HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-07-29 Work Session Minutes
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, July 29, 2013
Page 1 of 10
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
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, JULY 29, 2013
___________________________
Present were Commissioners Alan Unger (arrived at 1:45), Tammy Baney and
Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator and
Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Dan
Despotopulos, Fair & Expo Center; Chris Doty, Road Department; Timm Schimke,
Solid Waste Department; Wayne Lowry, Finance; Hillary Saraceno, Health
Services; Alana Hughson of Central Oregon Visitors Association, and two
representatives of the media (KBND and The Bulletin).
Vice Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Some of the ‘other items’ were
addressed first.
___________________________
1. Discussion of Proposed Transient Lodging Tax Increase.
Dan Despotopulos gave an overview of how important the TLT is to the Fair &
Expo. In 2002, they spent $4.2 million on horse stalls, covered an arena and
started on the RV park. They have landed some large horse events since then.
The RV park just finished its best year ever. The room tax increase will help to
have stable funding in the future. This would be used for marketing and
promoting the Fair & Expo Center. There are three components: Fair & Expo,
RV Park and Annual Fair.
In 2002, they got mostly general fund and little in room taxes. During the lean
times, room taxes went down along with general funds. They have more
meeting space than all of the resorts put together. They do a lot for the
community. They invested in the concert concept for the Fair. They are
investing $200M into the concert program, and expect 40,000 people. It is
critical for the facility to continue promotions.
Commissioner Baney said that the Fair is one week a year, but they have to fill
the buildings the other 51 weeks of the year.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, July 29, 2013
Page 2 of 10
Mr. Despotopulos stated that they survey after every event. One event had
1,453 participants, from all over the country and Canada, with 13,000 visitors.
The total economic impact was over $2 million.
Mr. Anderson said the purpose of the work session was to see where everyone
stands. The deadline to put a measure on the ballot is August 19. They would
bring this back at a business meeting with an Order to prepare the item for the
ballot.
The City of Bend is going for an increase of 1.4% while the County’s is 1%.
This may be confusing to the voters with these two items on the same ballot.
Alana Hughson of the COVA Board said that their Board and membership
support this.
Commissioner DeBone asked if this would be used for facilities maintenance or
reserves. Mr. Despotopulos said that this would be primarily for marketing
purposes to drive more business into the area. At some time in the future, they
will focus on the other issues.
Commissioner Baney stated that this is the only Fair & Expo in the state that
makes a profit. It is well run with limited staff. Ms. Hughson stated that the
visitors act as ambassadors for others to learn about this area.
All were supportive of the concept. There should be a discussion regarding the
70/30 split at some point and the use of the funds.
2. FY 13-14 Budget Discussion.
Tom Anderson stated that SB 822 allowed the County to be over-budgeted to a
point for PERS; and the payments in lieu of taxes was also favorable. There
have been various meetings to critique how things went last year and where t o
go from here.
Mr. Lowry said that the PERS rates were significantly higher than what came to
pass. The question is how to use that funding. It could all go into PERS
reserves. They could also have the reserves break even and save the
departments money; or to split the savings.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, July 29, 2013
Page 3 of 10
He recommended the first option. A 1% savings represents about $220,000.
Reserves are at about $9 million. It is significant that they did not have to
reduce PERS as they originally thought might happen.
Commissioner DeBone supports this because of the future liabilities. Mr.
Anderson said they need to start thinking about how to use this reserve and over
what period of time.
Chair Unger felt this should go into the reserve fund. They asked for the
departments to pay for part of the increase last time.
Commissioner Baney said that their job is to provide service and should have a
proper level of reserves. Mr. Anderson stated that this option would not require
a budget adjustment. There are about $1.2 million dollars in the general fund
over what was expected. These funds are not restricted.
He said there seems to be a connection between the Secure Rural Schools and
Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) funds. There are four alternatives.
Keep in general fund and add to reserves.
Set aside for future purposes.
Replace some road funds and a few other programs
Pay down part of the debt to Solid Waste for capital construction projects at
the landfill.
Mr. Doty said his rationale is that the excess in PILT should go for Road
expenses because of the variable funding process. Secure Rural Schools (SRS)
funding has fallen. Some of the SRS shows up in PILT. Both are sensitive
programs, but PILT might be more sustainable because it affects more counties
and states. It is funded through this year while SRS is not. He sees both
moving forward but at reduced rates.
Even if the SRS is extended, it may not be sustainable for long.
___________________________
Timm Schimke talked about contouring the cells to extend the life of the
landfill; and the proposal for Waste Energy Group coming in to treat waste,
which may result in some settlement of the landfill. If there is settlement, they
have to figure out how to handle this additional sliver of space.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, July 29, 2013
Page 4 of 10
He may be looking at construction of the next cell in the coming year, and will
need about $2 million for this, which is not in the reserve funds now. He would
have to draw from three funds to total about $1.8 million. He does not yet
know what the next cell might cost.
Mr. Anderson provided some ideas to consider. He said that the Road
Department budget is set for the next year. Solid Waste may need some money
this year for design work on the new cell.
The Board could split this amount between the two departments. This may not
be just a one-time increase in PILT, but it should not be relied upon in any case.
There is a linkage between PILT and SRS and there are definitely some
difficulties with road maintenance funding. This would help with a solution to
that problem. Forestry and noxious weed programs are facing a lot of
uncertainty after this year, and a little more security will help to continue the
work that has been done in the past. There are other projects that may need to
be considered as well.
Chair Unger likes to help the landfill, but he sees a link of PILT with SRS, and
the Road Department funding has been a bigger challenge. Commissioner
Baney supports this, but isn’t sure about the payback part. She was thinking
about $500,000 to Solid Waste and $700,000 to Road. The needs are great for
much more money than this, but they need to get Solid Waste back to its own
funding and leave those funds alone, and gradually work towards greater
revenue for the Road Department. The more preventative work that can be
done now, the better long-term outcome there will be.
Commissioner DeBone asked if land sales were to be dedicated to Solid Waste.
Commissioner Baney indicated that the real estate market is fluctuating and
there is no one big opportunity for that at this time. Chair Unger stated that it is
hard to keep a focus on road funding. It is expensive to bring back roads once
they get to a certain point. He feels that these funds are connected for Roads.
Commissioner Baney is concerned how Solid Waste could get to the $2 million
needed any other way. Mr. Schimke said that the Solid Waste Department
already transfers funds into the Road Department. Now they are accepting a lot
of material from the forest with no revenue from that. The PILT funding
request would be for one time only. Chair Unger said he never liked giving
money from Solid Waste to Road; this should have been short-term.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, July 29, 2013
Page 5 of 10
Commissioner Baney would like each department to stand on its own. Solid
Waste should be an enterprise fund and not be supporting other departments.
Next year they could look at the PILT funding going only to Road and look at
not transferring funds as they have been doing.
Mr. Schimke does not have a solid number on his capital needs for the next
year. Maybe there should be a tip fee for fire -free material that comes in.
