Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-29 Work Session Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 27, 2012 Page 1 of 13 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 MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator; Scott Johnson, Health Services; Nick Lelack and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development; Anna Johnson, Communications; Susan Ross, Property & Facilities; and about a dozen other citizens. Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Update on Volunteer Connect and Project Connect. Betsy Warriner gave a presentation on the work done by Volunteer Connect and their newest programs, Project Connect, Project Mobile Connect and Project Homeless Connect. They are engaging schools, colleges, businesses and volunteers. Their work is tri-county in nature. They asked for the County’s continuing support for the programs in general, but also the newest programs. Shellie Campbell has been overseeing the newest programs. About 350 people showed up for the Homeless Connect event. They are also working with COVO (Central Oregon Veterans Outreach) to provide a variety of services. They appreciate any financial contributions, but also spreading the word about the work they are doing in the region. Commissioner Baney said they are using an ‘incident approach’ structure, which helps them respond more quickly. Erik Kropp asked if the insurance concerns of previous years were addressed. Ms. Campbell stated that they have been able to do so for the entire program and events. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 27, 2012 Page 2 of 13 Pages Commissioner Baney suggested that the group make sure they apply for community grant funding in this year’s budget process; and perhaps a portion could be through the economic development grant program. The Board recommended they talk with David Inbody about both programs. 2. Discussion of BLM/USFS Sage Grouse Planning Strategy & Deschutes County’s Possible Involvement. Peter Gutowsky introduced Anita Bilbao, Acting District Manager, and Teal Purrington, Planning & Environmental Coordinator, Prineville BLM office. BLM hosted a kickoff meeting in Prineville to talk about Sage Grouse strategy. At a previous meeting, Mr. Gutowsky and the Board talked about the results of this meeting. They are now proceeding with the planning process. Ms. Bilbao said that a new Manager is coming in later in the year from Lakeview, and she is familiar with the issues. Ms. Bilbao stated that she has worked with Deschutes County on other issues in the past. This effort is a bit different, however, since it is a national issue. They are looking at existing land use plans (there are four here), asking questions about whether they are going where they need, and whether the existing plans are adequate or need to be amended. Prineville is not necessarily in the driver’s seat, and it is an amendment of an existing plan, as well as being very narrowly focused. There are limiting factors due to the national scope. There is a western set of states, and Oregon is a sub-group. Ms. Purrington stated that Washington is calling this a regulatory amendment, and they will say what needs to be done. Ms. Bilboa added that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife regulates the birds specifically, but the BLM is looking at their habitat. Commissioner Unger asked how well they work with property owners on dealing with the habitat, since they have a stake in this as well. Ms. Bilboa replied that BLM’s goal is to have cooperative partners and agencies. The BLM wants early and consistent involvement, and the ODF&W and U.S. Forest Service will be partners. There are tribal and other local governmental agencies involved as well. Local governments have local knowledge of the areas. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 27, 2012 Page 3 of 13 Pages It is valuable to have intergovernmental agreements in place in case there are conflicting issues, and to eliminate duplication of efforts. The BLM can help to reconcile differing opinions. There are other efforts to partner in the future, on issues that may be national in scope, or other more regional issues. The State BLM office has the lead on this particular issue in this area. Commissioner Unger asked for clarification of the roles so the proper person or office can be contacted if there are questions. Ms. Bilboa responded that they would provide details on this. She then referred to a document, the draft memorandum of understanding. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 set up the roles, and the BLM has its own version on how this was established. Chair DeBone stated that Deschutes County has some involvement. The Sage Grouse has had the protection of the Endangered Species Act, but evidently has not been high priority up till now. Peter Gutowsky said that in regard to resources, there is a draft MOU to provide context for a legal framework. It would not commit staff or the County to a specific set of demands on staff. The Board can determine the level of participation. Ms. Bilboa indicated that the last page of the draft MOU includes a table showing cooperating agency participation. It identifies the primary stages along the way and the various roles. They are in the scoping and issue identification stage through March 23. In terms of going forward and forming alternatives, that happens through June and July, and that is when they want to hear about planning and zoning on properties adjacent to BLM lands. In terms of estimating the effects and preferred alternatives, agencies may collaborate with the BLM, but this effort is meant to provide information to BLM that they may not have. There is no expectation for anyone from Deschutes County to attend meetings, but it can be benefi cial. It is meant to be almost a placeholder for the meetings. Ms. Purrington added that this is nothing like the Upper Deschutes planning process, which required heavy participation from the affected local agencies. Commissioner Unger noted that if something seems of concern to Deschutes County, it is important to address it right away. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 27, 2012 Page 4 of 13 Pages Ms. Bilboa said that the schedule could be extended as necessary if things come up and more information or research is needed. The goal is to make sure they need to do what they should for public lands. Mr. Gutowsky stated that this approach to public lands help avert a listing on the Endangered Species Act, if ways to prevent this are addressed. County Counsel has reviewed the draft MOU and feels it is acceptable. Chair DeBone said that he wants Deschutes County to show support as an eastern county. Commissioner Unger added that they would need to sign on and be engaged in the process. It has big implications for the eastern part of the state, and cooperation can help avoid potential conflicts. Ms. Bilboa stated that if there is no participation at this point, review at a later date would be very limited. Issues can and should be addressed early before they become part of the final draft document. Nick Lelack advised that Harney County is leading the state effort. The goal is to have outcomes by 2014 or 2015. Ms. Bilboa said that the intention is to get MOU’s signed by the end of March when scoping is done. Contact information may change, however, and a local contact can be added. Mr. Gutowsky noted that Oregon, when compared to other western states, has the best remaining habitat, and those resources need to be protected. Oregon could very well benefit from the process if some type of mitigation can be developed. 3. Health Services Update and Review. Scott Johnson explained that there is a lot going on with health reform, locally and beyond. SB 1580 passed and will become a reality. The Health Policy Board has prepared an implementation plan, which will help set the stage. The projection from the State of Oregon is that if they do not institute reform, the Medicaid costs to Oregon will go from $3.2 billion in 2013 to $11.7 billion by 2019. More and more people have come on the Oregon Health Plan and this trend will continue. