nts and loa ns. The task force may develop proposals for changing the structure, which may include changes in the long term structure of the decision making process regarding: (1) the role ofthe state in providing loans and grants for water development under sections 1-15 (2) the process for allocating newly developed water from projects for which the use was not specified in the funding application [Section 18]. s Science Subgroup-Shall mnsider the biological, ecological and physical functions in watersheds during periods that are outside of the official irrigation season, including: {al Stream channel development and maintenance; Cbl Connectivity to floodplains; (c) Sediment transport and deposition; (d) Migration triggers for upstream movement of adult fish and downstream movement of fry and juvenile fish; (e) Fish spawning and incubation; (f) Juvenile fish rearing; and (g) Adult fish passage. Emnomic Subgroup-Shall consider the practical aspects of developing and operating new water development projects, including: (a) Practical engineering methods and applications; {bJ The costs and benefits of the methodology and alternatives; (clThe economic feasibility of water storage development; and (d) The cost of complying with environmental benefit standards. 8/8/2014 63 58 839 Governance Task Force Participants Purposes and Outcomes Schedule Resources Participants Katie Fast Oregon Fanm Bureau Dave Filippi Stoel Rives Patrick Griffiths City of Bend Teresa Huntsinger Oregon Environmental Council Mark Landauer Special Districts Association of Oregon Janet Neuman Tonkon Torp Kimberley Priestley WaterWatch of Oregon Eric Quaempts Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Amanda Rich The Nature Conservancy Gil Riddell Association of Oregon Counties Tracy Rutten League of Oregon Cities April Snell Oregon Water Resources Congress Jeff Stone Oregon Association of Nurseries Brad Taylor Eugene Water and Electric Board Chris Taylor West Coast Infrastructure Exchange 64 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 13 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 20 Ea s t e r 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 1 8 1 9 20 Pr i m a r y El e c t i o n 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 27 2 8 2 9 3 0 2 5 26 Me m o r i a l Da y 27 28 Le g D a y s Re v e n u e Fo r e c a s t 29 Le g D a y s 30 Le g D a y s 31 2 9 3 0 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 In d e p e n d e n ce D a y 5 1 2 1 La b o r D a y 2 3 4 5 Blackout Begins6 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 13 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 4 15 Le g D a y s 16 Le g D a y s 17 Leg Days18 19 20 20 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 22 Pr e - Se s s i o n Re q u e s t s Du e 23 24 Rosh Hashana Begins25 26 27 27 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 2 4 / 3 1 2 5 2 6 27 Re v e n u e Fo r e c a s t 28 2 9 3 0 2 8 2 9 3 0 20 1 4 I n t e r i m Bl a c k o u t f o r S t a t e Ne w s l e t t e r s AP R I L MA Y JUNE Le g i s l a t i v e D a y s Ho l i d a y K e y L e g i s l a t i v e S e s s i o n Da t e s Ke y E l e c t i o n D a t e s JU L Y AU G U S T SE P T E M B E R S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 Yo m K i p p u r Be g i n s 4 Yo m K i p p u r En d s 1 1 2 3 4 5 Pre-Session Drafts Returned6 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 2 3 4 Ge n e r a l El e c t i o n 5 6 7 8 7 8 Le g D a y s 9 Le g D a y s 10 Leg Days11 12 13 12 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 9 1 0 11 Ve t e r a n s ' Da y 12 13 Re v e n u e Fo r e c a s t 14 1 5 1 4 1 5 16 Ha n u k k a h Be g i n s 17 1819 Pre-Session Filing Closes20 19 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 24 Hanukkah Ends25 Christmas26 27 26 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 2 3 / 3 0 2 4 2 5 2 6 27 Th a n k s g i v i n g 28 2 9 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 1 2 Se s s i o n Be g i n s 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 14 Or e g o n ' s B - Da y 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 11 12 Or g . D a y s 13 Or g . D a y s 14 Or g . D a y s 15 1 6 1 7 1 5 16 Pr e s i d e n t ' s Da y 17 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 18 19 ML K J r . D a y 20 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 25 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 2 9 3 0 3 1 OC T O B E R NO V E M B E R DE C E M B E R JA N U A R Y FE B R U A R Y MARCH 20 1 5 S e s s i o n Monthly Meeting with Board of Commissioners Finance Director/Treasurer AGENDA September 15, 2014 (1) Tax Payments collected by Local Banks (2) Financial Policies (3) Monthly Investment Report -August 2014 (4) August 2014 Financials DESCHUTES COUNTY l~inancc 1)cpartll1cnt MEMORANDUM Date: September 8, 2014 To: Board of County Commissioners Tom Anderson, County Administrator From: Wayne Lowry, Finance DirectorfTreasurer Re: Tax payments collected by Local Banks Background For many years, branches of ten or so local banks have accepted property tax payments due on November 15th on our behalf. Bank customers are able to go into their bank and make their property tax payment by writing a check and giving the tax coupon to the teller. The teller deposits the check in a County bank account and puts the tax coupon in an envelope for the County to pick up. Every couple of days during the high volume tax collection period, someone from Finance goes to each participating branch and picks up the coupons that have been collected by the bank and brings them back to the office for processing. Years ago when the only options for paying property taxes were by U.S. mail or coming to the county tax office, this was a convenient alternative for our taxpayers and in the interest of customer service, it made sense. However, with the evolution of technology and the additional options now available to our taxpayers, the bank option has become more burdensome to the tax office and less customer-friendly for the taxpayers. Recommendation I propose that we discontinue the option of allowing taxpayers to pay property taxes at the local banks. Analysis Lender payments account for nearly 29% of our transactions and those are handled electronically. The remaining 71 % of tax payments are made directly by citizens through one of the payment methods shown in the table below for last years first trimester tax collection period. I Payment Method Transactions Amount Collected % of Citizen Transactions % of Levy Collected LockboxlELockbo x 37,147 $91,045,625 51.93% 56.44% Credit Cards 1,181 $2,021,633 1.65% 1.25% I ! Banks 4,491 $9,802,396 6.28% 6.08% Other Methods 28,708 $58,452,542 40.14% 36.23% Total 71,527 $161,322,196 100.00% 100.00% ELockbox is when citizens make their tax payments through their banks online payment feature directly from their account. For this discussion, we have included them in the Lockbox category as we receive these types of payments electronically. "Other Methods" includes paying here at the County building either in person, through the drop box or by mailing payments here. As you can see, citizens making payments at banks accounts for just 6.28% of all payments made directly by citizens. There are a number of reasons why we recommend the elimination of this payment method. 1. Our cost of collecting each account through the lockbox is about $1.34 per transaction. The cost of collecting accounts through the banks is estimated to be $2.83 per transaction due to the manual nature of processing the payments. 2. In addition to mailing their payment or coming to the tax office, taxpayers have several additional convenient options that were not available when we started the bank payment option including paying online through their bank or the County's website and through credit card transactions either by phone or online. 3. Posting the payments made at the local banks can be delayed by up to 10 business days or more resulting in many phone calls from citizens wondering why their payments have not been posted to the County's payments records. 4. Payments made by citizens at banks must be manually posted to the accounts requiring extra staff time that could be eliminated if the payments were mailed to the lockbox or paid via phone or internet. We currently use temporary help to perform this task. 5. When payments are made through the banks, we do not get electronic images of the checks making it more difficult to answer customer questions and to determine who overpaid when duplicate payments are made. 6. Based our conversations last year, we put the following statement in with our tax statements last year. "Please note: Next year the pay-at-the-bank option may be modified significantly. Information will be included with your tax statement next year". Summary We believe it would be more cost effective and efficient to eliminate this option for tax payments. We could decrease our temporary help by one person during tax season, eliminate the phone calls inquiring about why the taxpayer's bank payment hasn't yet been posted to the tax account, and if an overpayment occurs, we won't have to "guess" who should receive the refund. While we may expect some negative feedback from a few taxpayers, we believe explaining our reasoning for doing so and pointing out the other options available will minimize their concerns. The alternative method of payment by those who previously chose to pay at the banks is difficult to predict, but any other method they choose will result in a more efficient and timely posting of their payment. 2013-2014 PROPERTY TAX PAYMENT INFORMATION 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 203 OFFICE HOURS -8am -5pm; Monday-Friday* "Closed Monday, November 11 th in observance Bend OR 97701 of Veterans' Day. (Closed on all other majorPhone: (541) 388-6540 holidays as well.) Website: www.Deschutes.org/Dial Payment of Property Taxes via u.s. Mail Mail your payments in the envelope provided or to Deschutes County Tax Collector, PO Box 7559, Bend OR 97708-7559 pavment$mq~~pgQlrARmr.pr~pi!1Il)ft;lll~~f1M'6~_r:t~,:Fri!!fti'llQftml&r·15th in order to be elrgib1Ef~iliseoUfit ~nc;f to avoid tate Pinalt~'to8S·30s~l2Oj·ORS911.S(5). Important Information about Postmarks With the consolidation of Post Office locations and closing of Post Office Sorting Facilities, please be aware that mail deposited at some local postal facilities can take 2 to 4 DAYS to be postmarked. Deschutes County is not responsible for postmark delays. We strongly recommend any payments made on or after November 12th be taken to the inside counter at the Post Office and the postmark to be hand stamped on the envelope to avoid any postmark delays. Other Options for Making Your Payment • On the website: Make your payment via the website at www.Deschutes.org/Dial;. Access your account, dick on the blue {(Pay Your Property Taxes" link and go the "Online" section. Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover credit cards, Visa debit cards and electronic checks are accepted. NOTE: Payments via the website are processed by a third party which charges a convenience fee for using this service. See the back of this sheet for convenience fee details. Deschutes County does not collect or retain any portion of the convenience fee. • By phone: Make your payment by calling 1-877-309-3933, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week using a credit or debit card or electronic check. The same fees apply as payments made via the website, as described on the back of this sheet. • At the bank: Through November 15, 2013, take your payment to any Deschutes County branch of the banks listed on the back of this sheet. • In person: Make your payment in person at one of the Tax Office windows at 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 203 or use the convenient drop box located near the east entrance of the County Offices (available 24 hours a day). Online Bill Payments: Payments made through online banking services often take 2-3 days to be processed by the bank and arrive with These payments are posted to r account with the date the funds are Escrowed Property Taxes It is the Property Owner's responsibility to know if the lender will be paying the taxes Generally, if you received a yellow statement from the County, this indicates that a lender has requested •your information and will be making payment. If you received a green statement, no lender has requested your information. If in doubt, 3 Debit/Credit Card & eCheck Convenience Fees * Debit Cards: Payments via Visa debit cards will be charged a flat fee of $3.95 per transaction. For all other debit cards a convenience fee of 2.50% of the payment amount will be charged. There is a minimum fee of $3.95 per transaction. Credit cards: A convenience fee of 2.50% of the payment amount will be charged. There is a minimum fee of $3.95 per transaction. eChecks: A convenience fee of $2.00 per transaction will be charged on payments up to $10,000. eCheck payments greater than $10,000 will incur a fee of $15.00 per transaction. *Payments are processed bV a third party processor, Official Payments Corporation. Deschutes County does not collect or retain any portion ofthe convenience fee. Bank Locations for 2013 Tax Pa ments DESCHUTES COUNTY BRANCHES ONLY -Accepting payments through November 15th. 2013 Bank of America (all County branches) Umpqua Bank (all County branches) Bank of the Cascades (all County branches) U. S. Bank (all County branches) Columbia Bank (Bend and Redmond) Washington Federal (all County branches) Home Federal Bank (all County branches) Wells Fargo Bank (all County branches) Sterling Bank (Bend and Redmond) When making payment at bank locations, please take your check and the entire property tax statement with you. The bank will retain the remittance portion. located at the bottom of your statement, and will date stamp the upper portion, which you should keep for your records. Payments will be posted with the date on your receipt. Please allow up to 10 days for the payment to be posted to your property tax account. Please note: Next year the pay-at-the-bank option may be modified significantly. Information will be included with the tax statement next year. Address Changes All address change requests must be made in writing. Address changes can be noted on the remittance portion of your property tax statement or made online at www.Deschutes.orglDial. If using the online option, access your account and click the blue "Change of Mailing Address Form" link. You may also call the Tax Office for other options at (541) 388-6540. The back of your Tax Statement contains additional important information about Payment Instructions, Delinquent Taxes and Liens, Foreclosure, and Property Value Appeal Rights V£e.w your accou.ntOf\.Une,.atwww.Deschutes.org/Dial 4 DESCHUTES COUNTY Finance 1)eparrll1cnr lVIEMORANDUM Date: September 8, 2014 To: Board of County Commissioners Tom Anderson, County Administrator \U'v(From: Wayne Lowry, Finance Directorrrreasurer Re: Financial Policies During the 2015 Budget Committee process, an updated set of Financial Policies were included in the proposed budget document with the understanding that those updated policies would be reviewed with the Board of County Commissioners and presented for approval. At the September 15,2014 work. session, the Board will have the opportunity to review and discuss the draft financial policies that were included in the proposed budget. The draft policies are attached with additions to the policies indicated by shading. As we move forward, the updated financial policies will be included on a consent agenda for approval. If you have any questions on the poliCies prior to the 15th , please give me a call. Deschutes County Financial Policies Introductory Comments Deschutes County has an important responsibility to its citizens to carefully account for public funds, manage municipal finances wisely, manage growth, and plan adequate funding of services desired by the public, including the provision and maintenance of public facilities. Deschutes County insures that it is capable of adequately funding and providing County services needed by the community on a sustainable basis. The following Financial Policies are designed to establish guidelines for the fiscal stability ofthe County. The scope of these policies generally spans, among other issues, accounting, auditing, financial reporting, internal controls, operating and capital budgeting, revenue management, expenditure control, asset management, cash and investment management, and planning concepts, in order to: • Demonstrate to the citizens of Deschutes County, the investment community, and the bond rating agencies that the County is committed to strong fiscal operations and to the preservation of its ability to provide the financial stability to navigate through economic downturns and respond to the changing needs of the community; • Provide an adequate financial base to sustain a sufficient level of County services to the community delivered in a cost effective and efficient manner; • Present fairly and with full disclosure the financial position and results of financial operations of the County in conformity to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); and • Determine and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal and contractual issues in accordance with provisions of the Oregon Revised Statutes and other pertinent legal documents and mandates. These financial policies are recommended to enable Deschutes County to meet the priorities of the Board of County Commissioners and maintain its financial condition so that it can continue to provide the appropriate high level of service to its citizens. Financial Planning Policies Budget Process The County budget process will conform to existing state and local regulations including local budget law. The process will be coordinated so that major policy issues and Board goals and objectives are identified and inco~orated into the budget_ Balanced Budget Deschutes County's accounting and budgeting systems are organized and operated on a fund basis. The budget for each fund is balanced, meaning total resources, consisting of beginning net working capital, current year revenues and transfers-in, are equal to total requirements and transfers out, contingencies, unappropriated ending fund balances, and reserves for future expenditures. Budget Adjustments All requests for budget changes after adoption will be submitted to the Finance Director for analysis. The Finance Director will determine the need for. the adjustment and the process to be followed to seek approval for the requested change. All resolutions proposing adjustments to the adopted budget will be prepared by t he Finance Department and will be placed on the Board's agenda by Finance for Board approval to ensure comj>liance with budget laws. GFOA Awards Program The County participates in the GFOA Award for Distinguished Budget Presentation program and will continue to submit its annual budget to the program. Financial Reporting Policy The County's accounting systems and financial reports will be in conformance with all state and federal laws, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and standards of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). An annual audit will be performed by an independent public accounting firm, licensed as a municipal auditor, with an audit opinion to be included with the County's published Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The County's CAFR will be submitted to the GFOA Certification of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Program. The financial report should be in conformity with GAAP, demonstrate compliance with finance related legal and contractual provisions, thoroughly disclose sufficient detail, and minimize ambiguities and potentials for misleading inference. The County's CAFR will also be provided to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board via electronic submission to the Electronic Municipal Rulemaking Board (EM:MA), a continuing disclosure requirement, to enable investors to make informed decisions. Financial systems will maintain internal controls to monitor revenues, expenditures, and program performance on an ongoing basis. Budgeting for Operating Working Capital and Contingencies Operating Funds In order to maintain a prudent level of financial resources to protect against the need to reduce service levels or raise taxes (ie. voter-approved local option levy) and fees due to temporary revenue shortfalls or unforeseeable one-time expenditures, the County will establish and maintain certain working capital balances. The County will strive to maintain a working capital level in each operating fund, other than the General Fund, of 8.3 % (l/12th) of that fund's operating budget. The County will establish operational working capital within the General Fund of approximately four months of estimated annual property tax collections. Other funds that rely heavily on property taxes, which are not received until the month of November each year, should have an operating working capital level at or near the level of the General Fund, and include the Sheriffs Funds, 9-1-1, Extensionl4-H, and the Sunriver and Black Butte Ranch county service districts. he Finance Director shall have the authority to allow exceptions to this policy for those funds with significant reserves and those that can demonstrate sufficient cash flow to avoi d inter-fund