They are working for a solution to this issue. The pile is growing and they have
to use it for something, and he prefers it does not go into the landfill. The
companies who were to use this biomass for energy projects are not
materializing. It would be great to use it for something worthwhile, but this has
been a long time coming. Commissioner Baney asked if there are grant funds
to deal with this material. She was advised most grants are for getting it out of
the forests and not what to do with it later.
A suggestion was made to take some money out of PILT for Solid Waste
reserves. There would be no transfer next year from Solid Waste to Road, but
100% of any PILT overage would then to Road Department.
They want to make Solid Waste whole, with the remainder going to Road. In
the future, tip revenue will go to pay down the Solid Waste debt or landfill
projects.
Mr. Anderson stated that there needs to be a more defined way to pay back
Solid Waste. There are multiple moving parts. Maybe they should work on
recommendations to bring back to the Board. The key points are the debt and
short-term needs. Solid Waste may need more, but not necessarily out of PILT.
The group supports PILT should be tied to SRS in the future, and efforts will be
made to sustain a payback plan to Solid Waste and road maintenance’s Title III
funding.
Mr. Schimke said they don’t need the total reserve funds right now, but they
will need to get some funding for the next cell. Other things may change in the
meantime.
___________________________
Wayne Lowry spoke about budget process suggestions, and provided a handout
with a summary from staff and others.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, July 29, 2013
Page 6 of 10
Calendar adjustments were suggested, including that departments start on the
process earlier. Mr. Anderson stated the exception would be the Board’s
January meeting with the Budget Committee.
They would need to outline looming issues. He also suggested a mid-year
review of the past budget cycle, highlighting bigger items that were resolved or
not. The Board is supportive of the additional meeting(s).
Commissioner DeBone is concerned about spreading it out so long when a lot
of things would be uncertain. Chair Unger said they could concentrate on the
bigger issues that would need more time to be addressed.
Mr. Lowry said there are a certain number of jobs that have to get done during
that time. It would be easier for the departments to do their portion if it is not as
compressed. Erik Kropp stated that they would be able to ask the Administrator
questions earlier.
Mr. Anderson stated the departments could be given more time, but there is a
lot going on in Finance during that period as well. A suggestion was to
streamline the material presented to the Budget Committee. It should all be
useful. If it is not needed or is lightly used, it could be eliminated or not as
much work would have to go into it.
Chair Unger would like to know what the departments feel could be streamlined
compared to what the Board wants to see. Commissioner DeBone said that the
goals should be simple, and they should not have to stretch just to show more
information.
Commissioner Baney said she always thinks about what they are not able to
fund. Sometimes the outcomes are solid but the program doesn’t serve a large
population. Some of these programs may be important to the department’s
mission or the County’s objective.
Chair Unger agreed that they should make sure these are considered. Perhaps
they should evaluate what did not get put in to determine whether that
particular cut should have happened. Mr. Anderson said that some could end
up being an add-back if or when funding became available.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, July 29, 2013
Page 7 of 10
Mr. Lowry said that some agencies have requests for funding from nonprofits ,
and those need to be consistent.
Mr. Anderson stated that in regard to internal service charges, it was suggested
that the BOCC and Administration be removed. For example, there are
business costs for I.T. support, but it is hard to rationalize the departments
having to support the BOCC and Administration. This would be a general fund
expense.
He would like to see departments look at their bottom line more carefully and
think more like a business. The internal services charges are not consistent.
Some departments do not charge others. The internal services departments
should know what their I.T. costs are, for example.
Communications should be enhanced between internal services departments
and the operating departments. They don’t want a department to, for example,
not to contact County Counsel when necessary due to cost issues.
Commissioner Baney said that departments need to know what the actual costs
of services are, because it may be possible to contract out; and costs need to be
known to be able to compare.
3. Other Items.
Consideration of Approval of Document No. 2013-419, of a Notice of
Intent to Award Contract Letter for Adult Foster Home Services.
DEBONE: Move approval
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes.
BANEY: Vice Chair votes yes.
Discussion and Acceptance of Order No. 2013-035, regarding a
Promissory Note from Sunray Vacation Rentals.
This item was pulled from agenda.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, July 29, 2013
Page 8 of 10
Early Learning Hub Letter of Interest.
Hillary Saraceno said there is a tight deadline of about a week for the ELC
letters of interest. In order for the State to know who is interested and may
apply, and there are documents coming in to complete as part of the
application process.
The Wellness and Education Board of Central Oregon (tri-county) used to be
the past ABHA and the Health Advisory Committee. They do not meet until
past the deadline but are supportive of pursuing this funding. There are
other partners involved such as COCC, OSU, EDCO, NeighborImpact, High
Desert ESD and the Workforce Investment Council. There has to be one
point of contact, and Ms. Saraceno has been asked to fill this role.
Commissioner Baney stated that there is not always a cost containment
factor, but the issue is clients coming across jurisdictional lines in the region.
Ms. Saraceno said there are a growing number of programs that are regional.
The timeline has been developed so they get the information submitted in a
timely factor.
An Early Learning summit is planned for August, so they can work on
bringing the team together. They also have a tentative commitment from the
Tribes in Warm Springs. This work began in September 2011, but is still
not solidified.
She said a good way to start was to indemnify the strongest writers for
applications, and the secondary reviewers. They are trying to keep it
manageable. There are stakeholder groups who will take an active role in
the review process. She went over the recommended makeup of the group.
She and others will want to hear ideas from this group, and also are trying to
involve parents.
There are good reasons to streamline, but they could not previously get the
buy-in of the other counties. Now this should be better managed.
Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(h), Litigation.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, July 29, 2013
Page 9 of 10
Delegation of Authority Letters
Mr. Anderson said he has delegation of authority letters for the Board to sign
for the Forester to be able to help staff with incident command issues for
Deschutes County: Joe Stutler would be the primary, or Ed Keith if Mr.
Stutler is not available. The letters detail the authority and limitations of
both.
DEBONE: Move signature of letters of authority.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes.
BANEY: Vice Chair votes yes.
___________________________
DEBONE: Authorize legal department to approve the conflict of interest
waiver as discussed in executive session.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
___________________________
Commissioner DeBone updated the Board on the NACo conference, which
included about twenty Commissioners from Oregon. Big topics were forest
management and jail issues.
___________________________
Commissioner DeBone stated that the Eastern Oregon Coalition of Counties (a
lobby group) is working on PILT efforts; they want support for this. He met
with them in John Day. Chair Unger stated that the bylaws are challenging and
this group is primarily representing northeastern Oregon.
