Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-04 Work Session Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 1 of 4 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 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2012 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Alan Unger and Tammy Baney; Commissioner Anthony DeBone was out of the office. Also present were Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator; Scott Johnson and Tom Kuhn, Health Services; Tim Moore, Redmond Fire & Rescue; Susan Ross, Property & Facilities; and media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin. Commissioner Unger opened the meeting at 1:50 p.m. 1. Discussion of Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area Advisory Committee. Tom Kuhn, Community Health Program Manager, has been appointed as convener for the Ambulance Service Area Advisory Committee plan. The 2008 plan needs to be updated due to legislative changes. This involves appointing members, and most applicants will be new to the process. Tim Moore, Redmond Fire & Rescue, explained that all areas have to be covered by ambulance services, so how that is done is determined at the local level by a committee. The committee decides on boundaries and asks for the Commissioners’ approval. If a certain group was unable to provide coverage, it would come back to the Commissioners to handle it. There is revenue derived from this work, so the groups are protective of their service districts. Commissioner Baney asked how this fits in with recent changes to health care in the State. Mr. Moore said this falls back to the individual ambulance service providers in the area. They establish their rates and are self-sufficient. In most cases, the cost is covered by insurance providers. Helicopter transport, however, is not handled in the same manner. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 2 of 4 Pages Commissioner Unger said that this kind of service is a big problem in south County due to time and distance. Mr. Moore said that this is a continual topic of discussion, regarding south County and other remote areas . There are a lot of issues involved in a transport that can make it a lengthy process. For instance, when a fire district is fighting a fire, they cannot be doing transport at the same time. Transports are expensive over long distances; and when minutes count for emergency medical care, it is a big concern. He added that they have a taxi program as well; and explained that if someone needs transport but it is not an emergency, after signing a release form, the person can be transported by taxi and the district accepts the bill. This can eliminate a lot of potential costs. The Board commended them for being creative and resourceful. The relationship between the fire districts is a good one, and they do a decent job of backing each other up as needed. BANEY: Move approval of the committee appointments. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Vice Chair votes yes. 2. Other Items. The Board went into Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(e), Real Property Negotiations. ___________________________ Mr. Kropp explained that previously, VentureBox made a pitch for the funding from the forgivable business loan program. They were instructed to set up a private LLC, which is now called VB Holdings I, LLC, but this still does not create direct jobs so does not fit into the criteria for the business loan program. However, lottery funds could be used for this purpose. They have asked for $14,000. The Board discussed this briefly. BANEY: Move allocation of $14,000 out of lottery funds now that they have met the requirements. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Vice Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, March 14, 2012 Page 3 of 4 Pages ___________________________ Mr. Kropp sent the credit union support letter to Mid-Oregon Credit Union regarding the Senate Bill. They have now asked for a similar letter to support the related House Bill. BANEY: Move signature of the letter of support. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Vice Chair votes yes. ___________________________ Mr. Kropp said that representatives of the Becky Johnson Center asked about finding tenants since part of Health Services will be moving out. He can send a letter saying that the County likes the idea of a healthcare facility, wants to honor the MOU and to continue working with them. Commissioner Unger indicated that the County could help with remodeling to attract another tenant. Commissioner Baney stated that there would be plenty of notice prior to anyone moving out. ___________________________ Commission Baney would like to have a conversation with COVA and Visit Bend to see if and how they can combine forces. The Boards should get together to plan what they are working on, whether they can combine their efforts and so on. This could be an excellent opportunity for them. She is not suggesting budgetary changes at this time since work on the 2012-13 budget is well underway. Commissioner Unger realizes they both have long-term commitments and does not want to push them too fast. They should work towards the 2013-14 budget and make adjustments at that time. Any requests for changes should come from the boards of the groups and not from individuals, since they have to report to their membership and supporters. ___________________________ Being no further discussion, the meeting ended at 3:55 p.m. DATED this zt!? Day of ill ()./l ~ 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 Wednesday, March 14,2012 Page 4 of 4 Pages 1 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., WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14,2012 1. Discussion of Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area Advisory Committee - Health Services 2. Other Items Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)( e), Real Property Negotiations 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(2Xd), 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 J300 NW Wall St., Bend. unless otherwise indicated. q you have questions regarding a meeting. please call 388-6572. Descbutes County meeting locations are wbeelchair accessible. Descbutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf. bearing impaired or speecb disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for lTV. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Memo To: Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator From: Scott Johnson, Director, DCHS Tom Kuhn, Community Health Program Manager, DCHS CC: Date: 3/8/2012 Re: Appointment of Ambulance Service Area (ASA) Plan Committee We would like to request that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners approve the appointment of the "Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area Advisory Committee," as listed on the attached form. The principal function of the committee is to monitor the Emergency Medical Service (EMS) system within Deschutes County, which consists of eight Ambulance Service Areas (ASA's). The ASA's have defined boundaries in the Plan and include Bend. Black Butte Ranch, Bums, Crooked River Ranch, LaPine, Redmond, Sisters and Sunriver. The ASA Plan is a document contained within Deschutes County Code 8.30.100-Appendix A, that grants certain rights to the EMS franchisees for ambulance transports. Each franchise is broken down into a geographical area which defines their service area. The Oregon Health Authority sent a letter to Deschutes County Health Services requesting that the ASA Plan be opened to include the new titles and rules which recently passed legislation. While the ASA Plan is open, some EMS franchisees would like to request proposed changes. Approval of the ASA Committee will allow this process to occur. It is stipulated within the Deschutes County ASA Plan that the County Commissioners appoint the ASA members, in order for the members to officially meet and discuss EMS issues and to make revisions to the ASA Plan when needed. The last appointment of members took place in 2008 and therefore there is a need for new appointments. The proposed list of members contains the professional demographics required by the Plan and is comprised of 11 members at this time. We would appreciate your approval of the proposed committee list and would be happy to make any changes or answer any questions. Thank you for your consideration. I Proposed Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area (ASA) Advisory Committee -February 2012 r--­ Appointed Expires Name Organization CitY,St Zip Feb-12 Mathew Eschelbach, D.O. Physician Advisor 60371 Tall Pine Ave Bend, OR 97702 Feb-12 Tom Wright Bend Fire Department 1212 SW Simpson Ave Bend, OR 97702 r----­ Feb-12 Tom Kuhn Health Services 2577 NW Courtney Dr. Bend, OR 97701 r­ . Feb-12 Don Webber Deschutes Co. S.D. 63333 W. Hwy 20 Bend, OR 97701 F~ Feb-12 Dan Daugherty La Pine Fire Department PO Box 10 La Pine, OR 97739 Feb-12 Rick Silbaugh Deschutes Co. 911 20355 Poe Sholes Bend, OR 97701 l Feb-12 Jared Jeffcott Sunriver Fire Dept. 57475 Abbot Dr. Sunriver, OR 97707 r~ Feb-12 Doug Kelly Redmond Fire & Rescue 341 NW Dogwood Ave Redmond, OR 97756 Feb-12 Jeremy Ast Sisters Fire Department PO Box 1509 Sisters, OR 97759 Feb-12 Justin Walkes Black Butte Ranch Fire PO Box 8000 Black Butte, OR 97759 Feb-12 Alysha Gilpatrick Crooked River Ranch 6971 SW Shad Road CRR, OR 97760 Feb-12 Vacant Public Member --...--..­.... --...--...