borrowingJ!rior to the receillt of tax revenues. Reserve and Insurance Funds The following funds, due to their specific purposes, require reserve working capital balances above 8.3%: PERS Reserve Fund Insurance (general liability, workers' compensation, unemployment, and property damage) Health Benefits (medical, pharmacy, dental and vision) Various Community Development Reserve Funds, when applicable GIS Dedicated Fund Road Building and Equipment Reserve Fund Vehicle Maintenance and Replacement Fund Public Health Department Reserve Fund Sheriffs Capital Reserve Funds General Capital Reserve Fund General County Projects Fund Project Development Fund County Clerk Records Fund Solid Waste Reserve Funds FairlExpo Center Capital Reserve Fund County Service District Reserve Funds Working capital balances for these funds will be deteonined each year by the Finance Director and the Department Head given th uru!lue n d o(each fund and the anti~ated u e f such funds in future years. Long Range Planning Each year, the County will update resource and requirement forecasts for major operating funds for the next five years and annually develop a five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for major projects related to the acquisition, expansion or rehabilitation of the County's buildings, equipment, parks, streets and other public infrastructure . These estimates will be presented to the Budget Committee in a format which is intended to facilitate budget decis ions and strategic planning, based on a multi-year perspective. Revenue Policies Revenue Diversification Revenues estimates will be established each year in a realistic and prudent manner using objective and analytical approaches. Revenue forecasts will ass ess the full spectrum of resources that can be allocated for public services. To the greatest extent possible, the County's revenue system will be diversified as protection from s hort-run fluctuations in anyone r evenue source. Fees and Charges User fees and charges will be established for services that benefit specific individuals or organizations. The County will annually review all fees, licenses, permits, fines and other miscellaneous charges in conjunction with the budget process. U s er charges and fee s will be established based at a le vel related to the full cost of providing the service, unless otherwise provided by statute or regulation. Full cost incorporates direct and indirect costs, including operations and maintenance, overhead, and charges for the use of capital facilities. Other factors for fee or charge adjustments may also include the impact of inflation, other cost increases and CUlTent competitive rates. Use of One-Time Revenues One-time revenues or res ources shall not be used to fund ongoing operations, unless in the context of a multi year financial plan to balance expenditures and reserves. One-time revenues should not support ongoing personnel and operating costs. Use of one· time revenues is appropriate for non-reculTing capital outlay, debt retirement, contribution to capital reserve, and othe r non-recurring expenses. U s e of Unpredictable Revenues Revenues of a limited or undefined term will generally be used for capital projects or one-time operating expenditures to ensure that no ongoing service programs are lost when such revenues are reduced or discontinued. Grants Grants are generally contributions from one government to another, usually for a specific purpose. Grants can be recorded in any type of fund and should be recorded in an existing fund whenever possible. Grants s ometimes come with matching fund requirements. It is important that matching requirements be well understood before grants are accepted by the County to ensure that services being provided through grant funding are sustainable. It is also essential any s taff hired to carry out grant funded services are hired subject to the amount and continuation of the grant funding . Revenue Management fl'he County will n ot respond to long term revenue s hortfalls with deficit funding or borrowing to sup p ort ongoing operations. Once w or king capital balances have rea ched policy levels, expen ses· d uced to conform to long t e rm revenue fo recasts and/or revenue increases will be considered. Expenditure Policies Debt Capacity, Issuance and Management • The Finance Director is responsible to structure all debt issuances and oversees the on-going management of all County deb t including general obligations , l ease purchase agre e ments, reven ue bonds, full fai th a nd cre dit bonds, special assessmen t bo nds, promissory n otes, equipment fin ancing agreements and any other contractual arrangements that obligate t he County to make ture princi pal and interest payments. • No debt will be issued for which the County is not confident that a sufficient specifically identified revenue source is available for repayment. The Financ Director hall p~pare an anal~sis of the source of repa en rior to issuance of any debt • When issuing long term. debt, the County will ensure that debt is only incw:red when necessary fo capital improvements too large to be financed from current resources, the useful life of a finan Un provement will exceed the life of the related debt, the benefits of financing exceed the cost of....-:-:--=c borrowing, and ensure that o~' related to C8J)ital im rovements are ad ately onsidered :he re • The County will manage and administer its long·term debt in compliance with the restrictions and limitations of State law with regard to bonded indebtedness for counties as outlined in the Oregon Revised Statutes. These statutory restrictions establish legal limitations on the level of limited tax and general obligation bonded debt which can be issued by the County (1 % and 2% of the real market value of all taxable property, respectively). The statutes outline the processes for public hearings, public notice and bond elections, as well as provisions for the issuance and sale of bonds and restrictions on the use of those bond proceeds. • The County will not use long-term. debt to fund current operations, to balance the budget, or to fund projects that can be funded from current resources. The-County may use short-term. debt or inter-fund loans as permitted by law to cover temporary cash flow needs resulting from a delay in grant proceedS or other revenues and delay in the issuance of long term debt. All bond issuances and romissorY. notes will be au orize by res ution of the Board of County Commissi ners. • The County will. through prudent financial management and budgeting practices, strive to maintain or enhance its Moody's ere . ratings hich are currJLntly' A for full faith and credit ebt and=="", genera obligatio debt. • The County will ensure that adequate procedures are in place to meet the post issuance obligations of borrowers to report periodic financial information and to disclose certain events ofintere to bond holders in a timely manner. Operating/Capital Expenditure Accountability The County will maintain an accounting system which provides internal budgetary controls. The County's budget documents shall be presented in a format that provides for logical comparison with prior fiscal periods wherever possible. Reports comparing actual revenues and expenditures to budget for the County's major operating funds shall be prepared monthly which will be distributed to the Board of County Commissioners, County Administrator, Department HeadslDirectors and any interested parties. The County will strive to fund minor capital improvements on a pay-as-you-go basis to enhance its financial condition and bond rating. The County shall annually contribute to certain capital reserve funds to the extent possible given cash flow limitations and projected capital improvements. Internal Service Funds Internal service funds are used to account for services provided by one department to other departments on a cost-reimbursement basis. The goal of an internal service fund is to measure the full cost of providing services for the purpose of fully recovering that cost through fees or charges to user departments. Deschutes County internal service funds are as follows: Building Services. Administrative Services, Board of County Commissioners, Finance, Legal Counsel, Personnel, Information Technology, Information Technology Reserve, Insurance Reserve and Health Benefits Trust. Cash Management Policies Investments County funds will be invested in a prudent and diligent manner with emphasis on safety, liquidity and yield, in that order. The County will conform to all state and local statutes governing the investment of public funds and to the County's investment policy. The County's investment policy shall be approved by the State of Oregon Short-Term Fund Board and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners at least annually. Additionally, the County will have an Investment Advisory Committee to review the County's investment policy, its investments, and its investment strategy and philosophy. The Investment Advisory Committee will consist of financial experts who are citizens of Deschutes County, and will meet twice each year. Banking Services The County will seek competitive bids for its banking services. Requests for proposals will be comprehensive, covering all aspects of the County's banking requirements. The award to the successful bidder will be for a five-year period with two one year extensions. Annual Validation of County Bank Accounts Each year a letter is to be mailed to all banking institutions operating within Deschutes County to validate that the only Deschutes County accounts, listing Deschutes County or a Deschutes County department as the owner ofthe account and utilizing the County's federal identification number, are those accounts that have been approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The letter will state which bank accounts have been approved by the Board of Commissioners and request that each bank notify the County of any accounts in operation within their financial ins titution that are not on the approved list. The Finan ce Dire ctorfI'reas urer is a u t h orized to estab lish all bank a ccoun ts, determine and aut horize signatories to those b ank accounts, set u p credit cards for County staff as needed and to m~e all bankin and investmen t related services for t he County. Internal Controls and Performance Auditing Policies Employees in the public sector are responsible to the taxpayers for how public resources are used and must perform their duties in compliance with law, policy, and established procedures. The following County activities are essential and are consistent with providing citizens with an objective and independent appraisal of County government. • Maintain an independent