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
DATED this 2-1!' Day of ~ 2013 for the
Deschutes County Board of Commissiolen:
Alan Unger, Chair
Ta ~Chair
ATTEST:
Anthony DeBone, Commissioner ~~
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, July 29,2013
Page 10 of 10
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, JULY 29, 2013
1. Discussion of Proposed Transient Lodging Tax Increase
2. FY 13-14 Budget Discussion -Wayne Lowry
3. Other Items
• Consideration of Approval of Document No. 2013-419, ofa Notice of Intent
to Award Contract Letter for Adult Foster Home Services
• Discussion and Acceptance of Order No. 2013-035, regarding a Promissory
Note from Sunray Vacation Rentals -Mark Pilliod
• Early Learning Hub Letter of Interest -Hillary Saraceno
• Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(h), Litigation -Erik Kropp, Mark
Pilliod
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) (b), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues.
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board ojCommissioners' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Jfyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1·1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
Deschutes County
Board of County Commissioners
Work Session, Monday, July 29,2013
Budget Issues Discussion
• PERS Reserve -Senate Bill 822 lowered effective rates for 2013/14 saving an estimated
$2,584,266 in PERS costs. (See attached schedules) How should those savings be reflected
in the 2013/14 fiscal year?
Options:
A) PERS reserve to get all savings -$338,098 increase in PERS reserve
B) PERS reserve to get majority of savings, departments save $338,098.
C) Split the savings between departments and PERS reserve
Recommendation: Option A -leave the Department Charges for PERS unchanged from the
adopted budget thereby increasing reserves by $338,098.
• PILT funds -The County budgeted $500,000 for "payments in lieu of taxes" in the general
fund but has received $1,753,135, a $1,253,135 increase. (See memo from Chris Doty, Road
Department) How should these funds be used in future years?
Options:
A) Keep in the general fund and add to general fund reserve
B) Keep aside for some future purpose
C) Use to replace lost Secure Rural Schools (SRS) funds in the Road fund for capital
and major maintenance, and lost Title III funds in support of the Forestry and
Noxious Weed programs
D) Pay down debt to Solid Waste Fund to enable capital construction at Knott
landfill
Recommendation: Option C or D-Replace lost Secure Rural Schools (SRS) funds in the
Road fund for capital and major maintenance, and lost Title III funds in support of the
Forestry and Noxious Weed programs or pay down debt to Solid Waste to enable capital
construction at the Knott landfill.
• Budget process suggestions -The citizen members of the budget committee, department
heads and other budget related staff have had a chance to weigh in on potential changes to
our budget process for next year. Their thoughts are attached. We are seeking additional
input from Board members.
6/20/2013 FY 2014 PERS Reserve and Departmental Rates
Projections Utilizing Rates (Revised 6/14/2013)
Effective 7/1/2013
Rates Estimated Charges (Payments)
% Rate PERS Rsv Fund
Debl PERS Total Rate Increase FY Estimated PERS/OPSRP Employee lAP Debt Service lncrease= Revenue
PERSI Employee Service Reserve Charged 2013 to FY Subject (Charges to (Charges to (Charges to !!Decrease)=
OPSRP Rate lAP Rate Rate Rate 10 Dept< 2014 Wages Depts) Depls) Depts) Expendilure Total Charges
(AI FY 2013 Rates FY 2013
OPSRP General Service 6.47 6.00 1.72 (1.690) 12.500 17,873,814 1,156,436 1.072,429 307,430 (302,067) 2,234,228
OPSRP Police & Fire 9.18 6.00 1..72 (2.400) 14.500 4,733,647 434,549 284,019 81,419 (113,608) 686,379
PERS General Service 8.23 6.00 1.72 (3 .450) 12.S00 24,473,098 2,014,136 1,468,386 420,937 (844,322) 3,059.137
PERS Police & Fire 15.83 6.00 1 .72 (4.950) 18.600 10,330,238 1,635,277 619,814 177.680 (511,347) 1,921,424
5,240,398 3,444,648 987,466 J1,771,344) 7,901.168
(81 FY 2014 Rates. e,er 8udget FY 2014
OPSRP General Service 11.10 6.00 1.72 (3 .160) 15.660 25.28% 21,199,178 2,353,109 1,271,951 364,626 (669.894) 3,319,792
OPSRP Police & Fire 13.83 6.00 1.72 (3.520) 18.030 24.34% 5,448,940 753,588 326,936 93,722 (191.803) 982,443
PERS General Service 13.18 6.00 1.72 (4.200) 16.700 33.60% 22,114,238 2,914,657 1,326.854 380,365 (928,798) 3,693,078
PERS Police & Fire 20.02 6.00 1.72 (4 .570) . 23.170 24.57% 9,970,956 1,996,185 598,257 171.,500 (4S5,6731 2,310,269
8,017,539 3,523,998' 1,010 213 (2,246,168) 10,305.582
(e]
let FY 2014 Rate~ Revised 2L,14L2013 FY 2014
OPSRP General Service 6.70 6.00 1.72 1.240 15.660 25.28% 21,199,178 1,420,345 1,271,951 364,626 262,870 3,319,792
OPSRP PoUte & Fire 9 .43 6.00 1.72 \ 0.880 18.030 24.34% 5,448,940 513,835 326,936 93,722 47,951 982,444
PERS GeneriJI Sefvice 8.78 6.00 1.72 0.200 16.700 33.60% 22,114,238 1,941,630 1,326,854 380,365 44,228 3,693,077
PERS Police & Fire 15 .62 6.00 1.72 .10.170) 23.170 24.57% 9,970,956 1,557..163 598,257 171,SOO (16,951) 2,3W.1G9
5.433,273 3.523,998 1.010.213 t . 33Im8 ~ 10,305.582
(DI FY 2014 Rates Revised 6{.14t.2013 and PER5, Reserve Rates Eliminatl!d FY2014
OPSRP Gen",-al Service 6 .70 6.00 D2 14.420 15.36% 21,199,178 1.420,345 1,271,951 364,626 3,056,922
OPSAP Po~ce & Fire 9.43 6 .00 1.72 17.150 18.28% 5,448,940 513,835 326,936 93,722 934.493
PERS General Servin' 8.78 6.00 1.72 16.500 32.00% 22,114,238 1,941,630 1.326,854 380,365 3.648.849
PERS Police & Fire 15.62 6.00 1.72 23.340 25.48% 9,970,956 1,557,463 598,257 171,500 2,327,220
5,433,273 3.523,998 1.Dl0,213 . .j 9.967 ,484