­L_... _ .... __... __..._ ... _ ... ~_... __.. _ .... __.... __.. _ ..... __ L. March 6, 2011 Erik Kropp Deschutes County Dept of Administrative Services 1300 Wall St Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97701 Dear Erik, Since meeting with you and the County Commissioners last October we have been working with our attorneys to complete the formation of VentureBox so that we can accept the funding pledged by Deschutes County. As part of that process we have revised our plans from forming as a program under Tech Alliance of Central Oregon -501(c)3 to a private LLC under the name VB Holdings I, LLC. We will continue using the DBA "VentureBox" and the program content, its goals and objectives remain the same as we outlined to you previously. The private structure will provide us greater flexibility for funding options and managing equities when dealing with our constituent companies. As you may recall we have had several pledges made by foundations and state entities including the $14,000 pledged by Deschutes County. At your previous request, I have attached an invoice for the agreed amount and would ask you to forward payment at your earliest convenience. Please make checks payable to VB Holdings I, LLC. Thank you for your efforts in providing this important and enabling contribution to our operations. I remain available to answer any follow on questions that may arise. Sincerely, E cutive Director V tureBox 6 NW Harriman St Bend, Or 97701 541409-6560 1 InvoiceVB HOLDINGS I, LLC Date Invoice #906 NW Harriman Street Bend, OR 97701 11/3/2011 Bill To Deschutes County Commission 1300 Wall Street 2nd Floor Bend, OR 97701 Description Capitalization of VentureBox startup accelerator per funding approval 10-12-11 Total Amount 14,000.00 $14,000.00 BEND March 6, 2012 CHAMBER CREATING A STRONG LOCAL ECONOMV City of Bend Attn: Mayor Jeff Eager 710 NW Wall St. Bend, OR 97701 Dear Mayor Eager: The Bend Chamber supports an evaluation of a consolidation between Central Oregon Visitors Association and Visit Bend. We believe having one organization representing the region would create a more consistent message and free up a significant amount of funding for working capital to bring more visitors to the area. The recent Leadmanllrollman debate is an example of why we should pursue combining the best of these 'two organizations to ensure our community is ready. willing, and able to support actions which improve economic prosperity. We believe there would be a great opportunity to improve both communication and coordination in a combined organization. There also appears to be some obvious overlap and duplication. FUltheml0re, having two organizations with two locations, as well as two sets of staff, increases overhead and significantly reduces the amount of funds available for promotion of our community. The Bend Chamber applauds effOlts by local government officials to evaluate programs and promote effective use of taxpayer dollars. We are ellcouraged to see the ongoing efforts to discuss consolidation and improve efficiencies betWeen Deschutes County and the City of Bend for the benefit of the entire community.··· , .. ~ .... ...... Executive Director .... t Cc: Bend City Council Cc: Deschutes County Commissioners . Cc: City Manager Eric King vlCc: Interim County Administrator Eric Kropp , " • " ~'~ ,:~ ~. <,' .':.'" I ~~ !,~ '"':.'~~~~~:.,'~ " 7·" :.':.. '::~ .--_--~•• _••~ ::''''''-~'''',.~', " -': -_ -'~'.~" ~,,'" -~_ I , "/' // J, 'i (:~' {' I!.Jr) • j~,( 1}(~I ("tl r-;:(')f1 0ti() j • PHO~E:*1J~lj:~(~2'~~ ~1;: _. fAX:{~~'4)~:;{!5,;~~~:,~1> • wE~.,,!:\\t,r/r1.~.rt.):'~{J:;'f;~;~·<':'Y:·j • , • ': ~ , _ . _ ---, . ::;: -:-..~,.;.: , ~ _\,:...-~~"~ ,~ ..4. :.'" __,. ',~__ . '. ~ ": ".'"~ , _. ",:. YOUR ADVENTURE BEGINS Recommendations for a More Effective and Efficient Model of Tourism Promotion in Deschutes County Prepared by Visit Bend Mtlrch,2012 Purpose: Following the LeadmanJJronman debate, elected officials initiated the conversation of exploring opportunities to reduce the duplication of tax funded services in Central Oregon's tourism promotion model. In response to their request for briefings, Visit Bend is providing 'the following briefing and recommendations. Eusudve Summan: Central Oregon's tourism industry generates approximately five hundred million dollars annually and is one of Deschutes County's largest economic sectors. As the tourism industry has evolved over the past 40 years, the individua'l destinations within Deschutes County have established independent brands and destination marketing organizations (DMOs) ,to implement strategies uniquely tailored to their destinations. Conversely, Deschutes County has retained a county-wide tourism promotion model that inherently creates