internal audit program to evaluate and report on the financial condition, the accuracy of financial record keeping, compliance with applicable laws, policie s , guidelines and procedures, and efficiency and effectiveness of operations. • Maintain a County Audit Committee comprised mostly of public citizens to oversee audit services, both external and internal. • In coordination with the Audit Committee, the County Internal Auditor and the County's external auditors shall periodically review internal controls in County departments and report findings to the Audit Committee regarding these reviews. • At the direction of the Audit Committee, the County Internal Auditor shall conduct performance audits to ensure departments and agencies funded by the County are operating in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Purchasing All purchases of good and services must comp ly with the Co unty's p urchasing p olicies, purchas ing rules and p r oced ures in accord ance with state l aws and regulations. Before the County p urchases any major asset or undertakes any operating or capital 8.1Taogements tha t create fix ed costs or ongoing operational e ~ense8 the imRlicatio of s uch P. h . fully: de~rmined for the current and future years. Approved by the Deschutes County Board of Conunissioners on September XX, 2014. Deschutes County I Municipal Debt 3.8% air '''BOT ,,, 0 % Federal Agencies 29 .0 % Corporate Notes 24.4 % Time Certificates 4 .0% U. S . Treasuries 5 .7% Investments By County Function General $ 122,360,007 $ Investment Income Fiscal Year 2014-15 Aug-14 I I Y-T-D 69,993 $ 73,742 -- Total Investments $ 122,360,007 Total Investment Income Less Fee: 5% of Invest. Income Investment Income -Net 69,993 143 ,735 (3,500) (7,187) $ 66 ,493 _i -136,548 Yield Percentages Municipal Debt $ 4,670,000 Corporate Notes 29,874,000 Time Certificates 4 ,920 ,000 U. S . Treasuries 7,000,000 Federal Agencies 35,497,000 LGIP/BOTC 40,399 ,007 Total Investments $ 122,360.007 1-Total PortfoliO: By Investment Types 3.82% 24 .41% 4.02% 5.72% 29 .01% 33.02% 100.00% Category Maximums: U.S . Treasuries 100% LGIP 100% Federal Agencies 75% Banker's Acceptances 25% Time Certificates 50% Municipal Debt 25% CorQorate Debt 25% Term Minimums 0-30 days 10% Under 1 Year 25% Under 5 Years 100% _E!ImmImiI.~ BOTC I LGIP . 0.54% 0.54% Investments . 0.80% 0.79% Average • 0.73% 0.72% Months to Maturity o to 30 Days 33.10% Under 1 Year 42.10% Under 5 Years 100.00% -- ---- --- --- ----- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - -- --- - - ------- Deschutes County Investments I I ~Man<'9_ement Portfolio Details· Investments --I . , I I August 30, 2014 IcUsii> ; Security Broker ---+ Purchase Date Maturity Date Days To Maturity Ratings Moodys !S&P Coupo,,_____ Rate YTM 365 Par Val u e Market Value Book Value Call Date SYS10321 ; Home Federal Bank CO ~ 9/~9/2013 , 9/~ 18 ' 0.130 0.132-.--"---100,000 1 100 ,000 100,000 4001174329 ' Columbia State Bank CD 121 5/2013 1215/2014 95 0.210 0.213 140,000 140,000 140,000 8941748454 : Stening Savings Bank CD 7/1/2013 1/1/2015 122 0.200 0.203 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 HFBCO 'Home Federal Bank CD 21 1/2013 1131/2015 152 0.200 0.203 140 ,000 14 0,000 140,000 91159HGU8 US Bancorp CASTLE 1/22/2014 3/412015 184 A+ Al 3.150 OAOl l 500,000 507,140 506,963 1 4001154309 273-150017·5 ,Columbia State.~ank CD ISouth Valley Bank CD 4/1/2013 5/20/2013 3/30/20 15 5/20/2015 210 261 O.l SO 0.748 0.152 0.758 100 ,000 200,000 100,000 200 ,000 100,000 1 200,000 UMP972002570 , Umpqua Bank 617/2014 617 /2015 279 OAOO ' OA06 1 240,000 240,000 240,000 I 3692G5F7 i General Electric -Corporate N CASTLE 9/17/2013 6/30/2015 302 AA+ AI 2.375 086sf 1,400,000 1,423,926 1,417,382 36962G5F7 SYS10316 1 Genera l Electric -Corporate N IUmpqua Bank CASTLE 1/101 20 14 7/9/2013 6/3012015 7/9/2015 302 AA+ 311 A l 2.375 0.500 .£;.5~l t 0.507 545 ,000 2,000,000 554 ,314 2,000,000 553 ,44 3 2,000,000 94985H5F7 ; Wells Fargo Corporate Note CASTLE 91301 20 13 7/20/2015 322 ,AAAA3 0. 75 0 0.541 1,000,000 1,003,680 1,001,840 I 91159HGX2 .US Bancorp CASTLE 4/2/2014 7/27/2015 329 A+ AI 2A50 0.501 1,180,000 1,202,361 1,200,732 - 91159H GX2 U S Bank - Corp Note -CASTLE 3/26/2014 7/27/2015 329 A+ AI 2.450 0.500 1,57 3,000 1,602,808 1,600,644 3135GOPR8 Federal Nationa l Mtg Assn CASTLE 10/9/2013 10/9/2015 403 AA+ Aaa OA80 OA50 1,000,000 1,000,300 1,000,332 10/9/2014 064159BA3 Bank of Nova Scotia CASTLE 4/31 2014 10/9/2015 403 A+ -I Aa2 0 .750 0 .62 1 ._-540 ,000 541,998 540,768 -- 3134G4HZ4 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 10/2812013 10/28/2015 422 AA+ Aaa 0.500 0.500 2,000,000 2,001,140 2,000,000 10/28/2014 36962G4T8 General Electric -Corpo~ate N CASTLE 7/24/2014 11/912015 434 AA+ AI 2.250 0.500 2,000,000 2,039,920 2,041,418 - 7427180S5 ' Procter & Gamble CASTLE 1216/2013 11115/2015 440 AAAA3 1.800 OA30 1,000,000 1,017,050 1,016,429 - SYS10368 : Royal Bank of Canada VIN IS P 3/27/2014 12/15/2015 470 AAAa3 2.625 0.600 1,500,000 1,540,020 1,538,885 532457AN8 : Eli Lilly & Co. CASTLE 3/24/2014 1/112016 487 AAA2 6.570 0.500 1,408 ,000 1,517 ,627 1,521 ,291 084670BG2 ' Be rks hire Hathaway Inc CASTLE 3/3/2014 2111/2016 ~~:'''-~J_ 0.800 0.500 1,000,000 1 ,003,700 1,004,306 17275RAC6 : Cisco Systems Inc CASTLE 2/27/2014 212212016 539 AA-Al 5.500 0.550 1,874,000 2,010,427 2,009,889 06406HCG20 Bank of New York Mellon Corp CASTLE 4/4/2014 3/4/2016 550 A+ Al 0.700 0.68 1 1,000,000 1,001,530 1,000,283 2/3/2016 3133734F6 Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 51212014 4115/2016 592 AA+ Aa a 0.772 0.600 650,000 650,397 651,804 - ~60AYO , Johnson & Johnson CASTLE 1171201 4 5/1 5/2016 622,AAA Aaa 2.150 0.620 1,529,000 1,571,552 1,568,544 949746QU8 686053CF4 We lls Fargo Corporate Note Oregon School Boa r~Assoc VINISP 2120/2014 CASTLE t 3/7/2014 611 5120 16 613012016 653.A+ 668 A+ A2 Aa2 3.676 0000 0.750 0 .999 1,000 ,000 3,000,000 1,051,460 2,935 ,OSO 1,051 ,790 2,945,944 - 912828QXl U.S. Treasury MBS 6119/201 4 7/31/2016 699 AA-Aaa 1.500 0.548 1,000,000 1,019,220 1,018,085 3134G56B6 I Federal Home Loan Mtg Core MBS 7/7/2014 8/26/2016 7 25 AA+ Aaa 0.580 0.629 2,000,000 1 995,100 1,998,047 11/26/2014 912828RF9 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 12127/2013 8/31/2016 730.AA+ Aaa 1.000 0.646 1,000,000 1,009,610 1,006,998 31359YLS4 'Federal National Mtg Assn PJ 3/5/201 4 9/15/2016 745 AA+ Aaa 0778 0.812 672,000 661,927 661,175 - 3133EAZ76 : Federal Farm Cred~ Bank CASTL E 5/23/20 14 9/26/2016 756 AA+ A aa 0.690 0 .686 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,265 3131A1C08 · Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 7/17/2014 9/28 /20 16 758 AA+ Aaa 1.125 0.728 2 ,000 ,000 2,015 ,940 2,015,516 9/28/2015 3134G4HK7 Federal Home Lo an Mill Core CASTLE 3127/2014 1012 4/2016 784 i AA+ Aaa 0 .500 1.119 3.015 ,000 3,016 ,116 3,015,772 10/24/2014 ~;RM 4 3134G4K98 : U.S . TreasLJry : Federal Home Loan Mtg Core CAST LE CASTLE 1212 7/2013 2/20/2014 10/3 1/20 16 111712016 791AA+ 798 AA+ Aaa Aaa 1.000 0.800 0-127 0.800 1,000,000 2,000,000 1,008,440 2,000,280 1,005,829 2,000,000 - 11/7/2014 IQsOsOTLRl ,Bank of America -Corporate CASTLE 5/1312014 11/14/2016 805 A A2 1.125 1.050 1,900,000 1902,204 1,903,077 -. 3133ECWV2 · Federal Farm Credit Ba n k CASTLE 12117/2013 1217/2016 828 AA+ Aaa 0 .875 0.722 2,100,000 2 ,110,038 2,107,511 0641590Al 'Bank of Nova Scotia CASTLE 61912014 121 13/2016 834,A+ Aa2 1.100 0.910 1,800,000 1,806,012 1,807,693 3136G1XP9 ·Fe deral National MtQ Assn PJ 316/2014 121 19/2016 840 i AA+ Aaa 0.800 0.788 2,000,000 1,997,440 2,000,561 11/19/2014 06406HCA5 Bank of New York Mel lon Corp CA Sn E 4/23/2014 1/17/2017 869 A+ Al 2.400 1.067 2,000 ,000 2,061,480 2,062,286 121 18/2016 912828SC5 'U.S. Treasury CAS TLE 1/16/201 4 1/31/2017 883 AA+ Aaa 0.875 0 _844 2 ,000,000 2,008 ,120 2,001,490 0641590Z6 Bank of Nova Scotia CASTLE 5/1/2014 3/1772017 928 A+ Aa2 0.800 0 .906 1,000,000 999,330 997,347 3117120 16 912828SS0 U.S. Treasury WF 1/17/2014 4/30/2017 972AAA Aaa 0 .875 0.950 2,000,000 2,002,500 1,996,073 - 037833AM2 89236TBH 7 A[>e le Inc To~ota Mtr Cred -Core 1Ii -- CASTLE CASTLE 6/24/2014 7/29/2014 5/512017 5/16/201 7 977'AA+ 988 AA- Aal AA3 1.050 1.125 1.057 1.150 2,000,000 2,125,000 2,002 ,160 2,123,661 1,999,626 2,123 ,560 -. 3136FPYB 7 Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 217/2014 5123/2017 995AA+ Aaa 2.050 0.885 1,460,000 1,499 ,186 1,505 ,611 - 31359MEL3 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 12/2312013 61 1/2017 1,004 AA+ Aaa 1061 1.115 1,000,000 971 ,160 970,400 31359MEL37 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 1124/2014 6/1/2017 1,004 AA-Aaa 1.08 1 1.136 1,050,000 1,019,718 1,018,340 29270CYZ2 Bonneville Power Adminislratio CASTLE 4/24/2014 7/112017 1,034 'AA-Aa l 1.197 1.17 1 670,000 671,018 670,495 84247PHS3 Southern CA Public Power Autho CASTLE 6/17/2014 7/112017 1,034 AA1.145 1.180 1,000,000 996,680 999,021 3134G5FK6 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 8/21/2014 8/2112017 1,085 AA+ Aaa 1.250 1250 2,000,000 2,000,380 2,000,000 11/21/2014 313383JB8 ,Federal Home Loan Bank VINISP 12126/2013 9/27/2017 1,122 AA+ Aaa 1000 1.250 1,000,000 997,270 992,518 3136GOC74 3130A1ZK7 IFederal National Mtg Assn Federal Home Loan Bank VINISP MBS 1 2/3/2014 5/28/2014 9/27/2017 11/28/2017 1,122 AA+ 1,184 AA+ Aaa ,Aaa 1.000 0.750 0.943 0750 1,050,000 1,000,000 1,054,841 998 ,930 1,051,803 1,000,000 I 9/27/2015 31 300N71 Federal Home Loan Bank VINISP 4/2/2014 1/30/2018 1,24 7 AA+ Aaa 2.000 1.710 1,500,000 1,507,950 1,514,315 1 1130/2015 3136G1AU3 Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP J 12/23/2013 113012018 1,247 AA+ 0.700 1.420 1,000,000 984 ,810 988 ,892 10i 30/20M 3135GOVU4 Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 1/24/2014 4/312018 1,310 1AA+ Aaa 1.125 1.540 I 1,000,000 993,470 985,616 1 4/3/2015 313OA25R3 Federal Home Loan Bank MBS 6119/2014 6/19/2018 1,387 AA+ Aaa 1.000 1.026 2,000,000 1,999,920 1,998,100 1 9/19/2014 3136G16BO Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 1/21(20 14 12/27/2018 1,578 AA+ Aaa 0. 