(EI FI" 2014 R~tes Revised 6()4L2D13 and 50% oUY 13 to FY 14 R~[e lncreasg, Charged to PERS Reserve
OPSRP General Service 6.70 6.00 1.72 (0.960) 13.460 7.68% 21,199,178 1,420,345 1,171.951 364.626 (203,512) 2,853.410
OP$RP Polite & Fire 9.43 6.00 1.72 (1.325) 15.825 9.14% 5,448,940 513,835 326,936 93,722 (72,198) 862,295
PERS General Service 8.78 6.00 1.72 (2.000) 14.500 16.00% 22,114.238 1,941.630 1.326.1154 380.365 (442,285) 3,206,564
PERS Po!ic~ & Fire 15.62 6.00 1.72 (2.370) 20.970 12.74% 9,970,956 l..557,46.l 598,251 171,500 1236,312) 2,090,909
5,433,273 3.523 999 1,010,213 1954.307) 9,013.1 77
(F) Net Change fram FY 2014 Budget (Table 81 and FY 2014 Revised Rutes and 50% afFy 13 ta FY 14 Rare Increase Charged to PERS Reserve (Tab/e EJ
PERS/ PERS/OPSRP
OPSRP Rate ~ QIDc. Increase to PER5 Decrease to
Qw lllliJ!)S! Adlwlment Rsv Fund Charges Dept Charges
OPSRP General Service (4.40) 2.20 (932,764) 466,382 (466,382)
OPSAP Police & Fire (4.40) 2.20 (239,753) 119,605 (120,148)
PER5 General Service (4.40) 2.20 (973,027) 486,513 (486.514)
PERS Police & Fire (4.40) 2.20 (438,722) 219.,361 (219.361)
(2,584,266) l,29l.861 ~1I2~
(a)
(a) FY 2014 budget onciudes.S2,23O,000 expenditure In Fund 135-PERS Reserve
Rev 6/20/2013
6/20/2013 Projected PERS Increases by Department
(Utilizing FY 2014 Subject Wages)
02-Assessor
05-Clerkj06-BO PTA
08-BOCC (Funds 625/628/670/675)
09-lnformation Technology (Funds 660/305)
10-Building Services (Funds 620/001-25)
11-District Attomey (Funds 001-11/212)
12-Law Library
14-Flnance (Funds 630/001-18/350/160/170)
15-Children & Fam Comm
16-Juvenile
Sheriff-All Depts
20-Publlc Health (Funds 259/260)
22-Behavioral Health
23-Veterans' Svcs
26-Grant Projects
27-Legal Counsel
31-Personnel (Funds 650/675)
36-CDD
50-Road
50-Forester
62-Solid Waste
71-Risk Management
7 4-Extensio n/4·H
75-DC 9-1-1
81-Justice Court
82-Parole & Probation
(7,379.27)
(44.64)
(5,957 .00)
(7,967 .17)
(8,026.03)
(21,352 .36)
(1 ,453.98)
(1,733.97)
(13,829.15)
(29,724.66)
(30,417 .85)
(78,419.50)
(1,599.63)
(3,368.80)
(668 .25)
(8,310.72)
(14.960 .18)
(5,443.85)
(896.18)
(16,173.71)
(1,598.36)
(2,161.72)
1382.79)
(262.869.77)
(534.70)
(44,562 .76)
(2 ,853 .21)
(47,950 .67)
(2,449.96)
(957.04)
(953 .91)
(1,956.04)
(1,536.44)
(2,829.68)
(72.85)
(1,876.29)
(466.92)
(4,417.39)
(2 ,523 .63)
(2,858 .70)
(4,766.46)
(168.16)
(650.22)
(911 .18)
(2.719.18)
(4,372.13)
(138.37)
(1,437.70)
(370.09)
(130 .80)
(3,246.21)
(314 .08)
(1,024 .22)
1,080 .84)
(44,228 .49)
15,183.15
1,767.48
16,950 .63
(9,829.23)
(1,001.68)
(6,910.91)
(9,923 .21)
(9,562.47)
(24,716.74)
(72.85)
(3,330.27)
(2,200.89)
(18,246.54)
(61,627.90)
(33,276.55)
(83,185.96)
(1.599.63)
(168 .16)
(4,019 .02)
(1,579.43)
(11,029.90)
(19,332 .31)
(138 .37)
(6,881.55)
(370.09)
(1,026.98)
(19,419.92)
(1,912.44)
(4,271.67)
(2,463 .63)
(338,098.30)
(13,092.26)
(79 .20)
(10,568.88)
(14,135.31)
(14,239.73)
(37,883.21)
(2,579.65)
(3,076.40)
(24,535.60)
(52,737.28)
(53,967.15)
(139,131 .38)
(2,838.05)
(5,976.90)
(1,185 .61)
(14,744.83)
(26,542 .25)
(9,658.45)
(1,590 .00)
(28,695.29)
(2,835 .81)
(3,835.32)
(1,339 .79)
(111,660.10)
(7,149.24)
(120,149.13)
(26,949.59)
(10,527.47)
(10,493.02)
(21,516.43)
(16,900.84)
(31,126.45)
(801.30)
(20,639.16)
(5,136.08)
(48,591.24)
(27,760.00)
(31,445.73)
(52,431 .09)
(1,849.72)
(7,152.44)
(10,022.94)
(29,910.98)
(48,093.42)
(1,522.02)
(15,814 .68)
(4,070.97)
(1,438.78)
(35,708.33)
(3,454.84)
(11,266.44)
11,889.28)
(486,513.24)
(70,349.45)
(801.30)
(23,218.81)
(8,212.48)
(73,126.84)
(196,487 .76) (388,645.14)
(85,412 .88)
(191,562.47)
(2,838.05)
(1,849 .72)
(13,129.34)
(11,208.55)
(44,655.81)
(74 ,635.67)
(22,873 .28)
(219,361 .04)
Rev 6/20/2013
Road Department
61150 SE 27th St.• Bend. Oregon 97702
(541) 388-6581' FAX (541) 388-2719
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 1, 2013
To: Tom Anderson, County Administrator
From: Chris Doty, Road Department Director
RE: PIL T/SRS and Road Funding
Recently Deschutes County was informed that its federal PIL T (Payment in Lieu of Taxes)
allocation was increasing from $731,000 received in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 12 to $1.75M in
FFY 13. Prior to FFY 12, the average annual PILT allocation was approximately $470,000 per
year.
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an explanation for the increased PIL T funding
and a proposal for allocation of the funding increase based on the nexus between PIL T and
SRS funding.
An explanation of PIL T:
The federal government's PIL T program is administered through the US Department of the
Interior. It is a program that compensates counties and local governments for non-taxable
federal land within their jurisdictions. Deschutes County contains over 1.4M acres of federal
land land eligible for PILT consideration; almost 75% of the total land area within the County is
PIL T eligible.
The federal government's PIL T allocation formulas provide two alternative calculations, whereby
the County's PIL T allocation is the higher of the following:
• Alternative A: $2.54 per acre of "entitlement land" (capped at a maximum of $3.42M) reduced
by the amount the County received in the prior fiscal year of certain federal land payments
(namely SRS1.2 in Deschutes County). This equates to $1,849,064 for Deschutes County prior
to adjustment, and $1,753,135 post-adjustment based on availability of program funds 3 .
Or
• Alternative B: $0.35 per acre of "entitlement land" with no deductions for prior year Federal
payments. This equates to $500,941 for Deschutes County prior to adjustment, and $474,952
post-adjustment based on availability of program funds.
1 Note: Only the Roads portion of Title I (no schools) and Title III portion of SRS are subtracted from the $3.42M PIL T cap.