duplication of tax funded services. There is an opportunity to fine-tune the County's existing structure to better position the tourism industry for growth, to more efficiently allocate the tourism promotion funds in our region, and to adjust our county-wide model of tourism promotion to be consistent with the other tourism regions in Oregon. The following document represents Visit Bend's recommendations to Deschutes County on how to achieve these objectives. Recommendadog #1: Implement a "DMO of Choice" program that allows the lodging companies in the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County to choose the DMO that best serves their business, rather than being forced to fund the County's RDMO. Historical Perspective In 1971 the Central Oregon Recreation Association (CORA) was established to create a cooperative marketing program in the region that combined the financial weight of its top partners: Mt. Bachelor, Sunriver Resort, Seventh Mountain Resort, and Black Butte Ranch. A regional approach to tourism promotion made sense at that time because the destinations within the region had not yet established strength as independent destinations, nor had they established meaningful funding mechanisms to operate their own DMOs. Where We Are Now Over the 4 I years since CORA was established, most of the destinations within Deschutes County have established independent tourism brands, and fund their own destination-specific DMOs. The logic behind this model is that each destination has unique strengths, weaknesses and opportunities that demand custom-tailored tourism promotion strategies. The City of Bend retains their tourism promotion funds and contracts with Visit Bend to serve as the City'S tourism bureau and sports commission. The City ofSistcrs retains theirtomism promotion funds and contracts with the Sisters Chamber ("Sisters Country") to oversee their tourism promotion efforts. Redmond and La Pine also retain their tourism promotion funds to exec:ute their independent tourism development efforts. The only destination that is not mainina their tourism funds and operatina their own DMO is Sunriver. While the destinations within Deschutes County have evolved to specific aeo-centric tourism promotion strategies, Deschutes County has retained a county-wide tourism promotion model that is no lonaer funded by the majority of the County. and inherently creates duplication oftax funded services (i.e., Sisters Country receives city tax fundina to promote Sisters tourism, and COVA ~eives County tax funding to also promote Sisters tourism. The same situation applies to Bend, Redmond, and La Pine.) While servina valuable purposes, the other ROMOs in Oreaon an not tax funded. Rather, they are intentionally smaller marketing organizations that are funded by DMO's and other members on a voluntary basis. The County's DMO COVA, is funded by a portion of the room tax collections aencrated from a diverse and geographically distant collection of Iodaina companies in the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County: Sunriver, Black Butte Raneh, ,.. Mountain Resort, Brasada, Pronghorn. Eaalecrest, etc. WItat An T..Proble... With The Cum.. Medel? 1. The most significant problem with the current model is that lodling companies in the unincorporated parts of Deschutes Cmmty are mandated to contribute their tourism promotion funds to the RDMO, rather than having the choice to fund their local DMO that might better serve their business interests. I 2. Another significant problem with the current model is that there is DO tax funded destination marketing effort focused exclusively on the Sunriver destination. Sunriver is one of the most ~ognized tourism brands in Oregon. The absence of a Sunriver DMO prohibits Sunriver I from maximizing visitation to their destination, which not only impacts Sunriver but also weakens the county-wide tourism industry. I 3. The third problem with the current model is that from a markctina perspective, the destinations within the region are too diverse to be served effectively by one market ina olJanization. The net result is an RDMO that has too diverse and too expansive of a scope. I 4. The regional brand of Central Oregon is now overshadowed by the brands of the unique destinations within Deschutes County: Bend, Sunriver, Sisters, RedmondIExpo Center, and La Pine/Ncwberry Crater (sec Bardsley & Niedhart study). I What Are The Opdea, For Deschutes Couaty? 1 1. Do Nothing -Retain current model a. This is not recommended. The dysfunction of the current model has become too disruptive to maintain, and community leaders are requesting change. 