7SO 1.820 1,000,000 986,570 974,400 9127/2014 SYS10078 SYs10084 · Local Govl Investment Pool : Bank of the Cascades I - 0.540 0.540 0.540 0.540 35,893,297 4 ,505,712 122360,009 35,893,297 4,505,712 122 ,916 .889 35,893,297 4,505,712 122,882 ,113 ~ - Memorandum Date: September 8,2014 To: Board of County Commissioners Tom Anderson, County Administrator From: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director RE: Monthly Financial Reports Attached please find August 2014 financial reports for the following funds: General (001), Community Justice -Juvenile (230), Sheriff's (255, 701, 702), Public Health (259), Behavioral Health (275). Community Development (295). Road (325), Community Justice -Adult (355), Commission on Children & Families (370), Solid Waste (610), Insurance Fund (670),9-1-1 (705). Health Benefits Trust (675), Fair & Expo Center (618), and Justice Court (123). The projected information has been reviewed and updated, where appropriate, by the respective departments. Cc: All Department Heads GENERAL FUND Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31,2014 FY 2015 -Year to Date (16.7% of Year)FY2014 I %of Actual Actual Budget FY 2015 Budget I Projection I $ Variance Revenues Property Taxes -Current Property Taxes -Prior Other General Revenues Assessor County Clerk BOPTA District Attorney Tax Office Veterans Property Management Grant Projects Total Revenues Expenditures Assessor County Clerk BOPTA District Attorney Tax Office Veterans Property Management Grant Projects Non-Departmental Total Expenditures Transfers Out Total Exp & Transfers Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance 10,371,843 8,381,199 $ 8,381,199 $ 4,582,809 a) Current year taxes received beginning in October b) PILT received in July -$500,941 0% a) 29% 27% b) 24% 19% 23% 10% 27% 0% 16% nla 5% 16% 12% 19% 15% 12% 15% 16% nla 11% 15% 22% 18% 109% $ 21,906,239 704,120 2,116,386 875,381 1,276,019 16,097 226,973 236,278 80,787 91,900 2,000 27,532,179 3,559,750 1,293,531 59,895 5,382,874 796,232 292,672 248,054 130,054 1,432,177 13,195,239 16,327,584 29,522,823 (1,990,644) - 167,867 601,982 210,509 225,452 3,712 18,395 60,312 - 4,000 - 1,292,228 616,922 178,771 13,183 862,913 107,417 52,355 41,915 - 122,361 1,995,839 3,094,780 5,090,619 (3,798,390) 22,736,401 576,500 2,247,299 876,137 1,181,190 16,117 182,612 222,199 101,986 25,000 28,165,441 28,165,441 3,793,770 3,793,770 1,536,210 1,536,210 70,777 70,777 5,712,168 5,712,168 877,907 877,907 354,989 354,989 258,569 258,569 1,139,696 1,139,696 13,744,086 13,744,086 14,076,394 14,076,394 27,820,480 27,820,480 22,736,401 576,500 2,247,299 876,137 1,181,190 16,117 182,612 222,199 101,986 25,000 344,961 344,961 7,692,433 8,381,199 688,766 8,037,394 $ 8,726,160 $ 688,766 Page 1 COMM JUSTICE-JUVENILE Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31,2014 FY 2014 Actual Revenues OVA Basic & Diversion 322,574 State Grant Inmate/Prisoner Housing 47,550 Jail Funding HB #2712 36,311 Food Subsidy 23,988 Interfund Grant -Gen Fund 20,000 Interest on Investments 7,611 Leases 5,200 SB #1 065-Court Assess. 17,335 Contract Payments 7,415 Discovery Fee 1,870 Case Supervision Fee Federal Grants 9,434 CFC Interfund Grant 125,429 Miscellaneous 909 Total Revenues 625,626 Expend itures Personnel Services 4,887,572 Materials and Services 1,035,701 Capital Outlay Transfers Out 3,660 Total Expenditures 5,926,933 Revenues less Expenditures (5,301,306) Transfers In-General Fund 5,368,346 Change in Fund Balance 67,040 Beginning Fund Balance 1,177,566 Ending Fund Balance $ 1,244,605 a) Payments received quarterly FY 2015 -Year to Date (16.7% of Year) I % of Actual Budget -0% a) -0% a) 25,800 65% b) 9,057 25% a) -0% c) -0% a) 1,420 20% d) 1,800 nfa e) 3,974 66% f) 1,033 23% -0% g) 782 nfa h) -nfa -nfa -0% FY 2015 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 359,149 359,149 91,379 91,379 40,000 50,000 10,000 36,568 36,568 24,000 24,000 20,000 20,000 7,000 8,000 1,000 7,200 7,200 6,000 20,000 14,000 4,500 4,500 3,800 (3,800) 4,500 4,500 1,025 1,025 $ b) Increase in projection due to out-of-County detention revenue c) Payment received within 60 days of service rendered d) Projection based on annualizing year to date e) Sub-lease of space to Rimrock not included in FY 2015 budget f) State payment will exceed the amount estimated for FY 2015 budget g) Agreement with District Attorney's Office no longer in effect 43,866 7% 593,421 267,172 32,900 835,053 154,664 - - 16% 15% 0% 0% 5,146,491 1,021,392 1,100 3,660 5,146,491 1,021,392 3,660 1,100 989,717 16% 6,172,643 6,171,543 1,100 (945,851) (5,579,222) (5,904,371) 34,000 894,724 17% 5,368,346 5,368,346 (51,127) (210,876) (536,025) 34,000 1,244,605 100% 1,250,000 1,244,605 (5,395! 1,193,479 $1,039,124 $ 708,580 $ 28,605 h) Policy, requiring supervison fees, not anticipated at the time the FY 2015 budget was prepared. Projection based on annualizing year to date Page 2 SHERIFF -Consolidated Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31,2014 Revenues (Funds 701 & 702) Law Enf Dist Countywide 20,635,256 Law Enf Dist Rural 12,526,331 T otat Revenues 33,161,587 Expenditures (Fund 255) Sheriffs Services 2,308,182 Civil/Special Units 1,132,029 Automotive/Communications 1,701,586 Investigations/Evidence 1,418,744 Patrol 8,247,222 Records 761,260 Adult Jail 14,277,113 Court Security 294,563 Emergency Services 194,888 Special Services 1,352,528 Training 506,938 Other Law Enforcement Svcs 801,895 Non-Departmental 81,701 Total Expenditures 33,078,650 Revenues tess Expenditures 82,937 DC Comm Syst Reserve 200,000 Transfer to Reserve Funds 200,000 Change in Fund Balance (317,063) Beginning Fund Balance 9,553,793 Ending Fund Balance $ 9,236,730 FY2015 Actual FY 2015 -Year to FY2014 Date (16.7% of Year) Actual I Budget Budget I Projection I $ Variance 372,408 2% 20,365,842 20,365,842 546,744 4% 12,751,766 12,758,796 7,030 919,151 3% 33,117,608 33,124,638 7,030 426,739 17% 2,467,673 2,467,673 196,350 16% 1,192,980 1,192,880 100 410,966 22% 1,886,365 1,886,265 100 281,655 17% 1,627,803 1,627,703 100 1,351,220 16% 8,705,700 8,705,700 115,040 14% 798,805 798,705 100 2,428,106 16% 15,144,157 15,144,157 53,253 18% 302,867 302,767 100 26,854 15% 177,852 177,752 100 221,792 13% 1,655,424 1,655,424 69,463 13% 551,318 551,218 100 135,552 17% 806,044 806,044 12,134 17% 72,813 72,813 5,729,121 $ 16% 35,389,801 35,389,101 700 (4,809,970) (2,272,193) (2,264,463) 7,730 - -0% 200,000 200,000 0% 200,000 200,000 (4,809,970) (2,672,193) (2,664,463) 7,730 9,236,730 121% 7,658,937 9,236,730 1,577,793 4,426,760 $4,986,744 $6,572,267 $1,585,523 Page 3-A SHERIFF -Fund 255 Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 Revenues (Fund 255) Law Enf Dist Countywide Law Enf Dist Rural Total Revenues Expenditures (Fund 255) Sheriff's Services Civil/Special Units Automotive/Communications Investigations/Evidence Patrol Records Adult Jail Court Security Emergency Services Special Services Training Other Law Enforcement Svcs Non-Departmental Total Expenditures Revenues less Expenditures FY 2015 -Year to Date FY2014 (16.7% of Year) Actual Actual I Budget 20,817,324 3,601,208 14% 12.278,716 2,127,913 14% 33,096,040 5,729,121 14% 2,308,182 426,739 17% 1,132,029 196,350 16% 1,701,586 410,966 22% a) 1,418,744 281,655 17% 8,247,222 1,351,220 16% 761,260 115,040 14% 14,277,113 2,428,106 16% 294,563 53,253 18% 194,888 26,854 15% 1,352,528 221,792 13% 506,938 69,463 13% 801,895 135,552 17% 81,701 12,134 17% 33,078,650 5,729,121 16% $ 17,390 - 35,389,801 35,389,101 700 $4,986,744 $ $ (4,986,744} FY 2015 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 25,428,019 22,287,066 14,948,526 13,102,035 40,376,545 35,389,101 2,467,673 2,467,673 1,192,980 1,192,880 1,886,365 1,886,265 1,627,803 1,627,703 8,705,700 8,705,700 798,805 798,705 15,144,157 15,144,157 302,867 302,767 177,852 177,752 1,655,424 1,655,424 551,318 551,218 806,044 806,044 72,813 72,813 (3,140,953) p,846,491 ) (4,987,444) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 a) Annual payment for Deschutes County Communication System, $292,126, expended in July 2014 Page 3-B SHERIFF -Expenditure Detail Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31 , 2014 FY 2014 Actual Expenditures Sheriff's Services Personnel 1,342,795 Materials & Services 965,387 Capital Outlay - Total Sheriffs Services 2,308,182 Civil/Special Units Personnel 1,027,640 Materials & Services 104,389 Capital Outlay - Total Civil/Special Units 1,132,029 Automotive/Communications Personnel 400,169 Materials & Services 1,265,667 Capital Outlay 35,750 Total Automotive/Communications 1,701,586 Investigations/Evidence Personnel 1,277,983 Materials & Services 140,761 Capital Outlay - TotallnvestigationsJEvidence 1,418,744 Patrol Personnel 7,450,178 Materials & Services 547,770 Capital Outlay 249,274 Total Patrol 8,247,222 Records Personnel 659,297 Materials & Services 101,963 Capital Outlay - Total Records 761,260 Adult Jail Personnel 11,899,534 Materials & Services 2,069,651 Capital Outlay 63,176 Transfer Out -Jail (D/S & Cap Proj) 244,752 Total Adult Jail 14,277,113 Court Security Personnel 284,173 Materials & Services 10,390 Capital Outlay - Total Court Security 294,563 Emergency Services Personnel 169,170 Materials & Services 25,718 Capital Outlay - Total Emergency Services 194,888 Special Services Personnel 1,152,258 Materials & Services 183,769 Capital Outlay 16,500 Total Special Services 1,352,528 Training Personnel 385,634 Materials & Services 121,303 Capital Outlay - Total Training 506,938 Other Law Enforcement Services Personnel 731,122 Materials & Services 70,773 Capital Outlay - Total Other Law Enforcement SVC5 801,895 Non-Departmental Materials & Services 81,701 Total Non-Departmental 81,701 Total Expenditures $ 33,078,650 FY 2015 -Year to Date (16.7% of Year) Actual I Budget $ 5,729,121 223,315 203,424 - 426,739 183,484 12,865 - 196,350 65,781 345,185 - 410,966 236,548 45,106 - 281,655 1,225,839 110,316 15,065 1,351,220 109,023 6,017 - 115,040 2,043,341 248,765 - 136,000 2,428,106 49,288 3,965 - 53,253 23,757 3,097 - 26,854 208,976 12,816 - 221,792 66,172 3,290 - 69,463 106,428 22,275 6,849 135,552 12,134 12,134 16% 20% 0% 17% 17% 11% 0% 16% 16% 23% 0% 22% 16% 29% 0% 17% 16% 17% 4% 16% 16% 6% 0% 14% 16% 12% 0% 33% 16% 17% 39% 0% 18% 16% 10% 0% 15% 16% 6% 0% 13% 16% 2% 0% 13% 15% 27% 96% 17% 17% 17% Budget 1,431,828 1,020,745 15,100 2,467,673 1,073,870 119,010 100 1,192,980 399,334 1,486,931 100 1,886,365 1,470,106 157,597 100 1,627,803 7,728,332 636,868 340,500 8,705,700 692,244 106,461 100 798,805 12,675,178 2,039,314 20,900 408,765 15,144,157 292,715 10,052 100 302,867 147,942 29,810 100 177,852 1,273,721 223,703 158,000 1,655,424 416,955 134,263 100 551,318 717,594 81,310 7,140 806,044 72,813 72,813 FY 2015 T Projection I $ Variance 1,431,828 1,020,745 15,100 2,467,673 1,073,870 119,010 100 1,192,880 100 399,334 1,486,931 100 1,886,265 100 1,470,106 157,597 100 1,627,703 100 7,728,332 636,868 340,500 8,705,700 692,244 106,461 100 798,705 100 12,675,178 2,039,314 20,900 408,765 15,144,157 292,715 10,052 100 302,767 100 147,942 29,810 100 177,752 100 1,273,721 223,703 158,000 1,655,424 416,955 134,263 100 551,218 100 717,594 81,310 7,140 806,044 72,813 72,813 16% $ 35,389,801 $ 35,389,101 $ 7~0age 4 LED #1 • Countywide Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 Revenues Tax Revenues -Current Tax Revenues -Prior SB 1145 Sheriff Fees Concealed Handgun License Jail Funding HB 3194 Jail Funding HB 2712 State Grant Prisoner