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 27, 2012 Page 5 of 13 Pages The goal is to save $1 billion in the next three years. This involves mostly Medicaid, but everyone is in the same situation. He added that the use of tobacco products uses up about 10% of Medicaid costs. Most cost considerations are influenced by tobacco, obesity and chronic illnesses. He introduced Anne Pendygraft and Gretchen Rubaloff of Telecare/Deschutes Recovery Center, Brenda Finkle of St. Charles Medical Center, Paul Stell of Bend Metro Park & Recreation and the Public Health Advisory Board and the Behavioral Health Advisory Board. Also present were Kathleen Christensen and Tom Kuhn of Health Services. Draft Health Services Strategic Plan Discussion. Mr. Johnson said they are going through the process to make sure the stra tegic plan is compatible with current health reform. Tom Kuhn then did a PowerPoint presentation on this item. There were three pages of accomplishments, the health and mental health plans before the merger, and a single strategic plan for the whole department. They want to show what they will do during the next four or five years. If this is funded, it can serve three counties. Both Jefferson and Crook counties are using the same format now. They plan to conduct an annual review, as there are too many factors to just let it run for years. There are a lot of opportunities, and many challenges. The plan includes nine sections and 66 goals. They have been contracting out more services, and hope to find out what the County does best, but also maintai n a network of providers. The model is that funding comes to the County from the State, and is disbursed by the County. For greater efficiencies, there might end up being a regional location where this happens through the Health Board. They also have responsibility for compliance to make sure what needs to happen does. Staff did a good job with this document, which is very sweeping and ambitious. It will be a challenge to manage, but they have good staff. Commissioner Baney asked about how they balanced the work. The reply was that they gathered input from employees, so they got a good buy-in. Mr. Johnson said to let him know if there are any concerns or other things to be included. He added that this document will be needed to obtain national accreditation. Granting groups will be looking for this accreditation in the future. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 27, 2012 Page 6 of 13 Pages Tobacco Free Worksites – Discussion of Potential Expansion of Tobacco- free Policy on County-owned Properties David Visiko went through the presentation on tobacco usage, in particular the policy regarding smoking or using tobacco products on county-owned properties. He explained where the funding comes from, and what factors have the greatest or least effectiveness on tobacco use. A comprehensive approach is necessary, from counseling and education to socioeconomic factors. The Tobacco Prevention and Education Program has helped bring down the numbers since 1993. Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the U.S. Combine all other causes, and they are less than half of what smoking causes. In general, Deschutes County citizens are healthier and about 14% are smokers, as opposed to 19% in the State overall. Tobacco use is the cause of 22% of deaths in the County. It costs $5,600 per smoker per year, factoring in health care, work absenteeism, etc. Of the smokers in Deschutes County, 70% say they want to quit. There are also many who used to smoke and want to stay away from it as much as possible to eliminate smoking triggers. When it comes to health policy, tobacco users tend to honor it and carry it over to their homes and cars. A recent public survey involving 804 people indicated that 84% of the respondents wanted County properties to be tobacco free. To be tobacco free, management support is needed, a policy implementation committee needs to be formed, and sessions with staff need to happen. Adequate time is necessary to be sure everyone is clear on the policy. In terms of enforcement, the idea is that it would be a shared respo nsibility. Most people will comply. This effort received a letter of endorsement from the Public Health Advisory Board and the Wellness Task Force is pleased with the information. Enforcement is a concern, but it is the right policy. Brenda Finkle from St Charles said they have had tobacco-free grounds there for three years. Signage is critical. They had to educate the management team because of challenges with employees. They offered free tobacco cessation classes and nicotine gum. Enforcement regarding guests at the hospital is difficult and they have to be educated through cards that are handed out, explaining that patients can have allergic reactions to cigarette smoke. Some employees did end up stopping smoking. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 27, 2012 Page 7 of 13 Pages Erik Kropp asked if employees were disciplined for noncompliance. Ms. Finkle responded that there was probably no formal discipline. Caregivers were progressively counseled, and most are compliant. Paul Stell of Bend Park & Rec said that anticipation of the change was worse than the change itself. Implementation has been fairly easy. Usually they are compliant, mostly through peer pressure. Ms. Rubaloff stated that they are already doing this at the homes. No smoking is allowed at either facility in response to a statewide mandate. The most important thing is to be collaborative with everyone. Some have decided to quit because it has been made so difficult for them. They hope to be 100% tobacco - free everywhere, as a suitable response to the mission as health care providers. Staff has been positive. Susan Ross said she supports this from a facilities point of view. Some are smoking in the parking lot, and they have fires in the bark all the time. It would be easier if the policy was consistent throughout the county. There is a duty as representatives of the public to protect the public. Mr. Kropp indicated they made some changes in the county health policy, and anyone can get smoking cessation help free for ten weeks. They can still access the State quit line for two weeks free, and that is open those who are insured or not. Mr. Valisic said they got some funding mid-cycle and can pay for signage with that, but it has to be spent before the end of the year. Ms. Ross indicated that the County has 30-foot policy (from buildings); but the State adopted 10-foot policy, so people were confused. It depends on the entrance or the building in the local campus. Mr. Johnson noted that 37% of people on Medicaid smoke, as opposed to the 14% overall. Mr. Kropp asked for direction on a countywide policy, for all county properties. Chair DeBone said they should not have to ease into it, but should just do it. Mr. Stell stated that they alerted staff and it took a little time. Ms. Finkle added that three months seemed adequate for to educate everyone. There are very few issues now. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 27, 2012 Page 8 of 13 Pages Commissioner Baney said she would like to see a plan to work towards the education piece; something that might incentivize this change. She was advised that they did a kickoff party previously, a wellness raffle with prizes, and focused on wellness rather than having to stop doing something. Commissioner Unger noted that most employees are doing pretty well. Smokers seem to come into the State offices and Courthouse for other services. The policy is the right thing to do, but he is concerned about managing this on site. Commissioner Baney said that you won’t get everyone. It is meant to be an engagement and not punitive. They still have personal choice but it does not hurt to try to influence this. They need to have a unified message. Ms. Ross stated that they need receptacles so people don’t put out their cigarettes in the bark. It is just a matter of where to put them. Mr. Kropp said that some will ask where they can smoke, and that will be off the property or in their vehicle. Commissioner Baney noted that they need to transition through this as they have with other things, with perhaps phasing, incentive programs and education. Commissioner DeBone said he was ready to just put it in place now. BANEY: Move that County properties be tobacco-free, and that the County move forward with an implementation plan. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Potential Closure of the Deschutes County Downtown Health Center. Kathleen Christensen explained that a change is needed. The Center was started in 2006 to provide more outreach to teens and young adults, as part of her Public Health Nurse Leadership Institute project. The original funding came from the Male Advocates for Responsible Sexuality (MARS) program, and some staffing was provided through AmeriCorps volunteers. However, this is the last year for AmeriCorps. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 27, 2012 Page 9 of 13 Pages Visits have been declining over the past few years, and they reduced the open days to two a week. They provide reproductive health and immunization services. About 80% don’t have OHP or private insurance. Staff can still be productive, but they don’t have a lot of revenue. It started to become a huge STD clinic. About 79% of the clients are female. Approximately 64% of clients are age 18- 24, and 14% age 17 and under. Some were referred from the Courtney facility. The national standard for productivity is 80%, and this is down. It is not an efficient use of staff and there is a lot of maintenance involved for being there just two days a week. Planned Parenthood can provide information on reproductive health and STD’s also, but receives federal funding. She surveyed clinic staff and clients. They’d like to expand services longer each day at the Courtney facility. This would shore up the core instead of being spread out. The question is whether the message should go to the public in general or just clientele. Mr. Johnson suggested that they show how this will be more cost-efficient. Health Reform Update, including ABHA Status. Mr. Johnson explained how ABHA fits into the County’s services. Medicaid dollars come in to Pacific Source, who sends them to ABHA, and some come to Deschutes County for indigent health services. The new Health Board will include funding from both Medicaid and indigent clients. This is a critical time for ABHA, with possible dissolution. There are five participating counties. The IGA is worded to allow change only with four yes votes. Mark Pilliod is trying to craft the proper document. David Givens said a key component is the financials. Mr. Johnson said that ABHA is trying to market business opportunities, separate from Deschutes County and maybe from other counties. The CCO is emerging soon, and they probably need to move on with some of the changes. Commissioner Baney stated that one option is an amicable separation of duties and financials; a hybrid. However, that may not be the best-case scenario. She indicated that ABHA was setting up private business using public funds. Two other counties, Lincoln and Benton, may not remain with ABHA. Jefferson and Crook may part. Capital and liabilities remain in question. ABHA’s efforts may spring into a private company, capitalized by the County. This was never the intention, services versus job security. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 27, 2012 Page 10 of 13 Pages Mark Pilliod added that apart from normal audits, it was discovered that ABHA is sitting on $7 million in reserves. If the County withdraws without a dissolution, that money could be forfeit to the other counties. Most of it has come from Deschutes County. Dissolution is the preferred option, with funds distributed based on how the funds were collected. It is apparent that Lincoln and Benton counties were treating the discussion of withdrawal of Deschutes, Crook and Jefferson counties as the same as dissolution, but it is quite different. ABHA meeting minutes are informal and the agendas very general. Actions taken depend on the quality of the person taking the minutes to know what they are doing. They need a written motion with clarity regarding actions. If a motion requires four votes and fails, it does not mean that the member counties would therefore withdraw. The alternatives are murky, and there is no clear picture of what Lincoln and Benton counties will do if the eastern counties withdraw. They may not be being devious, but just don’t know. There might be other options, but it is very unclear. He has worked out a proposed motion. Commissioner Baney said that Crook and Jefferson counties want to see Deschutes County out of ABHA so that dollars can be kept local and keeping goals can be clearer. But, they have little to lose if they pull out. Deschutes County has the biggest burden and would have the biggest financial impact. Mr. Pilliod stated that if this fails, they have to return to their core mission. Mr. Kropp said that they talk of private business that they want to engage in, but that is not core work. Mr. Pilliod noted that this would commit ABHA resources towards new work. With Board approval, he will contact Jefferson and Crook county representatives. With their consent, he would discuss this with Lincoln County counsel, who has been actively involved as a non-voting member of ABHA for a long time. At the last meeting, the Board authorized ABHA legal counsel to engage an auditor to help understand the funds and how they are restricted. Also, to help answer the question of how restricted those funds are, and will those restrictions persist or be distributed. This will go forward anyway. Commissioner Baney said the stakes got higher when it went from $1 million to $7 million. She is not sure what Lincoln and Benton want to do. There are several options. She is trying to find out from Benton County. They are courting other counties to see if they want to join ABHA, and other companies are courting them. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 27, 2012 Page 11 of 13 Pages There are lots of moving parts. During this time, though, the County can’t stop providing the work that needs to happen. She voted ‘no’ to continue with some of the work, but she was just one out of five. Mr. Johnson noted that Deschutes County is about two-thirds of the pie, which is significant. Mr. Kropp said that ABHA is looking for future contracts. This is a critical time. Mr. Pilliod added that they need an update to explain the current situation and to answer questions. And the Board needs to assess whether this is the best approach. They have three votes for sure, but need a fourth. If the motion fails, ABHA will continue down the same path and may hold funding hostage. That influences what can be done here. Mr. Givans said that there is supposed to be accounting for reserves by county, not as ABHA as a whole. The language is unclear. Mr. Kropp noted that this is a legal issue, and they need to be able to determine how the funding breaks down. Mr. Pilliod added that employees are entitled to income, PERS, etc., and there are probably potential liabilities. An amount has to be set aside for that. Commissioner Baney said they need to meet in person and get down to work. They need to reduce liabilities and allow for better access to services. 4. Other Items. The Board then went into Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2(h), pending or threatened litigation. The following action was taken after executive session (a copy of the letter is attached for reference): BANEY: Move approval of signature of the draft letter regarding LUBA Case #2011-121, REAO Settlement Negotiations UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. ___________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 27, 2012 Page 12 of 13 Pages Mr. Lelack said that they have reached the application deadline for the extension regarding the Historical Landmarks Commission memberships. He suggested they be non-specific as to area. Sisters received no applications. This change requires a text amendment. The applicants seem to be quality but don’t fit the criteria as to areas. The Board was supportive. ___________________________ Mr. Lelack said that Mr. Irvine’s term as Planning Commissioner ends on June 3 0, 2012, and he plans to retire and travel. This is an at-large position. The process to find a replacement should begin in April. ___________________________ Commissioner Baney stated that Matt Cyrus is getting pushback regarding the spreading of viridian waste on fields. Tom Anderson explained that the issue is with the Department of Agriculture. If something is designed for farm use, it has to pass muster with the State. A company contracts with breweries to find farmers to take this waste. The company goes to the Department of Agriculture, which approves this as a beneficial agricultural use. The County is out of that loop. This process does not come into play with solid waste issues or land use code. Commissioner Baney said there have been complaints about the smell. Everyone wants the government out of their property rights until it happens to be something they don’t like. Some are trying to get the county involved. Mr. Anderson said the Farm Bureau can weigh in, but this should not be po litical. It is a use issue and the Department of Agriculture would say it is similar to spreading manure. Not all fertilizers smell good. And as a beneficial agricultural use, the conversation stops there. ___________________________ The Board discussed possible dates for an annual retreat. There will not be all three Commissioners in the office on the same days until probably March 26. Commissioner Unger suggested that Mr. Kropp produce a memo detailing anything that needs attention or updating. Commissioner Baney asked if this affects the budget process. Mr. Kropp feels that the budget will be basically status quo, but he can detail which departments are struggling more than others. The goals and objectives need to be reviewed. Commissioner Baney said that it does not need to be as detailed as it has been in the past. She suggested that they might want to look at what to share or consolidate. Chair DeBone wondered about finding out from departments what they think things might look like five years out. They want to talk about the Sheriff's proposal for a training facility, and what other requests or needs there might be for general fund dollars. Commissioner Unger feels that more attention should be focused on the work of the Fair/Expo Center, since they might be missing opportunities there. Mr. Kropp stated that he would like to come up with a few general questions for all departments. The Budget Committee would like to see the basics plus some new things to consider. A tentative retreat date of April 3, all day, was agreed upon. The Board then went into Executive Session, called under ORS J92.660(2(a), to consider the employment ofa County Administrator. Being no further discussion, the meeting ended at 4: J 0 p.m. DATED this tf6. DaYOf )y)aA. ~ 2012 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Anthony DeBone, Chair Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTEST: ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, February 27, 2012 Page 13 of 13 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, FEBRUARY 27, 2012 1. Update on Volunteer Connect and Project Connect -Betsy Warriner & Shellie ] Campbell, Volunteer Connect l 'I i 2. Discussion of BLMlUSFS Sage Grouse Planning Strategy & Deschutes County's Possible Involvement Peter Gutowsky I 3. Health Services Update and Review Scott Johnson • Draft Health Services Strategic Plan Discussion • Tobacco Free Worksites Discussion of Potential Expansion of Tobacco­ free Policy on County Grounds • Potential Closure of the Deschutes County Downtown Health Center I I • Health Reform Update, including ABHA Status I l 4. Other Items Executive Session, under ORS 192. 