2 In addition to SRS revenue, Deschutes County receives an allocation of federal revenue obtained via mineral leasing activities
within the County. This revenue, averaging approximately $150,OOOfyr is included within the prior year federal land payments.
3 All PIL T payments are reduced by approximately 5.2% due to federal funding shortfall (not including sequestration).
Why an increase in PILT in FFY 13 (and slight increase in FFY 12):
Historically, the higher of the two alternatives has been Alternative B, whereby the County
received approximately $0.35 per acre 4 of entitlement land. Although Alternative A has a much
higher cap amount, subtraction of the County's SRS allocation has typically exceeded the
$3.4M cap allocation, thereby establishing Alternative B as the higher funding amount.
As SRS payments have declined however, it appears that the Alternative A allocation formula
has provided the higher of the two calculation amounts such that Deschutes County received an
additional $259,000 5 in FFY 12, and is scheduled to receive an additional $1,278,0006 in FFY
13.
The increase in PILT is tied directly (dollar for dollar) to the decrease in SRS funding.
Why did Deschutes County's PILT allocation increase while neighboring counties did not
increase?
While Deschutes County transitioned to the program's Alternative A funding formula, other
counties may have yet to transition based on the programs lower cap threshold (tied to
population).
Example: Crook County's Alternative A cap is $1. 96M. They received approximately $1.80M in
other federal revenue in FFY 12, such that their Alternative A amount is $160,000. Crook
County's Alternative B amount of $329, 00 0 remains the higher of the two alternatives.
Future of PIL T and SRS
Both PIL T and SRS are federal programs that are subject to annual reallocation within the
federal budget. Although PIL T's Alternative A funding calculation factors other federal
payments (SRS, mineral leasing revenue), both PILT and SRS are distinct, separate federal
programs designed to supplement local government revenue due to the influence of federal
land holdings and management practices.
PIL T provides payment to counties in lieu of property tax revenue that would be locally
collected and applied.
SRS provides payment to counties to offset the local government's legal right to a
portion of historical federal timber receipts.
While both programs are federally funded in the $300M to $400M range, PIL T revenue is
received by counties within 49 of the 50 states. Due to the timber nexus, SRS is primarily a
western state benefitting program; Oregon receives almost twice the amount ($63M) of the next
closest state (CA -$35M).
PIL T is been funded for FFY 13 through the federal MAP-21 transportation bill. In his proposed
FFY 14 budget, the President has proposed full funding for the program for another year while a
4 This amount is subject to CPI inflation adjustments as well as proportional reductions based on Federal budget shortfalls. etc.
s Approximately $259,000 more than the typical annual Altemative B amount.
6 Approximately $1,278,000 more than the typical annual Altemative B amount.
long-term sustainable funding solution is developed. (Note: The Interior Department collects
$148 in revenue from commercial activities on federal lands ).
SRS remains less politically stable, however the USFS has proposed a five-year extension of
the program, but at reduced (-20%) funding levels. SRS was extended through FFY 12 via
MAP-21, but is not currently funded in FFY 13. Oregon's federal delegation is pressing for
continuance of SRS.
It does not appear that Deschutes County's increased PIL T allocation will impact any SRS
allocation if SRS is extended. Given the PIL T funding allocation alternatives, Deschutes County
appears to be uniquely positioned to recoup a portion of prior SRS reductions through the PILT
program, while also potentially receiving SRS funding through future program extensions . The
Road Department's SRS allocation has decreased from approximately $3.0M in FY 08 to $1.2M
in FY 13. With no extension in FY 14, the Road Department has budgeted $360,000 in
estimated "actual" timber receipt revenue.
PIL T Allocation Proposal
Given the dollar-to-dollar influence between the FFY 13 increase in PIL T revenue and
corresponding decrease in SRS revenue (Roads and Title III only), a logical allocation scenario
for the PIL T increase would follow the typical allocation associated with the County's SRS
funding for Roads and Title III.
Deschutes County's historic SRS payment allocation is as follows :
Title I (County Road Department and County School Fund): 85%
Title \I (Resource Advisory Committee -USFS funding): 8%
Title III (Project Wildfire, search/rescue, wildfire protection plans): 7%
Given that the increase in PIL T is tied to Deschutes County Road Department (Title I) and
Natural Resource Department (Title III) funding loss, and in consideration of increased duties
(Weed District) and fiscal requirements of the Natural Resource Department, staff proposes the
following funding allocation of the increased FFY 137 PILT revenue ($1,278,000):
% of PILT (of Alt ADepartment Fund/Projects Totalminus Alt B portion)
Road 325 85% $1,086,000
Maintenance Reserve
proposed use Restore CIP Program
Callital Equillment Reserve
15% $192,000Natural Resources 327
Forestry Program
proposed use Title III Programming
Noxious Weed Education
Total 100% $1,278,000
Deschutes County has historically budgeted PIL T Revenue (Alternative 8 portion, $470,000+/-)
within the General Fund. Unlike many federal government programs, PIL T revenue is fairly
1 Deschutes County FY 14 Budget
unrestricted in that it may be used for "any governmental purpose". The above proposal
allocates anticipated FFY 13 PILT revenue that is above the County's average annual PILT
calculated via the Department of Interior's Alternative A methodology which accounts for the
County's reduction in recent SRS funding.
Sources:
This memo was prepared primarily from an evaluation of the PIL T and SRS programs via the
information contained in the following web links:
http://www.doi.gov/piltlupload/2013 PILT AnnualReport.pdf
http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/interior-announces-nearly-400-million-in-pilt-payments
to-rural-communities-for -police-fire-and-schools .cfm
http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/ptslhome
http://www.bendbulletin.com/appslpbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130614/NEWS01/306140384/0/SEA
RCH
As I do not claim to be an expert in either of these two federal programs, you may wish to have
the Finance Department verify or perform a similar evaluation of this nature.
FY 13-14 Budget Prep Review
Ideas for FY 14-15
• Budget Calendar adjustments
o Earlier budget kickoff to give departments more time
o Preliminary budget meetings
o
• Optional February meetings to obtain direction (General Fund support, fee
increases, staffing, etc)
• Required March {after budget submitted} meetings to go over specifics in
requested budget
• Additional time & review spent on capital budget preparation
• Internal service charges
o Remove Admin & BOCC
o Have ISF departments charge each other
o Additional advanced communication with operating departments
• May Budget Hearings
o More focused
• Major changes only
• Pre-identified issues
• Follow-up on last years issues
• Program Budget document
o Reformat budget tables
o Consistency between program budget and line items
• Streamline material prepared for Budget Committee
• Other suggestions?
Budget Committee (Citizen Members)
Summary of Budget Input
Clay Higuchi
Budget: Mid-year fiscal review in January. Includes updates on prior year recommendations (HBT, PERS,
school based health centers. CFC transition, etc.
PILT: One-time money. Do not spend it on any ongoing program or personnel. Suggest building or
equipment reserves. (agrees with Maier) Other ideas -repay debt to Solid Waste (original jail expansion
design), reduce Bethlehem Inn liability.