Housing Inmate Telephone Fee Federal Grants Work Center Work Crews Contracts with Des County Inmate Commissary Fees Interest Donations-"Shop with a Cop" Miscellaneous Total Operating Revenues EXPENDITURES & TRANSFE DC Sheriff's Office DC Comm Systems Reserve Transfer to Reserve Fund Total Expenditures Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance FY 2015 -Year to Date FY2014 (16.7% of Year) Actual Actual I Budget 16,698,208 -0% a) 532,040 120,592 33% 1,630,823 -0% 365,577 58,016 28% -25,581 17% 107,806 107,805 100% 36,311 9,057 20% 85,781 -0% 329,918 -0% 83,297 4,418 6% 32,071 -0% 69,723 5,793 12% 475,815 388 1% 32,480 2,445 10% 50,563 5,265 13% 38,361 29,968 46% 66,441 3,081 5% 20,635,256 372,408 2% RS 20,817,324 3,601,208 14% 80,000 -0% 100,000 -0% 20,997,283 3,601,208 14% (362,027) (3,228,800) 6,507,110 6,145,083 117% $ 6,145,083 $ 2,916,283 a) Current year taxes received beginning in October FY2015 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 17,292,244 17,292,244 360,700 360,700 1,628,947 1,628,947 210,000 210,000 150,000 150,000 107,806 107,806 46,143 46,143 85,370 85,370 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 20,000 20,000 50,000 50,000 60,632 60,632 25,000 25,000 40,000 40,000 65,000 65,000 64,000 64,000 20,365,842 20,365,842 25,428,019 80,000 100,000 22,287,066 80,000 100,000 3,140,953 25,608,019 22,467,066 3,140,953 (5,242,177) (2,101,224) 3,140,953 5,242,177 6,145,083 902,906 $ $ 4,043,859 $4,043,859 Page 5 lED #2 -Rural 702 Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31,2014 FY 2015 -Year to Date FY2014 (16.7% of Year) I BudgetActual Actual Revenues Tax Revenues -Current Tax Revenues -Prior Des CtyTransient Room Tax City of Sisters Marine Board License Fee State Grant Court Fines &Fees Contracts with Des County US Forest Service School Districts Federal Grants Bureau of Reclamation Interest SB #1065 Court Assessment Federal Grants-BlM Donations & Grants -Private Miscellaneous Total Revenues EXPENDITURES & TRANSFERS DC Sheriffs Office DC Comm Systems Reserve Transfer to Reserve Fund 7,988,657 -0% a) 262,227 58,565 35% 338,546 12%2,838,797 486,678 87,168 17% 155,221 -0% 124,246 -0% 135,023 22,220 17% 20,025 16%119,984 -0%101,375 65,088 -0% 84,285 2,132 5% 24,023 -0% 21,715 2,824 13% 3,974 26%17,435 -0%16,213 12,030 7,030 n/a 73,333 4,259 6% 12,526,331 546,744 4% 12,278,716 2,127,913 14% 120,000 -0% 100,000 -0% Total Expenditures Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance $ 12.498,716 27,614 3,046,683 3,074,297 2,127,913 (1,581,170) 3,074,297 $ 1,493,128 14% 127% a) Current year taxes received beginning in October FY 2015 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 8,272,852 8,272,852 169,000 169,000 2,920,654 2,920,654 523,010 523,010 169,000 169,000 130,600 130,600 130,000 130,000 121,650 121,650 76,500 76,500 55,000 55,000 42,000 42,000 27,000 27,000 21,000 21,000 15,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 7,030 7,030 68,500 68,500 12,751,766 12,758,796 7,030 14,948,526 120,000 100,000 13,102,035 120,000 100,000 1,846,491 15,168,526 13,322,035 1,846,491 (2,416,760) (563,239) 1,853,521 2,416,760 3,074,297 657,537 $ $ 2,511,059 $2,511,059 Page 6 PUBLIC HEALTH Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31,2014 FY 2014 FY 2015 -Year to Date (16.7% of Year) Actual Actual I %of Budget 2,878,140 166,420 5% 767,248 39,382 5% 812,441 115,019 18% 400,900 29,662 5% 95,011 260,206 210% 139,171 6,496 3% 232,968 25,814 13% 229,520 -0% 161,576 61,406 60% 100,535 30,095 30% 80,653 8,186 10% 92,637 3,438 5% 36,655 5,565 14% 52,433 -0% 9,077 2,144 36% 38,192 49,507 3300% 10,135 6,137,293 6,457,193 2,043,710 - 157,320 8,658,223 (2,520,930) 20 1% 803,360 13% 1,125,227 16% 260,731 13% -0% -0% 1,385,958 15% (582,597) 2,701,475 450,246 17% 33,000 -nfa 65,100 2,799,575 278,645 -0% 450,246 16°fc, (132,351 ) $ 1,273,934 1,552,578 1,552,578 99% $ 1,420,227 FY 2015 Budget I Projection I$ Variance Revenues State Grant a) Environmental Health-Lic Fac OMAP Family Planning Exp Proj Interfund Grants & Contract Grants (lntergvt, Pvt, & Local) Patient Insurance Fees State Miscellaneous Federal Payments Vital Records-Death Health Dept/Patient Fees Contract Payments Vital Records-Birth Child Dev & Rehab Center Interest on Investments Grants & Donations Miscellaneous Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services b) Materials and Services c) Capital Outlay Transfers Out Total Expenditures 9,359,556 9,430,160 (70,604) Revenues less Expenditures Transfers In-General Fund Transfers In-PH Res Fund Transfers In-Gen. Fund Other 3,156,998 779,450 655,250 550,000 123,618 240,000 196,400 120,336 101,585 100,000 80,216 69,291 41,000 39,609 6,000 1,500 2,800 6,264,053 7,166,528 2,028,288 100 164,640 3,049,902 (107,096) 779,450 625,250 (30,000) 550,000 363,024 239,406 210,279 (29,721) 196,400 120,336 162,991 61,406 100,000 80,216 3,438 (65,853) 41,000 39,609 6,000 49,507 48,007 2,800 6,380,202 116,149 6,945,515 221,013 2,320,005 (291,717) 100 164,640 (3,095,503) 2,701,475 (3,049,958) 2,701,475 45,545 65,100 65,100 Total Transfers In 2,766,575 2,766,575 Change in Fund Balance (328,928) (283,383) 45,545 Beginning Fund Balance 1,570,821 1,552,578 ~18,243} Ending Fund Balance $ 1,241,893 $ 1,269,195 $ 27,302 a) Oregon Health Authority grant projected at amended contract amount b) Personnel projected to decrease in FTE -appropriation transfers pending c) M & S increased to reflect amended grants and contracts Page 7 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31,2014 Actual Revenues FY 2015 -Year to FY2014 Date (16.7% of Year) Administrative Fee 8,260,932 State Grants 7,801,239 OHP Capitation 469,069 Federal Grants 184,980 Patient Fees 219,846 Title 19 246,484 Liquor Revenue 142,665 Divorce Filing Fees 129,788 Interfund Contract-Gen Fund 127,000 School Districts 6,952 Federal Grant (ARRA) 63,750 Interest on Investments 21,190 Rentals 16,000 Marriage Licenses 6,540 Local Grants 52,891 Claims Reimbursment 12,918 State Miscellaneous 31,820 Justice Reinvestment HB3194 120,000 Miscellaneous 28,157 Total Revenues 17,942,221 Expenditures Personnel Services 12,415,866 Materials and Services 6,738,744 Capital Outlay Transfers Out 204,900 Total Expenditures 19.359.510 Revenues less Expenditures (1,417,289) Transfers In-General Fund 1,377,302 Transfers In-Acute Care Svcs 293,593 Total Transfers In 1,670,895 260.816 Change in Fund Balance 253,606 Beginning Fund Balance 2,671,137 Ending Fund Balance $2,924.742 I %of Actual Budget 1,848,462 1,426,546 - - 35,280 48,941 - 21,413 - - - 5,083 500 2,090 329,450 - 5,100 - 1,430 16% 19% a) 0% 0% 17% 27% 0% 15% 0% 0% 0% 26% 3% 32% n/a n/a n/a n/a 27% FY 2015 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 11,210,767 11,210,767 7,499,586 9,216,197 1,716,611 390,000 390,000 204,849 204,849 201,610 201,610 180,300 180,300 151,000 151,000 140,600 140,600 127,000 127,000 65,000 50,000 (15,000) 34,000 34,000 19,500 19,500 18,800 18,800 6,500 6,500 329,450 329,450 5,100 5,100 5,318 5,318 3.724,294 17% 20,254,830 22,290,991 2,036,161 2,273,396 15% 14,762,595 14,762,595 831,021 12% b) 6,989,403 8,548,208 (1,558,805) -0% 100 -0% 204,900 204,900 3.104.417 14% 21,956,998 23,515,703 (1,558,705) 619.877 (1,702,168) (1.224,712) 477,456 229,550 17% 1,377,302 1,377,302 31,266 17% 187,594 187,594 17% 1,564.896 1,564,896 880,693 (137,272) 340,184 477,456 2,924,742 88% 3,313,248 2,924,742 {388,506~ $3,805,436 $3,175,976 $3,264.926 $ 88,950 a) Oregon Health Authority grant projected at amended contract amount b) M &S increase related to Oregon Health Authority amended contract Page 8 100 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31,2014 FY 2015 -Year to FY 2014 Date (16.7% of Year) I %of Actual Revenues Admin-Operations 40,102 Admin-GIS 2,944 Admin-Code Enforcement 261,188 Building Safety 1,748,911 Electrical 408,194 Contract Services 229,039 Env Health-On Site Prog 448,367 Planning-Current 917,674 Planning-Long Range 440,222 Total Revenues 4,496,641 Expenditures Admin-Operations 1,587,119 Admin-GIS 123,751 Admin-Code Enforcement 275,521 Building Safety 688,035 Electrical 217,271 Contract Services 220,779 Env Health-On Site pgm 181,831 Planning-Current 666,180 Planning-Long Range 425,323 Transfers Out (DIS Fund) 179,035 Total Expenditures 4,564,845 Revenues less Expenditures (68,204) Transfers In/Out In: General Fund -LlR Planning 495,360 Out: CDD Reserve Funds 3,660 Total Transfers In/Out 491,700 Change in Fund Balance 423,496 Beginning Fund Balance 1,578,705 Ending Fund Balance $2,002,201 Actual Budget 8,829 60 57,645 401,722 82,466 42,000 78,407 253,557 90,728 1,015,414 358,462 21,890 45,756 114,470 35,239 45,795 36,332 143,648 62,720 - 864,313 151,101 27,795 - 17% 2% 21% 25% 20% 20% 18% 28% 16% 23% 25% 17% 15% 14% 15% 16% 13% 20% 11% 0% 18% 17% 0% FY 2015 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 51,225 51,225 2,500 2,500 273,000 273,000 1,616,713 1,616,713 418,506 418,506 211,500 211,500 437,358 437,358 902,876 902,876 560,658 560,658 4,474,336 1,416,868 129,011 297,852 822,664 234,152 281,699 274,228 706,730 553,993 173,673 4,474,336 1,416,868 129,011 297,852 822,664 234,152 281,699 274,228 706,730 553,993 173,673 4,890,870 4,890,870 (416,534) (416,534) 166,770 166,770 (861,143) (861,143) 27,795 (694,373) (694,373) 178,896 (1,110,907) (1,110,907) 2,002,201 126% 1,589,113 2,002,201 413,088 $2,181,097 $ 478,206 $ 891,294 $ 413,088 Page 9 ROAD Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31,2014 Actual Revenues Motor Vehicle Revenue 11,300,058 Forest Receipts 1,259,367 Federal -PIL T Payment 1,064,365 Other Inter-fund Services 850,395 Cities-Bend/Redmond/Sisters 1,097,444 State Miscellaneous 588,197 Sale of Equip & Material 230,017 Assessment Payments (P&I) 15,058 Mineral Lease Royalties 206,097 Interest on Investments 49,562 Miscellaneous 117,069 Total Revenues 16,777,629 Expenditures Personnel Services 5,313,126 Materials and Services 8,051,744 Debt Service Capital Outlay 121,455 Transfers Out 450,000 Total Expenditures 13,936,325 Revenues less Expenditures 2,841,304 Trans In -Solid Waste 282,148 Trans In -Transp SDC Trans In-Road Imp Res Total Transfers In 282,148 Change in Fund Balance 3,123,452 Beginning Fund Balance 6,846,576 Ending Fund Balance $ 9,970,028 a) Payment received annually in February b) PILT payment received July 2014 c) Inter-fund service billed at year end FY 2014 FY 2015 -Year to Date (16.7% of Year) I $ 9,699,228 FY 2015 'fa ot Actual Budget Budget I Projection I $ Variance 1,727,398 15% 11,220,000 11,220,000 130 0% a) 1,140,950 1,140,950 1,250,809 123% b) 1,020,000 1,250,809 230,809 -0% c) 971,700 971,700 -0% 804,200 804,200 7,606 1% 602,629 602,629 45,866 17% 271,000 271,000 24,893 11% 225,840 225,840 6,251 4% 140,000 140,000 11,883 37% 32,000 32,000 7,182 28% 25,500 25,500 3,082,020 19% 16,453,819 16,684,628 230,809 920,510 17% 5,555,695 5,555,695 1,397,721 13% 10,622,604 10,622,604 106,578 91% d) 117,000 106,578 10,422 928,010 10% 8,875,507 8,875,507 -0% 600,000 600,000 3,352,819 13% 25,770,806 25,760,384 10,422 (270,800) (9,316,987) (9,075,756) 241,231 -0% e) 298,156 298,156 -0% 2,000,000 2,000,000 -0% 1,000 {1,OOOl . 