660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation. 1 I Ii I 'I I 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 ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues. Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board ofCommissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St.• Bend, unless otherwise indicated. ifyou 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 nY. Please call (541) 388·6571 regarding alternative fonnats or for further infonnation. c: o I 15 I V'I oJ V'I , Q) .~ s.... ~ "0 11 "0 '" co 1 .­'1 CO ~ E qI _ Q) ~ 'Il t;... Q) c o .r; c.. i V'I ~ CO c.. 4­o Corporate Packet Employee Volunteering Give a little. Get a lot . Volunteer Connect offers "one-stop shopping" for getting connected with just about every Central Oregon non-profit you can think of. Your employees can help children learn to read through the SMART reading program, restore riverbank habitat through the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, prepare meals for Bethlehem Inn guests who are homeless, guide after-school activities for the Boys &Girls Clubs, among many other fun -and meaningful-ways to get involved. Make a difference in your comm uni -and for your employees. Volunteer programs turn good workplaces into great workplaces . Volunteer Connect makes it easy. We can: Help your employees find individual volunteer opportunities Help your company find group volunteer opportunities • Record employee volunteer hours through our website Provide sign-ups, waivers, and other important forms Why start a volunteer program? Volunteer programs are a proven way to get employees excited about their work and their community. Volunteering reinforces teamwork and collaboration Volunteering fosters a sense of camaraderie among employees Volunteering helps employees develop leadership, problem-solving and public-speaking skills Volunteering shows the community your company cares Get started today! I , Contact Betsy Warriner at 541-385-8977 or email betsy@volunteerconnectnow.org to find out more. -volunteer 541 38 5 .8 9 77 I www .volunteerconnectnow.o rg I 404 NE Norton Ave. Bend , Or egon 97701 t con.n.ect , .1 Corporate Sponsorship Sponsorship that keeps giving. Your sponsorship doesn't just help one non-profit -it helps hundreds of non-profits through a single donation. By connecting individuals with volunteer opportunities, Volunteer Connect leverages the time, expertise and compassion of concerned citizens to make sure that non-profits are able to continue delivering critical services to those who most need them. Annual Sponsorship Levels: LEAD SPONSOR -53000 Membership with our Employee Volunteering staff development program . Corporate name and logo prominently displayed: • On all pages of Volunteer Connect website • In Volunteer Connect monthly newsletter for one year • At all Volunteer Connect community events Who weta re and w hat we do : EVENTSPONSOR-51000 Membership with our Employee Volunteering staff development program. Corporate name and logo prominently displayed: • On Sponsor page of Volunteer Connect website • In three Volunteer Connect monthly newsletters • At Volunteer Connect community event of choice CONNECTING SPONSOR -5500 Membership with our Employee Volunteering staff development program . Receive information on volunteers connected through Sponsorship . Corporate name and logo prominently displayed : • On Sponsor page of Volunteer Connect website • In one Volunteer Connect newsletter Volunteer Connect is Central Oregon 's link to volunteer opportunities. We connect individuals, families, students and employees with ongoing and one-time volunteer opportunities to help meet important community needs and to promote lifelong civic engagement. We also put on community-wide volunteer events for hundreds of volunteers at a time, including Martin Luther King, Jr. Day of Service and Project Connect, a one-day event that brings vital serv i ces to people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. Contact Betsy Warriner at 541-385-8977 or email betsy@volunteerconnectnow.org to find out more . . volu.nteer 541.385 .8 977 I www .volunt e erconnectnow .or g I 404 NE Norton Av e. I Bend , O r egon 97701 ' con.n.ect Our Partners 1000 Friends of Oregon Abilitree After School Buddies American Cancer Society American Red Cross Arts Central Awbrey House Assisted Living BEAT (Bend Experimental Art Theatre) Bend Area Habitat For Humanity Bend Beautification Program Bend Park &Recreation District Bend's Community BikeShed Bend's Community Center Bethlehem Inn Big Brothers Big Sisters Boys &Girls Clubs Breakaway Promotions Camp Fire USA CASA Cascade School Of Music Cascade Youth & Family Center Central Oregon 211 Central Oregon Council on Aging Central Oregon Disability Support Network Central Oregon LandWatch Central Oregon Partnerships For Youth Central Oregon Veterans Outreach Common Table Commute Options Crook County Fairgrounds Deschutes Children's Foundation Deschutes Economic Alliance Deschutes Land Trust Deschutes Public Library Deschutes River Conservancy Deschutes River Woods Neighborhood Association DHS Deschutes Volunteer Services DHS Jefferson Volunteer Services Downtown Bend Business Association East Cascades Audubon Society Family Access Network Family Kitchen Family Resource Center Film Oregon Alliance Four Winds Foundation Friends Of Bend Libraries Friends Of Oregon Badlands Wilderness Friends With Flowers Girl Scouts Grandma's House Healing Reins Healthmatters Healthy Beginnings Healthy Families Heart Of Oregon Corps High Desert ESD -Plaza Comunitaria Human Dignity Coalition Humane Society of CO Hunger Prevention Coalition Icon City Presents Innovation Theatre Works Interfaith Volunteer Caregivers KIDS Center KPOV Community Radio Kurera Foundation La Pine Community Kitchen La Pine Park & Recreation District Latino Community Association Let's Pull Together MountainStar Family Relief Nursery National Multiple Sclerosis Society Natural Areas Foundation Neighborlmpact New Generations Early Childhood Education Center Office Of The Long Term Care Ombudsman Opportunity Foundation Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) Partnership to End Poverty Planned Parenthood Redmond Area Park And Recreation District Redmond-Sisters Hospice River West Neighborhood Association Ronald McDonald House Saving Grace SCORE Central Oregon Serendipity West Foundation Sierra Club Juniper Group Sisters Volunteer Bank Slow Food High Desert SMART SOLV Special Olympics St. Vincent De Paul, La Pine St . Vincent De Paul, Redmond Sunriver Nature Center &Observatory The Bend Spay And Neuter Project The Environmental Center The Heart Campaign The Shepherd's House The Trust For Public Land Think Again Parents Substance Abuse Prevention Teams Together For Children Trout Unlimited Trusted Sports Foundation United Way Of Deschutes County Upper Deschutes Watershed Council VegNet Bend Visit Bend Vital Provisions Program Volunteers In Medicine Westside Village Magnet School I volun.teer . I 541 .385 .8977 I www.volunteerconnectnow.org I 404 NE Norton Ave. I Bend, Oregon 97701 con.n.ect I Sp , nsorship Enrollment We're ready to sign up! Our company is excited to help build a stronger, more connected Central Oregon. We're happy to sponsor Volunteer Connect at the following level: Lead Sponsor $3000 Event Sponsor $1000 Connecting Sponsor $500 Payment Information Company Name _______________________________________________________________ Con tact Person ____________________________________________________________ Address Phone ________________________ Email ___________________________________ Payment Options Our check is enclosed __ Please send us an invoice __ We are donating online at www.volunteerconnectnow.org (Just click on the Donate button.) Volunteer Connect is a SOl (c) (3) nonprofit organization . . volunteer 541 .385.8977 I www .volunteerconnectnow.org I 404 NE Norton Ave . I Bend , Oregon 97701 connect I volunteer --, [ co:n.:n.ect What is Volunteer Connect? In January 20lO, with support from the Deschutes County Commissioners, the Partnership to End Poverty, United Way, and multiple other community organizations, Volunteer Insights became Volunteer Connect and expanded to become Central Oregon's volunteer center. Volunteer Connect is now the region's central resource for potential volunteers to connect with opportunities to make a meaningful difference in Deschutes, Crook, and Jefferson Counties . In 2011, we connected over 1700 volunteers with opportunities to serve our communities through 110 community agencies, primarily in Deschutes County. In the fall of2011, Volunteer Connect welcomed the opportunity to house and manage Project Connect and Project Mobile Connect, with the prospect of engaging hundreds of volunteers in helping homeless and low-income community members improve their lives . The central objectives of Volunteer Connect are: 1) To connect volunteers with ongoing and one-time volunteer opportunities. 2) To engage volunteers in community-wide volunteer events, including Martin Luther King, Jr. Day of Service and Project Connect. 3) To match corporate employees with volunteer opportunities and service projects, building teamwork, leadership, and community presence. 