PERS: Do not change rates -all savings go to PERS reserve. (Option #1)
Mike Maier
PERS: Do not change rates -all savings go to PERS reserve. (Option #1)
PILT: One-time money. Do not spend it on any ongoing program or personnel. Suggest building or
equipment reserves.
Bruce Barrett
PERS: Do not change rates -all savings go to PERS reserve. (Option #1)
PILT: One-time money. Do not spend it on any ongoing program or personnel. Suggest building or
equipment reserves. (agrees with Higuchi) Other ideas -build up forgivable loan fund.
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
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board Work Session of July 29,2013
DATE: July 19,2013
FROM: Nancy Mooney, Contract Specialist, Deschutes County Health Services, 322-7516
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration of Board Signature ofIntent to Award Letter, Document No. #2013-419, declaring Ms.
Rhonda Schoenborn selected to contract with Deschutes County as a qualified provider of Adult Foster
Home services.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Deschutes County submitted a Request for Proposal (RFP) soliciting potential providers to operate a
county-owned Adult Foster Home (AFH) facility, or operate their own licensed AFH facility while
providing AFH services to Deschutes County clients. Deschutes County Health Services Department
(DCHS) receives fimding from the State of Oregon's Addictions and Mental Health Division (AMH)
to operate a single home with a five-bed capacity to provide AFH services for up to five (5) residents
with Severe and Persistent Mental Illness (SPMI).
The provider selected by DCHS (Ms. Rhonda Schoenborn) will work closely with DCHS Adult
Behavioral Health Program staff to provide all information necessary to meet AMH statutory and/or
regulatory requirements. In addition, the selected candidate will provide residential care that includes
provision of room, board and services that assist residents in activities of daily living, such as bathing,
dressing, grooming, eating, medication management, money management or recreation. Residential
care includes twenty-four (24) hour supervision; monitoring resident's activities to ensure their health,
safety, and welfare and providing social and recreational activities.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
At a maximum, funding may approximate $140,226 annually as determined based on monthly occupancy
and rates per individual resident. Contracted maximum compensation may be in a greater or lesser amount
depending on availability of fimds supplied by AMH.
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
It is the recommendation of the Health Services department that this Intent to Award Letter be signed by
the Board of County Commissioners.
ATTENDANCE: Travis Sammon
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
A fully executed copy to Nancy Mooney, Contract Specialist, Health Services Department.
l
t
Board of Cou Commissioners
P.O . Box 6005 • Bend, OR 97708-6005
1300 NW Wall St, Suite 206 • Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 3BB-6570· Fax (541) 385-3202
www.co .deschutes .or.us
board@co .deschutes.or.us July 29,2013 Tammy Baney
Anthony DeBone
RE: Adult Foster Home Request for Proposal Alan Unger
NOTICE OF INTENT TO AWARD CONTRACT
In July 2013, Deschutes County Health Services Department of Deschutes County, Oregon
considered proposals from providers who are willing to contract as a qualified provider to
deliver Adult Foster Home services for up to five (5) individuals ("residents") with Severe and
Persistent Mental Illness (SPMI) in either a County-owned facility or a facility owned, licensed,
and operated by the provider. Deschutes County Health Services determined that the
successful proposer for the project was: Ms. Rhonda Schoenborn, 13229 SW 64 th Ave. Portland
OR 97219.
This Notice of Intent to Award Contract is issued pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute (ORS)
279B.135. A copy ofthis Notice of Intent to Award is being provided to the firm or individual
that submitted a proposal for this service. See attached list. Any firm or person who believes
that they are adversely affected or aggrieved by the intended award set forth in this Notice,
may submit a written protest within seven (7) calendar days after the issuance of this Notice of
Intent to Award to the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon, at the
above address. The seven (7) day protest period will expire at 5:00pm on Monday, August 5,
2013.
Any protest must be in writing and specify any grounds upon which the protest is based. If a
protest is filed, a hearing will be held at 1O:00am on August 7, 2013, before the Board of County
Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon, acting as the Contract Review Board, at
Deschutes County Services Center, 1300 NW Wall St ., Bend, Oregon, 97701.
If no protest is filed within the protest period, this Notice of Intent to Award Contract becomes
an Award of Contract without further action by the Board of County Commissioners unless the
Board, for good cause, rescinds this i'Jotice before the expiration of the protest period. The
successful bidder on a Deschutes County project is required to execute the Contract.
C 20 3·419
Enhancing the Lives of Citizens by Delivering Quality Services in a Cost-Effective Manner
In addition to the execution of Contract, the Contractor will be required to provide applicable
certificate(s) of insurance.
If you have any questions regarding this Notice of Intent to Award Contract, or the procedures
under which the County is proceeding, please contact Travis Sammon, 541-330-4635.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ALAN UNGER, Chair
TAMMY BANEY, Vice Chair
ANTHONY DEBONE, Commissioner
Bidders list for the provision Adult Foster Home services for up to five (5) individuals
("residents") with Severe and Persistent Mental Illness (SPMI) in either a County-owned
facility or a facility owned, licensed, and operated by the provider
Sent via, First Class Mail and E-mail
Ms. Rhonda Schoenborn
13229 SW 64th Ave.
Portland, OR 97219
Ms. Roxanne Moscrip
Address not provided
e-mail: roxy.foxy911@hotmail.com
Ms. Sharon Jones
Terrango Glen AFH
534 SE Wildcat Dr.
Bend, OR 97702
.I!,.l_*,e OREGON EARLY LEARNING COUNCIL
Letter of Community Interest in Early Learning Hub
Demonstration Project
In August 2013, the Oregon Early Learning Council will release a statewide Request for Applications for
Early Learning Hub Demonstration Projects. The Council will award no more than seven hubs in round
one (2013), and will use a second application round (2014) to award no more than sixteen total hubs to
coordinate services to children statewide.
In order to plan for adequate technical assistance and support, the Early Learning Council is interested in
learning what entities are interested in applying to become Early Learning Hubs. Submitting a letter of
community interest is optional and non-binding. Responses to this letter will be posted on the Early
Learning Council website (insert link here) to facilitate community conversation and partner dialogue.
On August 12,2013 the Early Learning Council will host a statewide Early Learning Hub Summit to
provide support to communities interested in applying to become Early Learning Hubs. It is the ELC's
hope that communities will register for the conference in pods that represent each of the five sectors, and
a response to this letter will facilitate adequate planning for the conference.
A web-based application portal will be established for the Early Learning Hubs application process. This
portal will require applicants to log on to the system to input their application and required materials. A
log on for each Early Learning Hub application will be established to access this portal. Your letter of
interest will serve as a request for log-on to the application portal if you are applying in round one and the
letter is due by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, July 31.
Interested prospective applicants may submit their letter, addressed to the Early Learning Council, via
EarlyLearning.OEIB@state.or.us and should include the following information:
1. What organizations and stakeholders are participating in your collaborative planning to submit an
Early Learning Hub application?