0% 2,299,156 2,298,156 (1,000) (270,800) (7,017,831) (6,777,600) 240,231 9,970,028 111% 8,954,332 9,970,028 1,015,696 $ 1,936,501 $3,192,428 $1,255,927 d) Final payments of two LID loans made in July 2014 e) Transfers made quarterly Page 10 ADULT PAROLE & PROBATION Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31,2014 FY 2014 Actual Revenues SB 1145 3,028,672 DOC Measure 57 220,788 Electronic Monitoring Fee 235,642 Probation Superv. Fees 208,461 Interfund -Sheriff 50,000 Crime Prevention Grant 50,000 CFC-Domestic Violence 70,242 State Subsidy 14,677 Alternate Incarceration 17,725 Interest on Investments 7,807 Probation Work Crew Fees 9,137 State Miscellaneous 4,142 Leases 1,323 Claims Reimbursement 6,997 Justice Reinvest HB3194 458,143 Miscellaneous 671 Total Revenues 4,384,428 Expenditures Personnel Services 3,343,789 Materials and Services 1,107,365 Capital Outlay Total Expenditures 4,451,154 Revenues less Expenditures (66,726) Transfers In-General Fund 451,189 Change in Fund Balance 384,463 Beginning Fund Balance 747,520 Ending Fund Balance $ 1,131,982 FY 2015 -Year to Date (16.7% of Year) FY 2015I%of Budget I PrOjection I $ VarianceActual Budget -0% a) 3,025,187 3,025,187 217,845 99% b) 220,788 217,845 (2,943) 38,771 18% 220,000 220,000 33,584 18% 190,000 190,000 8,334 17% 50,000 50,000 -0% c) 50,000 50,000 -0% c) 47,996 47,996 -0% a) 15,158 15,158 -0% d) 15,000 15,000 1,260 20% 6,150 6,150 2,135 43% 4,950 4,950 -0% e) 4,301 4,301 -0% 1,500 1,500 -n/a -n/a 168 34% 500 500 302,097 8% 3,851,530 3,848,587 (2,943) 583,167 16% 3,623,526 3,623,526 110,978 10% 1,148,766 1,148,766 -0% 100 100 694,145 15% 4,772,392 4,772,292 100 (392,048) (920,862) (923,705) (2,843) 75,198 17% 451,189 451,189 (316,850) (469,673) (472,516) (2,843) 1,131,982 110% 1,030,824 1,131,982 101,158 815,132 $ 561,151 $ 659,466 $ 98,315$ a) Contract with Dept of Corrections. Payment expected in September includes State Subsidy b) Annual payment received in July c) Payment received quarterly d) Invoiced quarterly e) Annual payment expected in February Page 11 EARLY LEARNING HUB Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31,2014 Revenues Federal Grants Title IV -Family Sup/Pres HealthyStart Medicaid Youth Investment State Grant HealthyStart /R-S-G OCCF Grant Charges for Svcs-M isc Program Fees Miscellaneous Court Fines &Fees Interest on Investments Donations Private Grant Sale of Assets Interfund Grants Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Total Expenditures Revenues less Expenditures Transfers In General Fund General Fund -Other Total Transfers In Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance FY 2015 -Year to Date (16.7% of Year)FY 2014 I %of Actual BudgetActual 258,463 21,994 60,561 124,493 55,185 249,125 132,326 4,138 4,710 77,873 2,868 50 130 450 329,624 - - - - - - - - - - 12,848 461 - - - - 0% 0% 0% nfa nfa 0% 0% nfa nfa 0% 17% 18% nfa nfa nfa 0% 1,321,991 13,308 2% 501,770 42,259 16% 1,402,021 20,363 3% 1,903,791 62,622 6% (581,800) (49,314) 278,739 42,048 17% 89,350 -0% FY 2015 Budget I Projection I $ Variance a) 157,390 21,994 60,000 a) 254,623 a) 39,499 2,000 77,086 2,500 7,260 157,390 21,994 60,000 254,623 39,499 2,000 77,086 2,500 7,260 622,352 622,352 258,410 258,410 766,142 766,142 1,024,552 1,024,552 (402,200) (402,200) 252,288 89,350 252,288 89,350 42,048 12% 341,638 341,638368,089 (213,711) (7,266) (60,562) (60,562) 548,572 334,861 105% 318,121 334,861 16,740 $ 334,861 $ 327,596 *' $ 257,559 $ 274,299 $ 16,740 Page 12 SOLID WASTE Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 3% a) 5% b) 0% c) 0% d) 0% d} Operating Revenues Franchise Disposal Fees Private Disposal Fees Commercial Disp. Fees Franchise 3% Fees Yard Debris Recyclables Special Waste Interest Leases Miscellaneous Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Debt Service Capital Outlay Total Operating Expenditures Operating Rev less Exp Transfers Out Road SW Capital Reserve Total Transfers Out Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance a} Payments due April 15th b} Unpredictable revenue c} Payments made November and May d) Transfers will be made quarterly FY2014 FY 2015 -Year to Date (16.7% of Year) Actual Actual I %of Budget 4,209,029 827,915 19% 1,518,056 321,566 21% 1,076,538 230,804 21% 210,053 6,097 98,410 25,812 28% 33,345 10,067 22% 40,873 1,250 11,028 2,554 26% 10,801 1,800 17% 21,508 7,229,641 4,748 24% 1,432,612 19% 1,777,663 304,079 16% 3,214,375 282,203 8% 930,157 - 25,895 5,948,091 1,281,550 282,148 -0% 586,282 9% 846,330 - 545,000 827,148 454,402 - -0% 846,330 $ 1,224,767 1,679,169 1,679,169 118% $2,525,499 FY2015 Budget 1Projection I $ Variance 4,413,809 4,413,809 1,550,430 1,550,430 1,082,144 1,082,144 210,000 210,000 92,000 92,000 45,000 45,000 25,000 25,000 10,000 10,000 10,801 10.801 20,000 20,000 7,459,184 7,459,184 1,891,970 3,435,926 929.794 227,000 6,484,690 974,494 1,891,970 3,435,926 929,794 227.000 6,484,690 974,494 298,156 298,156 1,525,000 1,525,000 1,823,156 1,823,156 {848,662} {848,662} 1,428,003 1.679,169 251.166 $ 579,341 $ 830,507 $ 251,166 Page 13 RISK MANAGEMENT Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 Revenues Inter-fund Charges: General Liability FY 2014 FY 2015 -Year to Date (16.7% of Year) Actual Actual I %ofBudget 272,823 63,298 17% 326,526 65,384 17% 164,150 29,592 17% 1,520,352 260,290 17% 318,566 53,668 17% 139,123 6,712 34% 1,400 305 23% 14 -0% 27,540 2,610 11% 15,567 2,786,061 3,250 22% 485,109 17% 268,561 33,118 49,872 638 33,139 168 161,994 156,747 4,659 125 5,619 - 4,531 528,374 166,668 211,158 377,826 875 3,584 194,379 49% 178,556 830 179,386 72% - 205 19 22,021 528 69,276 92,377 478,204 10,374 10,920 9% 71,912 5,000 - 155,474 103,790 44,261 8,476 52,488 735,427 102,324 1,836,329 324,005 146,109 2,306,443 - 184,178 31% -0% 568,864 36% 50,081 15% 20,864 10% 639,810 30% 479,618 (154,701) 2,631,057 3,110,676 101% $3,110,676 $2,955,975 379,793 379,793 392,304 392,304Property Damage 177,550 177,550Vehicle 1,561,804 1,561,804Workers' Compensation 317,000 317,000Unemployment 20,000 20,000Claims Reimb-Gen Liab/Property 1,300 1,300Process Fee-Events/Parades Miscellaneous 110 110 24,000 24,000Skid Car Training 15,050 15,050Interest on Investments 2,888,911 2,888,911TOTAL REVENUES Direct Insurance Costs: GENERAL LIABILITY Settlement I Benefit Defense Professional Service Insurance a) Loss Prevention Miscellaneous Repair I Replacement Total General Liability 400,000 400,000 PROPERTY DAMAGE Insurance a) Repair I Replacement Total Property Damage 250,000 250,000 VEHICLE Professional Service Insurance Loss Prevention Repair I Replacement Total Vehicle 120,000 120,000 WORKERS' COMPENSATION Settlement I Benefit Professional Service Insurance a) Loss Prevention Miscellaneous Total Workers' Compensation 600,000 600,000 200,000 180,000 20,000UNEMPLOYMENT -Settlement/Benefits 1,570,000 1,550,000 20,000Total Direct Insurance Costs Insurance Administration: Personnel Services 330,406 330,406 199,140 199,140Materials & Srvc, Capital Out. & Tranfs. 2,099,546 2,079,546 20,000Total Expenditures 789,365 809,365 20,000Change in Fund Balance 3,074,957 3,110,676 35,719Beginning Fund Balance .. $ 3,864,322 $ 3,920,041 $ 55,719Ending Fund Balance FY2015 Budget 1 Projection I $ Variance a) Annual premiums paid in July Page 14 DESCHUTES COUNTY 9-1-1 Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31, 2014 FY 2014 Actual Revenues Property Taxes -Current 6,258,760 Property Taxes -Prior 203,163 Federal Grants 46,514 State Reimbursement 41,813 Telephone User Tax 756,775 Data Network Reimb. 43,943 Jefferson County 29,758 User Fee 53,229 Police RMS User Fees 236,717 Contract Payments 39,075 Miscellaneous 45,553 Claims Reimbursement 29,857 Interest 40,303 Total Revenues 7,825,460 Expenditures Personnel Services 4,420,333 Materials and Services 1,996,805 Capital Outlay 66,498 Total Expenditures 6,483,636 Revenues less Expenditures 1,341,824 Transfers Out -Reserve Fund 7,800,000 Change in Fund Balance (6,458,176) Beginning Fund Balance 10,398,030 Ending Fund Balance $ 3,939,854 FY 2015 -Year to Date (16.7% of Year) FY2015 Actual I %ot Budget Budget I Projection I$ Variance -0% a) 6,482,015 6,482,015 45,252 33% 138,000 138,000 -0% 150,000 150.000 5,369 15% 36,000 36,000 -0% 750.000 750,000 -0% 30,000 30,000 304 1% 30,000 30,000 -0% 45,000 45,000 5,191 2% 295,788 295,788 -0% 11,000 11,000 3,621 40% 9,000 9,000 -nla 3,714 12% 30,600 30,600 63.451 1% 8.007,403 8,007,403 781,811 14% 5,521,419 5,521,419 425,476 20% 2,077,868 2,077,868 -0% 350,000 350.000 1,207,287 15% 7,949,287 7,949,287 (1,143,835) 58,116 58,116 -nla (1,143,835) 58,116 58,116 3,939,854 116% 3,410,000 3,939,854 529.854 2,796,018 $ 3,468,116 $3,997,970 $ 529,854$ a) Current year taxes received beginning in October Page 15 Revenues: Internal Premium Charges Part-Time Employee Premium Employee Monthly Co-Pay COIC Retiree f COBRA Co-Pay Prescription Rebates Claims Reimbursements Miscellaneous Interest Total Revenues Expenditures: Personnel Services (all depts) Materials & Services Admin &Wellness Claims Paid-Medical Claims Paid-Prescription Claims Paid-DentallVision Claims RefundS Stop Loss Insurance Premium State Assessments Administration Fee (EMBS) Preferred Provider Fee Health Impact Other -Administration Other -Wellness Admin & Wellness Deschutes On-site Clinic Contracted Services Medical Supplies Other Total DOC Deschutes On-site Pharmacy Contracted Services Medication and Drugs Other Total Pharmacy Total Expenditures Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance Health Benefits Trust Statement of Financial Operating Data FY 2015 Two Months Ended August 31, 2014 FY2014 FY2015 Actual Year to Date Actual (1 •.7% ~ of Year) Budget Projection $ Variance $ 14,485,502 16.955 813.125 1.595,847 1,061,986 154,981 1.675 744 67,057 $ 2.639.935 17% a) $15.517,000 5,473 27% b) 20.000 142.670 18% b) 810.000 296,025 18% b) 1.670,000 179,614 14% b) 1.260,000 -0% 110,000 -0% 50,000 -nfa - 13,403 19% 72,000 $15.848,484 $ 331,484 32,838 12,838 856,020 46.020 1,776,148 106,148 1.077,683 (182,317) 110.000 - SO,OOO - -- 72,000 - 18,197,871 3,277,120 17% 19,509,000 19,823,173 314,173 129,509 21,049 15% 144.917 144,917 117.775 32,929 17% 195,970 14,726,294 2,300,201 14% 16,385,812 850,209 110.681 12% 943,500 54,806 7,415 21% 35,000 27,016 2,655 10% 26,777 932,031 120,750 12% 1,005,277 314,801 18.590 6% 306,000 1,588,726 -0% 1,696,000 13,250 2,079 16% 13.321 12,552,108 709,494 1,868,398 (24,842) 24,842 400,000 215.000 