4) To engage school and college students in service-learning, developing lifelong community engagement and leadership. 5) To help individuals who are seeking employment to connect with volunteer opportunities that build their job skills, community connections, and employability . 6) To lead volunteer management workshops to build community organizations' capacity to utilize volunteers. Request for Funding Support With appreciation for your previous support, we are requesting 2012 funding from the Deschutes County Commissioners for Project Connect, Project Mobile Connect, and ongoing volunteer engagement in Deschutes County, to serve our key objectives. Program: Volunteer Engagement Proiect ConnectIProject Mobile Connect Objectives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 2 Request: $2000 $5000 •CENTRAL OREGON PROJECT CONNECT What is Project Connect? Project Homeless Connect (PHC) began in San Francisco in 2004. Volunteers and agencies gathered on one day, in one place, to provide health and human services to the homeless. Since 2004, PHC has become a national event held in more than 100 cities . Portland and Eugene were the first in Oregon to adopt the PHC model, uniting hundreds of volunteers and agencies under one roof to provide health and human service to more than 4,000 community members in need. In 2007, the Central Oregon Community, under the leadership of the Partnership to End Poverty and the 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness, implemented the first Central Oregon Project Homeless Connect. After a successful first event, the name was changed to Project Connect in order to welcome anyone to attend who is experiencing a need for services. In 2011, The Partnership to End Poverty asked Volunteer Connect to take over management of Project Connect. Volunteer Connect is Central Oregon's premier volunteer center. Our mission is to connect volunteers to meaningful volunteer experiences. With over 800 volunteers serving guests at Project Connect, Volunteer Connect was the logical home for the event. The specific objectives of Project Connect are threefold: 1) To help homeless and low-income guests improve their lives by accessing needed services. 2) To involve volunteers and organizations in improving the lives of low-income and homeless populations by providing a supportive environment in which to serve. 3) To inform and educate the region on how our service organizations, agencies and volunteers can help reduce homelessness and to motivate individuals to be involved in the solution. Project Connect is a one-day, one-stop event serving guests who are low-income, homeless or at risk of homelessness. The event is held at the Deschutes County Fairgrounds in Redmond. Guests include low-income and homeless people from Deschutes, Crook and Jefferson counties and the Warm Springs reservation. Services Provided Medical Legal Aid Community Health VeteranslEducation Dental Employment Immunizations Social Services Vision Children's Services Housing Nutrition Clothing Addiction Services Haircuts Finance Food Identification/Birth Certificates Project Connect over the years Year Guests Served Volunteers Value to the Community 2007 1200 500 $360,000 2008 1838 600 $400,000 2009 2257 662 $535,090 2010 2597 680 $595,242 2011 3421 809 $603,967 2012 September 22! Key Partners Project Connect would not be possible without the hundreds of dedicated volunteers who provide valuable services on the day of the event. Many of those volunteers are community partners who work to provide support and develop systems to meet the needs of the fragile population Project Connect serves. It is the support and coordination with our partners that has made Project Connect a success. St. Charles Medical Center Deschutes County Medical Teams International State Of Oregon COVO FAN Neighbor Impact Community Banks Partnership to End Poverty Habitat for Humanity Faith Community Legal Aid Services of Central Oregon Bethlehem Inn COCC Housing Works Abilitree Community Health Agencies OSU -Cascades Project Mobile Connect After evaluating the successful Project Connect, the organizers determined that once a year may not always meet the needs of each community or guest. Project Mobile Connect was introduced in 2011 with support from a grant from the Oregon Community Foundation. In 2011, eight Project Mobile Connect events occurred, serving LaPine, Bend, Deschutes River Woods, Sun River, Redmond, Prineville, Madras, and Sisters. Volunteer Connect will work with volunteers and community agencies to provide five Project Mobile Connect events in 2012. We will offer the events in LaPine, Bend, Redmond, Prineville and Madras. A major goal of Project Mobile Connect is to provide services to those who did not attend Project Connect or who need additional services. Another goal is to have each Project Mobile Connect embraced by the local community in order to provide long term sustainability. Summary Volunteer Connect has welcomed and integrated Project Connect and Project Mobile Connect into the organization's ongoing programs, which connect volunteers with people in need to build stronger communities in Central Oregon. In 2012, Project Connect and Project Mobile Connect will engage more than 800 trained volunteers, including 25 volunteer leaders, and more than 150 service organizations and community business partners in serving more than 3 ,400 guests experiencing homelessness or are underserved. volu11teer ----, [ COr1r1ect Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O, Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: February 22,2012 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner MTG: February 27, 2012 Work session RE: Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy I Cooperating Agency Discussions with BlM BlM Presentation The purpose of the February 27 work session is to discuss an opportunity for the Bureau of land Management (BlM) and Deschutes County to work together in development of the BlM's Greater Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. Anita Bilbao, Acting Prineville District Manager and her staff will make a short presentation and be available to answer questions. At the meeting BlM will summarize the schedule for this project, explain BlM and Cooperating Agency roles, and describe the benefits, limitations and time commitment of Cooperating Agency partiCipation. Their goal is to present enough detail that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) can understand the process and make a decision about whether it is in Deschutes County's interest to serve as a Cooperating Agency on this project. Attached for the Board's review are a draft Memorandum of Understanding and a general factsheet. Background In April 2010, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determined that protection of the greater sage-grouse under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) was warranted. However, listing the greater sage-grouse was precluded at this time by the need to address other listings facing greater risk of extinction. The sage-grouse is now a candidate species for listing. The primary threats to the sage-grouse across its range are: habitat loss and fragmentation, including wildfire; invasive plants; energy development; urbanization and agricultural conversion and grazing. More than any native species since the spotted owl, the sage grouse sparks direct conflict with traditional industries and emerging, large-scale renewable energy projects, from livestock grazing to the construction of wind turbines and power lines. The status of the sage grouse, both biologically and legally, is important to the state of Oregon because so much of Central and Eastern Oregon consists of sage grouse habitat. If sage grouse is protected as a threatened or endangered species, federal agencies will be required to consult with USFWS on projects and approvals that may affect the sage grouse. "Taking" a sage grouse will be illegal, and the USFWS will be required to designate "critical habitat," resulting in further restrictions upon activities in those areas.1 1 The ESA comprehensively defines "take" to encompass any direct or indirect harm to the species, including impacts to habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavioral pattems such as breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering. Quality Services Perfonned with Pride BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy What is the BlM National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy? The BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy is a planning approach that provides the framework and structure for transparent interagency and stakeholder collaboration on long-term greater sage-grouse conservation and habitat restoration. Under the planning strategy, the BLM will review ~~~~~~~~~i= its principal, existing regulatory framework for ~ sage-grouse conservation-the land use planning process-to detennine the development and implementation of new or revised regulatory mechanisms. The focus will be on incorporating regionally-appropriate, science-based conservation measures into BLM land use planning efforts through coordinated, cooperative stakeholder engagement. Greater sage-grouse benefit from and make use of suitable habitat-regardless of land