2. Who is the lead applicant submitting on behalf of that planning process? Who is signing the Early
Learning Hub application?
3. What is the prospective Applicant's desired service area and population?
4. What local process has the prospective Applicant facilitated to engage partners across the five
sectors (K-12, health, social/human services, early education, and business) and families in the
planning of the application?
5. Do you plan to apply in round one (2013) or round two (2014)?
6. If you are applying in round one, please identify the name of the specific point of contact and their
email address so that a log-on for the web-based application portal can be established. Be aware
that only one log-on will be created per application and must be shared amongst people who will
be entering information into the portal. Users may want to create a new email expressly for this
purpose.
Thank you for your participation!
775 Court St NE Salem, OR 97301 • 503-373-1283
Central Oregon Early Learning (EL) System Development ".
Reviewed by WEBCO Advisory Council July 22, 2013 -DRAFT (7/27/13)
LETTER OF INTEREST -Recommendations for Key Components (Due July 31,2013)
1. Lead Applicant: WEBCO (Damien &/or Chair)
2. Organization and stakeholder participants: See EL process outline on page two
3. Service area and population: Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson Counties
4. Process to include 5 sectors and families: See EL process outline on page two
5. Decide whether to apply Round 1 (2013) or 2 (2014): Year one
6. Specific point of contact for EL Hub Application Portal: Hillary Saraceno
EL HUB APPLICATION TIME LINE
JULY
7/19 -ELC Community Letter and template received
7/29 -WEBINAR #1 (10:30 -11:15 a.m.): Collective Impact
7/31 -WEBINAR #2 (10:30 -11:15 a.m.): Community Readiness
7/31 -Letter of Intent due to ELC
AUGUST
• EL Hub Applications released with on-going state technical support
• Complete Pathways Mapping. Data summary reports dev. for each county
• Complete Provider and Community Readiness Assessments
8/1 -Regional Readiness Assessment Planning Work Group Meeting (Redmond)
8/1 -ELC promulgate emergency rules per HB2013
8/7 -WEBINAR #3 (10:30 -11:15 a.m.): Aligning Outcomes
8/12 -EL Summit (Salem)
SEPTEMBER
• Hub application development (see participant list on page 2)
• Stakeholder meetings and review of application (see participant list on page 2)
• Community parent focus groups (partner with Family Resource Center and Head
Start programs to develop and implement outcome goals/questions)
9/4 -ELC Hub Bidder's Forum (Bend); on-going technical support from the state
9/18 & 9/19 -ELC Visit to Central Oregon
OCTOBER
10/2 -EL Hub Applications due
10/22 -State review of applications completed
10/31 -ELC announces first round EL Hub Certifications
NOVEMBER
11/? -State convenes new Hub governing bodies for kick-off and transition workshop
NOVEMBER -DECEMBER
State and certified EL Hubs craft one year transition plan. Communities to lead on plan
creation while state provides support, capacity and technical assistance.
JANUARY
• Final transformation plans completed and ready for action at each EL Hub.
• On-going support and regular monthly check-ins between EL Hubs and state.
• EL Hubs provide legislative report in January; Early Learning Council provides
legislative report in February.
ll Page
Wellness and Education Board
of
Central Oregon (WEBCO)
DATE: July 31, 2013
To: Oregon Early Learning Council
From: Wellness and Education Board of Central Oregon (WEBCO)
Subject: LEDER OF INTEREST IN EARLY LEARNING HUB DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Ken Fa hlgren .
Co mmi ssio ner,
C roo k Co unty
Mike Ah em .
Commi ss io ner,
Jeffe r.;o n County
T amm)' Ban ey ,
Co mmi ssio n e r~
De.chutes Coun ty
Jo hn Rex ford,
Superintendent.
High D es en ESD
The Wellness and Education Board of Central Oregon, in partnership with the noted agencies and
stakeholders outlined in the attached document, submit this letter of interest in applying to be
certified as an Early Learning Hub (EL Hub) Demonstration Project.
LEAD APPLICANT :
The Wellness and Education Board of Central Oregon will be the lead applicant for this EL Hub
application . WEBCO will also continue to oversee the facilitation of the planning process and will be
the designated lead signature for the application. As requested, this letter of interest includes
signatures by lead representatives from each of the five sectors. As part of the application, all
participating collaborative planning agencies and partners within the five sectors will sign a
signature page to demonstrate their commitment, support, and participation in the development
of the regional early learning hub.
ORGANIZATIONS AND STAKEHOLDERS COLLABORATIVE PARTNERS
Please refer to the attached Central Oregon Early Learning System Development document for a
list of current collaborative partners engaged and committed to the development ofthe Central
Oregon Early Learning Hub.
SERVICE AREA AND TARGET POPULATION
The targeted service area includes the Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson Counties as well as the
Confederated Tribe of Warm Springs. The target population to be served will be at-risk 0-6 year
olds and their families who reside in the tri-county area. INSERT NUMBERS
PROCESS FACILITATION IN PREPARATION OF APPLICATION
Insert portions of the updated summary page documenting what has been done to date .
APPLICATION TIME FRAME CONSIDERATION
The Wellness and Education Board (WEBCO) will be applying for certification in round one (2013).
POINT OF CONTACT FOR El HUB APPLICAT ION
Hillary Saraceno, Regional Early Learning Development Manager
Deschutes County Health Services
1130 NW Harriman, Suite A
Bend, Oregon 97701
Mailing address : 200 NE Second Street, Prineville OR 97754
Business: (541) 447-6062 Fax: (267) 295-2059 Email: cohb.calendar@corhb.org
(541) 317-3178
hil s@ d eschutes.o rg (will be creating a separately designated email for the EL portal to share
amongst partners)
SIGNATURE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE SECTORS
See attached
Mailing address : 200 NE Second Street, Prineville OR 97754
Business: (541) 447-6062 Fax: (267) 295-2059 Email: cohb .cal endar@c orhb .org
? '
Oregon Early Learning Council
Wellness and Education Board of Central Oregon (WEBCO)
SIGNATURE PAGE OF COLLABORATIVE PARTNER LEADS FROM FIVE SECTORS
Wellness and Education Board
of
Central Oregon (WEBCO)
July 31, 2013
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ke n F ahlgren,
Conunission e r.
C rook Co un ty
il<lik e Ah em,
Commis sioner,
Jefferson Coun ty
T ammy Bane y.
Co mmi ssio ne r,
Deschute s Coun ry
John Rex ford,
Superintendent.
High D ese rt ES D
As requested , below are signatures of lead representatives from each of the five sectors indicating
commitment, support and participation in the development of the Central Oregon Early Learning Hub. As part
of the application , all participating collaborative partners from each sector will sign a commitment document.