343,000 57,200 4,500 - 40,142 - 195,970 - 16,360,970 24,842 943,500 - 35,000 - 26.777 - 11,633,134 657,550 1,731.608 (182,448) 275.052 67,753 333,188 49.712 4,327 38,643 1,753,273 14% 12,552,108 104,226 15% 709,494 299,257 16% 1.868,398 - (24.842) nfa 50,235 130/0 400,000 0% 215,000 61,443 18% 343,000 7,425 13% 57,200 0% 4,500 16,255 40% 40,142 - 1,005,277 - 306.000 - 1.696.000 - 13.321 - 1,916,777 17,704.610 493,261 11,967,822 20,670 2,462.671 814,449 $ 12,461,082 1% 13% 108% 2,015,321 19.551.327 (42,327) 11.585,710 2,015!321 19.526.485 296.688 12,461.082 - 24,842 339.015 875,372 $ 12,461,082 $ 13,275,531 $11,543,383 $12,757,770 $1,214,387 I % Of Exp covered by Revenues 102.8% 133.1% 99.8%1 101.5% a) Projection is amount budgeted as HealthiDentallnsurance expenditure. b) Year to Date annualized. Page 16 FAIR AND EXPO CENTER Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31,2014 FY 2015 -Year to Date (16.7% of Year FY2015FY 2014 Actual % of Budget Budget I Projection I $ Variance Actual Operating Revenues Events Revenues Storage Camping at F & E Horse Stall Rental Concession % -Food Annual County Fair (net) Miscellaneous Total Operating Revenues $ 458,147 35,590 22,866 52,084 97,917 205,000 6,648 878,251 Operating Expenditures: Personnel Services Materials and Services Total Operating Expenditures 895,582 657,882 1,553,464 Results of Operations (675,213) Non-Operating Revenues Transfer-General Fund Transfer-Room Tax -(Fund 160) Transfer-Fair & Expo Reserve Interest Grants Rights & Signage Total Non-Operating Revenues 374,186 262,900 100,000 409 176,289 72,000 985,784 Non-Operating Expenditures Debt Service Capital Outlay Total Non-Operating Expenditures 112,974 176,289 289,263 TRT - 1 % for Marketing Revenues (Fund 170) Less: Expenditures Net TRT 1% for Marketing Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance $ 140,297 22.4% $ 625,000 $ 625,000 $ 0.0% 45,000 45,000 140 0.9% 16,000 16,000 15 0.0% 52,769 52,769 11,411 6.5% 175,000 175,000 0.0% a) 200,000 200,000 2,791 35.3% 7,900 7,900 154,654 13.8% 1,121,669 1,121,669 154,165 16.6% 926,183 926,183 77,264 15.2% 508,386 508,386 231,429 16.1% 1,434,569 1,434,569 (76,776) (312,900) (312,900) 60,834 20,316 72 17,600 16.7% 18.7% n/a n/a n/a 22.0% 365,000 108,544 80,000 365,000 108,544 72 80,000 98,821 17.9% 553,544 553,616 0.0% 112,213 112,213 0.0% 100 100 0.0% 112,313 112,213 100 0.0% 292,333 292,333 1.1% 288,850 288,850 3,483 3,483 131,814 131,986 100 -0.4% 87,000 ~345l {87,345} $ 218,814 $ 131,640 $ (87,245) a) Revenues and Expenses for the annual fair recorded in a separate fund and the available net income is transferred to the Fair & Expo Center Fund Page 17 JUSTICE COURT Statement of Financial Operating Data Through August 31,2014 FY 2014 Actual Revenues Court Fines & Fees 425,632 State Miscellaneous Interest on Investments 653 Total Revenues 426,285 Expenditures Personnel Services 407,456 Materials and Services 183,148 Total Expenditures 590,605 Revenues less Expenditures (164,319) Transfers In-General Fund 140,819 Change in Fund Balance (23,500) Beginning Fund Balance 153,818 Ending Fund Balance $ 130,317 FY 2015 -Year to Date (16.7% of Year) I % of Actual Budget FY2015 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 35,923 8% 450,000 443,838 (6,162) -0% 600 600 103 13% 815 815 36,026 8% 451,415 445,253 (6,162) 66,417 16% 416,045 416,045 44,196 27% a) 166,093 140,177 25,916 110,613 19% 582,138 556,222 25,916 (74,586) (130,723) (110,969) 19,754 12,400 17% 74,398 74,398 (62,186) (56,325) (36,571) 19,754 130,317 121% 107,621 130,317 22,696 $ 68,131 $ 51,296 $ 93,746 $ 42,450 a) $25,000 in software maintenance paid out in July Page 18 - CAPITAL PROJECTS • Campus Improvement • Jail Project • North County Campus • Sisters Health Clinic ~~, ::.4;;;.,.4,,*,( 'Wi JC¥ 4if'N. ;;PC*,,,,,",!,!'b;:<-''f'" ""WjIiWiI:,;:; J, (ii".jf., ,i~Hii. J,t V"'I'!¢III'fl'}lAM41 -Deschutes County Campus Improvement (Fund 463) Inception through August 31. 2014 Completed Projects JRF 91512014 4# Y,"",Q4i"IIi$,-If*1fIl(lI, *\'"\ 4 ;,$*41'.;;;; Z zt,.$¥i$(,W:; 1-1..%.# ..#,;4.»414 \E~ ii4e Id '.;;-'*;:;<9 jaw "" "F Deschutes County Jail Project (Fund 456) -Phase II-Beginning July 1, 2012 Through August 31, 2014 Project Budget (Note 1) Actual (Through August 31, 2014) Committed Projected Total (Actual + Committed + Projected} Variance Resources Interest Transfers In: General County Projects (142) General Capital Reserve (143) General Fund (001) Sheriff's Office (FY 2015) Jamison Acq &Remodel (457) (Note 2) Bond Issuance, net Total Resources Expenditures Architect (Note 2) Engineering Environmental Surveying Consulting Building &Grounds Fees & Permits, SDCs (water & sewer) Insurance Internal Service Fund Charges Miscellaneous Administrative FF & E -Security System FF &E -Storage System Construction -Expansion & Remodel (3) Construction Contingency Total Expenditures Net $ 26,157 $ 41,344 $ $ 500 $ 41,844 15,687 100,000 240,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 750,000 750,000 136,000 540,939 540,939 8,400,000 8,403,481 240,000 140,000 1,250,000 7SO,OOO 136,000 136,000 540,939 8,403,481 3,481 11,067,096 11,361,764 500 11,362,264 295,168 820,000 35,000 310,000 40,000 33,700 30,000 25,000 9,473,396 300,000 11,067,096 926,465 37,272 593 500 6,051 9,127 337,189 7,938 41,744 9,881 75,117 8,944,132 10,396,009 11,355 907,868 919,223 $ $ 965,756 $ (919,223) 937,819 (117,819) 5,388 42,660 (42,660) 593 (593) SOO (500) 7,254 13,305 21,695 9,127 (9,127) 337,189 (27,189) 7,938 32,062 41,744 (8,044) 9,391 19,272 10,728 75,117 (75,117) 25,000 25,000 9,852,000 (378,604) 300,000 47,033 11,362,264 (295,168) (46,533) 0 o Note 1: The project includes the Jail expansion and a remodel for the Medical Unit Note 2: Steele: Jail-$699,000, Other-$115,400. KMD: Medical-$86,000, Housing Study-$21 ,000. Plus expenses. Note 3: Original contract with KNCC-$9,593,276. Change Order #1-$143,482 (Generator-$32,019, Water Closet controls-$91 ,496 & Bunk Bed Reconfiguation-$19,967) Change Order #2-$115,242 (Addenda 5 & 6-$29,514, Rated Glazing Assemblies-$75,274, Conduit to Expansion-$10,454) JRF 9/5/2014 Deschutes County North County -Design Center (Hwy 97), Antler and Unger Inception through August 31,2014 ... JRF 9/5/2014 Deschutes County Sisters Health Clinic (Fund 464) Inception through August 31,2014 ACTUAL Received/Accrued and Expended Encumbrances & Commitments Project to Date RESOURCES: Beginning Net Working Capital Federal Grants Donations (St, Charles & OR Comm Dental) Resources from Fund 142 Transfer in (Fund 142) Transfer in (Fund 270) Interest Revenue Total Resources 40,000 23,261 50,381 255,000 50,000 982 419,625 460,000 460,000 500,000 23,261 50,381 255,000 50,000 982 879,625 a) b) c) d) 500,000 50,381 255,000 50,000 982 856,364 EXPENDITURES: Materials & Services Architecture/Design Engineering Planning Surveying Interfund Charges Fees, Permits. Insurance & SDCs Miscellaneous Project Costs Miscellaneous Admin Costs Total Materials & Services 66,691 3,325 2,029 3.677 68,321 13,972 35 158,050 10,000 5,000 2,000 1.120 3,752 21,872 76,691 5,000 3.325 4,029 3.677 69,441 17,724 35 179.921 b) 76.691 5,000 3,325 4,029 3,677 69,441 17,724 35 179.921 Capital Outlay New Construction -CS Construction Total Capital Outlay 483,404 483,404 193,038 193,038 676,442 676,442 e) 676,442 676,442 Total Expenditures 641,454 214,910 856,364 856,364 Net $ {221,828} $ 245,090 $ 23,261 a) The County was awarded a $500,000 Federal Grant. To date, $40,000 has been received and the balance of $460,000 has been requested. Project completion date has been extended to September 30, 2014. b) $50,381 paid in FY 2012 with resources from General County Projects Fund (Fund 142) c) FY 2013 -$100,000; FY 2014 -$155,000 (Resolution No. 2014-023 Feb 26, 2014) d) FY 2014 -$50,000 (Resolution No. 2014-024 Feb 26, 2014) e) Original contract -$552,730, Change Order #1 -$123,712 • JRF 9/512014 Wait. so Washington never said it? • But it/s inscribed on a local monument ... our young people are likely at the University of Virginia, to serve in any war, no matter author and editor of books on By Scott Hammers United States, according to one how justified, shall be directly Washington, and the editor The Bulletin of the country's leading Washproportional as to how they of the university's efforts to A phrase attributed to George ington scholars. perceive the veterans of earlier preserve all of the first pres Washington that appears on a The monument, dedicated on wars were treated and appreciident's writings, there's no veterans monument outside the Veterans Day 2005, is inscribed ated by their nation," reads the evidence these words were Deschutes County Courthouse with a quotation attributed to monument. ever spoken or written by was likely never spoken or writWashington. Iioweve~accord' Washington. ten by the first president of the "The willingness with which Edward Lengel, apr ssor See Washington I A5 SEPTEMBER 2014 • THE BULLETIN AS' Washington Continued from A1 Lengel said the statement has been widely circulated as Washington's over the years regardless, appearing in sev eral books, read into the Con gressional Record and refer enced repeatedly by Sen. John McCain during his 2008 presi dential campaign. Lengel said it remains unclear where the quote actually originated, or when it was first attributed to Washington. Iiistorical figures as promi nent as Washington inevitably spawn myths and other tales of questionable veracity, Len gel said, but he sees unsourced quotations as different than the story of Washington sup posedly cutting down a cherry tree as a young boy, or his al legedly wooden false teeth. "Yarn-spinning is part of the human condition. But while I have no problem with storytelling, I do not think that the use of unproven 'facts' in political debate or in public forums is ever innocuous," Lengel wrote in an email last week. "Unfounded assertions of this kind, however noble their aim, can be and often are pernicious. Public officials Meg Roussos I The Bulletin The George Washington quote on the veterans monument in front of the Deschutes County Court· house In Bend is likely fake. have a responsibility (which alas they often ignore) to check their facts." Susan Ross, property and facilities manager for De schutes County, said she at tempted to check the facts while working with the vet erans groups that asked the county for permission to build the monument. Ross said the veterans groups proposed us ingthe Washington quote, and a quick Google search gave her no reason to think it was illegitimate. '.'At the time we did it, every one thought it was a correct quote -at the time," she said. "A quote that's been around for a very long time, you just assume that it's a good quote." -Reporter: 541-383-0387, shammerS@bendbulletin.com