ownership and management responsibility, so the BLM planning strategy uses an open and collaborative approach to foster cooperative conservation efforts across the regions and states that make up the greater sage-grouse range. The planning strategy illustrates the Bureau's continued commitment to long-term, rangewide sage-grouse conservation and habitat restoration and acknowledges the added value of engaging all stakeholders in cooperative conservation efforts. Why was a new planning approach developed? In April 2010, the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found that the greater sage-grouse warrants the protection of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) but that listing the species was precluded by the need to address other, higher-priority species first. One reason for the FWS decision was an identified need for more adequate regulatory mechanisms to ensure species conservation. The FWS greater sage-grouse decision placed the species on the candidate list for future action, which provided stakeholders such as Federal agencies, states, and private landowners with additional opportunities to continue working cooperatively to conserve the species and restore its habitat. The BLM also used this opportunity to develop the new planning strategy, which is directed ~=eE~ toward long-term conservation and habitat restoration on BLM-adroinistered lands rangewide. ' BlM National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Highlights • Creates a rangewide approach that allows for improved collaboration and coordination and addresses ecoregional differences by dividing sage-grouse range into an Eastern Region and a Western Region. • Eastern Region will include Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, northeastern Utah, and Wyoming where major sage-grouse threats include habitat loss and fragmentation due to energy development-both oil and gas and renewables. • Western Region will include California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and most of Utah, with a small portion of southwestern Montana where major sage-grouse threats include habitat loss and fragmentation due to invasive plant species and wildfIre impacts. • Creates several governance teams to ensure ongoing coordination and oversight, both regionally and nationally, using an interagency and multi-state approach that engages aU stakeholders. • A National Policy Team will provide national policy guidance on sage-grouse conservation and consistent planning objectives. • A National Technical Team (NTI) will use the best science available to derive recommended conservation measures. • Two Regional Management Teams (RMTs) will coordinate planning and strategy implementation efforts across the states and provide direction at specifIc points to ensure consistency. • Two Regionallnterdisciplinarv Teams (RlDTs) will coordinate the development of EISs and RMP amendments using policy guidance provided by the National Policy Team. • State-Ievellnterdisciplinary Teams (SlOTs) will conduct the required environmental analyses to transform goals and objectives into regulatory mechanisms for greater sage-grouse conservation. Oregon Implementation of the National Strategy New RMP Amendments in FY 2012 Implementing the National Greater Sage-grouse Planning Strategy allows Oregon BLM the opportunity to fully consider long-term sage-grouse conservation and habitat restoration guidance contained in the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon published by Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife. To date, an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) has been formed, a contractor hired and the Resource Management Plan (RMP) process has begun. Historic Sage-grouse habitat encompassed 17.7 minion acres in Oregon (prior to Euro­ American settlement). Currently, Sage-grouse occupy 14-15 million acres in Oregon which is approximately 80% of their historic distribution. About 70% of the current Sage­ grouse distribution (about 10 million acres) occurs on lands administered by BLM. Ongoing RMP Efforts in Oregon Oregon BLM will consider new sage-grouse conservation information as part of the following ongoing RMP and accompanying National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) efforts: Baker RMP revision (Vale) John Day RMP revision (Prineville) Lakeview RMP amendment (Lakeview) Southeastern Oregon RMP amendment (Vale) Oregon BLM will be revising or amending the RMPs below and expects to begin a 60-day formal public scoping period on or about Dec. 9 of this year following publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register: Andrews Burns District Brothers LaPine (East) Prineville District Steens Burns District Two Rivers Prineville District Three Rivers Burns District Upper Deschutes Prineville District A lot of good work has already been done by BLM and our partners to conserve and restore sagebrush habitat as evidenced by 80% of the historic range is occupied by sage-grouse. Considering the ODFW strategy and other conservation measures at the planning and regional scale provides an opportunity to continue the good work and adjust plan direction where necessary for the conservation of the species. Updated as of 1112912011 • • •• • Bureau of Land Management Eastern Oregon RMP Boundaries and 'egon Department of FISh and Wildlif, BAKER Sage-Grouse Core Habitat ••• 1989 Legend TWO : RIVERS : 1986 @ BLM Office •..• • Bt;~:q---Active RMP Boundary • ••••• Draft RMP Boundary ODFW Greater Sage­ grouse Habitat I· -.'~.~-?! Core Area Low Density r=]BLM Administered Land U 0 U ~ ~ I I I I I "'1M NW*' <:::s£T s ND_ff~lIt ~bylhe8urNU ot Land~nI _~'IhI~,~DI'"~UlI __ ~==:.:=:.:..::..c;: I :. \\""-''---,----l­--,r-; InkN'InIIIIon ....,.not ..... ............ ~ ~TNlptDGUtI _~...... ~ ............... o.~..-u.a~ KLAMATH FALLS Lakeview@Klamath @ Falls MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN DESCHUTES COUNTY AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BY AND THROUGH THE OREGON/WASHINGTON BLM STATE DIRECTOR REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT CONSERVATION STRATEGY, WESTERN REGION, OREGONIWASHINGTON SUB-REGION I Memorandum of Understanding Between Deschutes County and the Bureau of Land Management For Amendment of the Resource Management Plans and Associated Environmental Impact Statement regarding Greater Sage-grouse Conservation for the BLM Districts With Lands Within Deschutes County Parties to and Purpose for this Document: This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into between Deschutes County and the United States Department of the Interior (DOl), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) by and through the OregonlWashington Director (BLM), for the purpose of coordinating and cooperating in conducting an environmental analysis and preparing the draft and final Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for the greater sage-grouse habitat conservation strategy. These EISs will be coordinated under two regions: an Eastern Region and a Western Region. The Eastern Region includes land use plans in the states of Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and portions of Utah and Montana. The Westem Region includes land use plans in California, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, and portions of Utah and Montana. Within these Regions, sub-regional interdisciplinary teams (IDTs) will be developing individual EISs. Based on the identified threats to greater sage-grouse and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) timeline for making a listing decision on this species, the BLM aims to incorporate objectives and conservation measures into Resource Management Plans (RMPs) (for the purpose of this document, the term "RMP" applies to all land use plans) by September 2014 in order to conserve greater sage-grouse and avoid a potential listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Therefore, the BLM will conduct these EISs under expedited timeframes. 1. This MOU establishes Deschutes County as a "cooperating agency" in the environmental impact analysis and documentation process and establishes procedures through which Deschutes County will participate with the BLM sub-regional IDT to conduct the analyses and develop the EIS. Deschutes County has been identified as a cooperating agency because it has special expertise with respect to local land use regulations, laws, and as well as local knowledge of social or political conditions (40 CFR 1508.5). This MOU applies specifically to the lands within Deschutes County in the OregonlWashington Sub-Region within the Western Region. 2. Authorities: This MOU has been prepared under the authorities for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and federal regulations codified at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1500-1508, and 43 CFR Part 46; and BLM's planning regulations (in particular 43 CFR 1601.0-5, 1610.3-1, and 1610.4). 