LEAD APPLICANT: Wellness and Education Board (WEBCO)
Damien Sands, WEBCO Director Ken Fahlgren, WEBCO Chair, Crook Co. Commissioner
EARL Y LEARNING
Patty Wilson, Early Learning, Head Start and CCR&R Director
K-12 EDUCATION
John Rexford, High Desert ESD Superintendent
SOCIAL/HUMAN SERVICES
Scott Cooper, Neighborlmpact Director (Community Action Agency)
HEALTH CARE/CCO
Dan Stevens, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs, PacificSource
BUSINESS
Roger Lee, Economic Development of Central Oregon
Mailing address : 200 NE Second Street, Prineville OR 97754
Bu siness : (541) 447-6062 . Fax : (267) 295-2059 Email : cohb.cale nd ar@co rhb .org
Central Oregon Early Learning (EL) System Development
EL Hub Application due October 2. 2013
EL HUB APPLICATION -Primary Writers and Collaborative Planning Partners
1. WEBCO: Tom Machala, WEBCO Advisory Council Chair
2. Early Childhood:
a. EL Education:
i. Patty Wilson, Neighborlmpact CCR&R and Early Leaning/Head Start Director
b. Early Childhood Wellness:
i. Maggi Machala, DCHS LAUNCH Coordinator
3. K-12 Education: Paul Andrews, HDESD Deputy Superintendent and/or designee
4. Social Service/Human Services: Muriel DeLavergne-Brown, Director Crook Co, Health Dept.
5. Health Care/CCO: Kate Wells, Pacific Source/CCO
6. Business:
Other: County EL Leads/Contacts: Hillary Saraceno, Brenda Comini, Minda Morton
EL HUB APPLICATION -Secondary Reviewers and Collaborative Planning Partners
1. Lead Applicant: Well ness and Education Board of Central Oregon (WEBCO)
a. Damien Sands, Director
b. Ken Fahlgren, Chair and Crook County Commissioner
c. Mike Ahern, Jefferson County Commissioner
d. Tammy Baney, Deschutes County Commissioner
e. John Rexford, High Desert Education District Superintendent
2. Early Childhood:
a. Early Learning P-K:
i. Diane Tipton, EIjECSE Program Manager
ii. Kendra Coates, P-3 Coordinator, Sisters School District, HDESD
iii. Patricia Smith, Outreach Coordinator, Jefferson County Library
iv. Teresa Martin, Children's Learning Center, Jefferson County
v. Anna Higgins, Better Together Coordinator and COCC EC Professor
b. Early Childhood Well ness:
i. Kate Moore, Deschutes Co . MCH Program Manager
ii. Tom Machala, Jefferson County Health Department Director
c. Home Visiting and EL Programs:
i. Vicki Ertle, Family Resource Center and regional Parenting Hub
ii. Tim Rusk, MtStar Relief Nursery
iii. Holly Remer, Healthy Beginnings
iv. Kathy Thompson, Director of Healthy Families of the High Desert
v. Kate Moore, MCH Program Manager DCHS
d. Key Stakeholders: C.O. Early Childhood Collaborative, C.O. Parenting Education
Hub, LAUNCH, Head Start (Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson Counties)
3. K-12 Education:
a. Bend-La Pine School District: Lora Nordquist, Assistant Superintendent
b. Bend-La Pine School District: Bruce Abernethy, Grant Writer, COCC Board Chair
c. Crook County School District: Dr. Duane Yecha, Crook County Superintendent
d. Jefferson County School District: Barb Garland, Director of Special Programs
e. Redmond School District: Desiree Margo , MA Lynch Elementary Principal
f . Sisters School District: Jim Golden, Superintendent or designee
g. Higher Ed: Amy Howell, Central Oregon Community College, Director of EC
h. Central Oregon Community College: Anna Higgins, EC Professor and Better Together
i. Key Stakeholders: C.O. Education Council, Better Together
4. Social/Human Services:
a. Scott Cooper, Director of Neighborlmpact (Community Action Agency)
21P ag e
Central Oregon Early Learning (EL) System Development
b. Roy Jackson, Jefferson County DHS
c. Ron Parson, DHS District Manager and/or designee
d. Key Stakeholders: WIC, Communidad Latina en Accion, Child Abuse System Task Forc
5. Health Care/CCO:
a. PacificSource: Dan Stevens, Senior Vice President of Government Programs
b. Mosaic Medical: Elaine Knobbs
c. Jefferson County Health Department: Tom Machala, Director & Chair of AC
d. Deschutes County Health Services: Scott Johnson, Director
e. Key Stakeholders: C.O. Health Council
6. Business:
a. Roger Lee, Economic Development for Central Oregon Director and Better Together
b. Ken Wilhelm, United Way of Deschutes County Director
c. Better Together, Fight Crime Invest in Kids, Chamber, Kiwanis,
7. Parents: Community parent focus groups (partner with Family Resource Center and Head
Start Policy Councils). Also, CCO Citizen Advisory Council
8. CI/Data Analysts: Stephanie Sundborg, DCHS, Sarah Kingston, Pacific Source and ESD?
31 Pag e
Central Oregon Early Learning (EL) System Development
AUGUST 12,2013 EL SUMMIT -C.O. Proposed Reps for Designated Categories
1. Lead Applicant (WEBCO): Tom Machala, WEBCO AC Chair, Jefferson County Health Director
2. Early Childhood
a. P-K Education:
i. Patty Wilson, Neighborlmpact EL Director
ii. Diane Tipton, DHS EIjECSE Program Manager
iii. Amy Howell, Central Oregon Community College, Director of EC
iv. Anna Higgins, Better Together Coordinator and COCC EC Professor
v. Kendra Coates, P-3 Coordinator, Sisters School District, HDESD
vi. Kirsten Histake, Director of Tribal Head Start
vii. Patricia Smith, Outreach Coordinator, Jefferson County Library
viii.
b. EC Wellness Rep:
i. Kate Moore, DCHS-MCH Program Manager
ii. Maggi Machala, LAUNCH Coordinator
c. Key EL program Reps:
i. Vicki Ertle, Family Resource Center Director and regional Parenting Hub
ii. Holly Remer, Healthy Beginnings Director
iii. Tim Rusk, MtStar Family Relief Nursery Director
iv. Kathy Thompson, Healthy Families of the High Desert Director
3. K-12 Education Rep
a. Paul Andrews, HDESD Deputy Superintendent and Better Together Steering Comm.
b. Barb Garland, Director of Special Programs, Jefferson County 509J
4. Social Service/Human Services Rep
a. Muriel DeLavergne-Brown, Crook County Health Department Director
b. Pat Carey, DHS and Safely Reducing Foster Care Initiative Partner
5. Health Care/CCO Rep
a. Kate Wells, Pacific Source/CCO
b. Elaine Knobbs, Mosaic Medical?
c. Scott Johnson, Director Deschutes County Health Services
6. Business Rep
a. Anna Higgins, Better Together, Project Coordinator
b. (Ken Wilhelm unable to attend)
7. "Other": County EL Reps/Contacts: Hillary Saraceno, Brenda Comini, Minda Morton
Anyone from our region is also welcome to register for the summit as an individual.
41 P a ge