3. Background: In April 201 0 the FWS published its listing decision for the greater sage­ grouse as "Warranted but Precluded." The FWS identified the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms as a major threat in the FWS finding on the petition to list the greater sage­ grouse. The FWS has identified the principal regulatory mechanism for the BLM as conservation measures in RMPs. Based on the identified threats to the greater sage-grouse and the FWS timeline for making a listing decision on this species, the BLM needs to i 2 ~ I 1 incorporate explicit objectives and adequate conservation measures into RMPs within the next 3 years in order to conserve greater sage-grouse and avoid a potential listing under the Endangered Species Act. Under the planning strategy, the BLM will evaluate the adequacy of its RMPs and address, as necessary, revisions and amendments throughout the range of the greater sage-grouse (with the exception of the bi-state population in California and Nevada and the Washington state population segment, which will be addressed through other planning efforts). The BLM has determined that the proposed strategy is a major federal action which requires the preparation of an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The BLM will seek public and agency input to identify issues to address in the EISs, and BLM will coordinate with other federal, state, and local government agencies in preparing the EISs. The BLM will conduct detailed environmental studies on the proposed and alternatives, and analyze how implementation of these alternatives may affect the quality of the environment. Under the authorities of the NEPA and its implementing regulations (40 C.F.R. § 1501.6), and federal regulations promulgated by the Department of the Interior (DOl) for NEPA (43 C.F.R. §§ 46.220, 46.225 & 46.230), the BLM is the lead agency and Deschutes County is a cooperating agency for this EIS process. Cooperating agency status may be offered to other federal agencies, tribes and local government agencies as well. All EISs will consider both federal and non-federal lands in its analyses. However, any decisions that would result in implementation action would apply ONLY to federal land and minerals and may be subject to additional NEP A process. 4. Term of MOU: This MOU will commence upon the date of the last signature made by the duly authorized representatives of the parties to this MOU, and will remain in full force and effect until terminated as described in item 9i, below. 5. Responsibilities of Deschutes County: Based upon the expedited time frames for this initiative, Deschutes County will participate in the environmental analysis and documentation process by providing information regarding environmental issues for which or where Deschutes County has special expertise. Deschutes County has special expertise regarding local laws, regulations or County land use plans as well as knowledge of local conditions. A schedule and preliminary time frame for the respective stages of EIS development where Deschutes County may participate in the planning process is included in Attachment A. Deschutes County will have one representative appointed to represent its interests and work with the Oregon/Washington sub-regional IDT and as its point of contact (see Section 9k.). At the BLM's discretion the Deschutes County representative may be present, as available, at IDT meetings and provide supporting documentation and information as necessary. Information provided by Deschutes County may be at its discretion or upon request by BLM IDT members or the BLM's third party NEPA contractor through the sub­ regional IDT leader and within the IDT leader's specified time frames. If the County has special expertise available for the plan amendment process, the BLM may ask the County's appointed representative to participate in the interdisciplinary team process. 3 I i Ii Through its representative, Deschutes County will have the opportunity for input to preliminary draft documents prepared during the EIS process. The IDT leader may, at any time during the effective term of this MOU, request records by contacting the Deschutes County point of contact identified in Section 9(k) below. Prior to release, all records or information requested of or provided by Deschutes County pursuant to this MOU will be subject to review by Deschutes County. Under this MOU, Deschutes County may be expected to assist the BLM by identifYing key issues, developing reasonable alternatives, providing timely information, and reviewing preliminary environmental documents, in accordance with the schedule for preparation of the EIS set by the IDT leader. As a non-Federal agency, Deschutes County agrees to maintain the confidentiality of all documents and information it acquires through the processes and deliberations covered by this MOU, during the period prior to the public release of the final EIS. 6. Responsibilities of the BLM: In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5 and 43 C.F.R. § 46.220, the BLM is the lead agency. The point of contact for the preparation of this EIS is as designated in Section 9(k) of this MOU. The BLM will keep the Deschutes County representative apprised of current events and timeframes in relation to this EIS. The BLM will consider and may use input and proposals from the Deschutes County representative to the maximum extent possible and consistent with responsibilities as lead agency as described in 40 CFR 1501.5. BLM may incorporate information provided by Deschutes County into the draft and final EISs as appropriate. The BLM is solely responsible for any decisions made in relation to the planning effort. Any BLM decisions made associated with the EIS apply only to BLM-administered lands and federal mineral estate. 7. Mutual Responsibilities of the Parties: Deschutes County and the BLM agree to cooperate by informing each other as far in advance as possible, of any related actions, issues or procedural problems that may affect the environmental analysis and documentation process or that may affect either party. The parties listed under provision 9.k. below will serve as the MOU core team. The purpose of the MOU core team is to ensure that timely and coordinated communication and exchange of information between the parties to the MOU occurs throughout the planning process. 8. Payment: No payment will be made to either party by the other as a result of this MOU. Each party will pay its own costs. During the course of the planning process, should it become necessary for one party to purchase from or make payment or reimbursement to the other party, such arrangements will be covered in a separate agreement. 9. General Provisions: a. Amendments. Either party may request changes to this MOU. Any changes, modifications, revisions, or amendments to this MOU, that are mutually agreed upon by and between the parties to this MOU, will be incorporated by written instrument, 4 executed and signed by both parties to this MOU, and are effective in accordance with the terms of paragraph 2 above. b. Applicable Law. The construction, interpretation and enforcement of this MOU will be governed by the applicable laws of the United States and, where not inconsistent, the laws of the State of Oregon. c. Entirety of Agreement. This MOU, consisting of __ pages, with Attachment A, represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negations, representations and agreements concerning the parties' environmental documents, whether written or oral. d. Severability. Should any portion of this MOU be determined to be illegal or unenforceable, the remainder of the MOU will continue in full force and effect, and the parties may renegotiate the terms affected by the severance. e. Sovereign Immunity. Deschutes County and the BLM do not waive their sovereign immunity by entering into this MOU, and each fully retains all immunities and defenses provided by law with respect to any action based on or occurring as a result ofthis MOU. f. Third Party Beneficiary Rights. The parties do not intend to create in any other individual or entity the status of third party beneficiary, and this MOU must not be construed so as to create such status. The rights, duties and obligations contained in this MOU will operate only between the parties to this MOU, and will ensure solely to the benefit of the parties to this MOU. The provisions of this MOU are intended only to assist the parties in determining and performing their obligations under this MOU. The parties to this MOU intend and expressly agree that only parties signatory to this MOU will have any legal or equitable right to seek to enforce this MOU, to seek any remedy arising out of a party's performance or failure to perform any term or condition of this MOU, or to bring an action for the breach of this MOU. g. Exchange of Information. All records or information requested of either party by the other will be reviewed by the party generating the record prior to release. To the extent permissible under law, any recipient of proprietary and/or pre-decisional information agrees not to disclose, transmit, or otherwise divulge any such information without prior approval from the releasing party. Any breach of this provision may result in termination of this MOU. The BLM and Deschutes County recognize that applicable public records laws will require release of non-exempt documents. h. Administrative Considerations. Pursuant to 204(b) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, responsible Federal Agency officials may meet or enter into project level MOUs with officials of State and local Governments or their designees. During such meetings and development, implementation and monitoring of such MOUs, views, information and advice are exchanged, or input relative to the implementation of Federal programs is obtained. Such meetings and MOUs will further the administration of intergovernmental coordination. 5 The meetings or MOU referred to include, but are not limited to, meetings called for the purpose of exchanging views, information, advice or recommendations, or for facilitating any other interaction relating to intergovernmental responsibilities or administration. Nothing in this MOU will be construed as limiting or affecting in any way the authority or legal responsibility of Deschutes County or the BLM, or as binding either Deschutes County or the BLM to perform beyond the respective authority of each, or as requiring either to assume or expend any sum in excess of appropriations available. It is understood that all the provisions herein must be within financial, legal, and personnel limitations, as determined practical by Deschutes County and the BLM for their respective responsibilities. This MOU is neither a fiscal nor a funds obligation document. Nothing in this MOU will be construed to extend jurisdiction or decision-making authority to BLM for planning and management of land and resource uses for any non­ Federal lands or resources in the planning area. Similarly, nothing in this MOU will be construed to extend jurisdiction or decision-making authority to Deschutes County for planning and management ofland or resource uses on the F ederallands or mineral estates administered by the BLM. Both Deschutes County and BLM will work together cooperatively and will communicate about issues of mutual concern. i. Termination: Either party may terminate this MOU upon 30 days written notice to the other party of their intention to do so. During the 30-day period, the parties will conduct negotiations to resolve any disagreement(s). If the disagreement(s), if any, have not been resolved and the party initiating the termination has not rescinded its termination notice in writing by the end of the 30-day period, the MOU will terminate. In the event negotiations are progressing but are not concluded by the end of the 30-day period, the party initiating the termination notice may request in writing that termination be postponed for an additional 30-day period or longer while the negotiations continue; upon such request, the termination shall be postponed for the specified period. j. Dispute Resolution: Disputes between the BLM and Deschutes County concerning the content of the RMP AmendmentiEIS shall be resolved through good-faith efforts between the cooperators themselves. The parties recognize that BLM has the delegated authority to make final decisions regarding public land management in the RMP. This MOU does not preclude Deschutes County, notwithstanding cooperating agency status, from pursuing relief through any applicable administrative or judicial review or litigation. Nothing in this MOU shall compromise or affect the rights of the County to contest the results of the planning process through any means available to Deschutes County. 6 k. Contacts: The primary points of contact for carrying out the provisions of this MOD are: DESCHUTES COUNTY NAME ADDRESS D!:M Sally Sovey OregonIW ashington Bureau of Land Management 333 SW First Avenue Portland, Oregon 97205 ssovey@blm.gov (503) 808-6625 1 I I I•I I ~ 1 7 10. Signature: The parties hereto have executed this Memorandum of Understanding as of the dates shown below. The effective date of this MOU is the latest signature date affixed to this page. Deschutes County by and through: NAME Date TITLE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, by and through: NAME Date Ed Shepard, OregonIWashington BLM State Director 8 Attachment A Cooperating Agency Participation in the National Sage Grouse Planning Strategy BLM RMPIEIS Stage Proposed Completion Date County Cooperating Agency Opportunities to Engage Conduct scoping and identify March 23, 2012 May identify issues for issues consideration. Formulate alternatives June 30,2012 Provide information regarding local land use plans or zoning on lands adjacent to or immediately vicinity of BLM lands. May suggest themes or land allocations for potential I alternatives. Estimate effects of alternatives September 30, 2012 May collaborate with BLM to Select the preferred alternative; December 31,2012 review portions of preliminary issue Draft RMPIEIS alternatives / Draft EIS. This may include review of the socioeconomic section. May collaborate with BLM to • review portions of preliminary alternatives / Draft EIS. This may include review of the socioeconomic section. Respond to comments May 31,2013 · May participate as the general · public does in providing official comments to the Draft EIS. Issue Proposed RMPIFEIS November 30,2013 Governor's Consistency Review January 31, 2014 May contribute to Governor's Consistency Review. Resolve protests; modify May 30,2014 Limited Role. Proposed RMPIFEIS if needed; i sign ROD I I 9 Board of Co Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St. Suite 200· Bend. OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570· Fax (541) 385-3202 www.co.deschutes.or.us board@co.deschutes.or.us Tammy Baney February 27, 2012 Anthony DeB one Alan Unger Jason Miner, Mary Kyle McCurdy and Pam Hardy Richard Whitman 1,000 Friends of Oregon Governor's Natural Resource Office Main Office State Capitol building 133 SW 2nd Ave, Suite 201 900 Court Street NE, Suite 160 Portland, OR 97204 Salem, OR 97310 Jim Rue, Rob Hallyburton, and Tom Hogue Oregon Department of land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 Salem, 97301-2540 RE: lOOO Friends v. Deschutes County, LUBA Case No. 2011-121 Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis Settlement Negotiation Dear Negotiation Partners, The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) appreciates everyone's willingness to openly discuss the Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis (REOA) and opportunities for a settlement. As you know, the purpose of the REOA has been to provide a clear, efficient path for Central Oregon cities, utilizing county statutory coordination authority, to identify, entitle, and serve large-lot industrial sites with traded sector employers. At the present time, the Board remains committed to the current bifurcated approach in the existing REOA that relies upon county statutory coordination authority and the adoption of the REOA, followed by the obligation of Central Oregon cities to initiate any urban growth expansion under OAR Chapter 660 Division 24. The Board, however, is certainly open to additional or alternative approaches that offer a legal framework for implementing a large-lot industrial program for Central Oregon in 2012. In that spirit of openness, on Monday, February 27, 2012, the Board unanimously agreed to delay the submission to LUBA of the record in the above listed case until the end of March in order to continue negotiations with 1,000 Friends of Oregon, with the direct assistance of Richard Whitman and Oregon Department of land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The Board also directed the Community Development Department and legal Counsel to continue negotiations until March 23, 2012. The agreement to continue negotiations, however, is contingent upon the follOWing written commitments: Enhancing the Lives of Citizens by Delivering Quality Services in a Cost-Effective Manner DC -20 12 -1 40 • DLCD will commit that, should the parties continue to agree that it is necessary, DLCD staff will initiate by Summer 2012 the LCDC rule making process for narrowly crafted amendments to OAR Chapter 660 Division 24 (Urban Growth Boundaries) that will allow cities to utilize a regional large-industrial lands analysis and its identified short-term need for sites , subject to a regional governance structure, without the requirement to determine a 2a-year need for the land. • 1/000 Friends of Oregon will commit to collaborating with the County and Regional Advisory Committee (RAe) to refine policies addressing 6 short-term sites, a replenishment of at least 2-3 sites, a review period, and a large-lot industrial overlay zone; and, as a partner during the rule making process, to support a narrow amendment to OAR 660 Division 24 in 2012. • The Governor's Office will commit to continue facilitating negotiations and, if necessary, collaborate with the County and 1,000 Friends of Oregon as a partner during the rule making process in 2012 to support a narrow amendment to OAR Chapter 660 Division 24. If Deschutes County can obtain the written commitments described above by March 23, the intervenors will be convened later that month, prior to checking-back with the Board, to assure that our regional partners are supportive of the settlement approach. If there is consensus by the intervenors, the Board will withdraw for reconsideration Ordinance 2011-017, which adopted the REOA and several regional industrial lands policies. If however, negotiations and/or rule making unexpectedly cease, the Board reserves the right to readopt the REOA as it is currently written. Sincerely, Anthony DeBone Deschutes County Board of Commissioner Chair Alan Unger Deschutes County Board of Commissioner Vice Chair (11 Jv1A '.~ /\.!f f(/1'--t' IIf'\: , )Tammy Baney ,~ Deschutes County Board of Commissioner