2. Merger -Mcrae all the DMOs in Deschutes County into one RDMO a. A meraer of Visit Bend and COV A would not fix the problems inherent in the existing funding model. In order to ac;hieve a true couaty-wide approach to tourism promotion, the county would have to mcrae Visit Bend, COV A, the Redmond Chamber's tourism fund, Sisters Country funding, and the La Pine Tourism Committee's funding. This is likely not politically achievable, nor strategkally eff~tive. b. 'The current problems of one RDMO promoting too large and diverse a set of stakeholders would still persist. From a sales and marketing perspective, it is ineffective and inefficient to try to satisty all ofthe Deschutes County tourism stakeholders with one DMO. c. Bend bas nothing to gain and everything to lose. The Bend brand has now become the most recognized destination in Central Oregon, and the City of Bend's TRT collections now exceed those of Deschutes County. Merging with COVA and the other DMOs in Deschutes County would force Visit Bend to dilute the Bend message and strategy. 3. DMO of Choice Program: A "DMO ofChoice" program would allow the lodging companies in the unilM:orporated areas of Deschutes County to choose which DMO would best serve their business. The County would then allocate the tourism promotion funds generated by that lodging company to the chosen DMO (with consent from that DMO). a. This option allows free market choices to shape the County's model of tourism promotion, rather than being defined by a county mandate (i.e., let the private sedor tell the county how best to promote their businesses, not the other way around). b. By allowing the private sector to choose which DMO to fund, this option will naturally reallocate the tourism promotion funds within the County and will reduce/eliminate the duplication of services that exists in the current model. c. The DMO of Choice option is achievable politically. The county would simply be givin, the lodging operators in the unincorporated 8IQS a choice. d. Everyone wins: ifthe lodging company is more successful with their DMO of choice, they will make more money. Ifthe lodging property makes more money, Deschutes County makes more money, and the DMO is given more money to market their destination. e. The DMO of choice option would give Sunriver the option of retaining their tourism funds to operate their own destination marketinl effort, if they eventually choose to do so. f. We do not recommend the DMO of Choice program for the city's within Deschutes County because they are not plagued with the county's leoaraphkal separation of lodling companies, nor do their tourism promotion efforts create duplication of tax funded services. g. The DMO of Choice solution isolates the debate over the allocation oftourism dollars to within the tourism industry, and away from elected officials. _NN'edep Q; Visit Bead nco......t...Dnc..... Couaty IDitlate a Toulis. Lndenlllp Couad. to easun tile .8'orts of...of tile Co••ty's ftve DMO's an aUped. :lsHlldv. Su...ry ClIITCDtly, the Central Oregon Visitors Association (COVA) serves as the RDMO for Central Orep. Visit Bend serves as the DMO for the City of Bend. Sisters Country serves as the DMO for the City of Sisters. The Redmond Chamber serves as the DMO for the City of Redmond, and the La Pine Tourism Committee serves as the DMO for La Pine. While each of these orpnizations is overseen by a board ofdire<:tors ( or committee), none of the boards include representation from all the other DMOs in the County. The purpose of the Deschutes County Tourism Leadership Council would be: 1) to improve communication between the various DMOsIRDMO in Deschutes County, 2) to improve communication between the countywide tourism industry and the Deschutes County Commissioners, 3) to provide the Deschutes County Commissioners and other jurisdictions with a tourism advisory board that can represent the interests of all of the tourism stakeholders in Deschutes County. The proposed Leadership Council would consist of the Executive Directors of each of the five DMOs in Deschutes County, their respective Board Chairs, and five industry appointees (each DMO would appoint one industry representative for a two year tenn). The &roUP would meet once per quarter, and provide quarterly reports to the County Commissioners. Additionally. the County Commissioners could request an ad hoc meeting of the Leadership Council to address tourism issues on an as needed basis. No public funding is nccdcd for this proposal. AtWitIual Notes: A Statndd. CeeperimR In the state ofOreaon, there arc many DMOs that focus exclusively on their destination. Additionally, there are five Rqponal DMOs that cover extended areas comprised of more than one county (see list below). With the exception of COV A, nooe of the RDMOs in Oregon receive room tax revenue directly from the county or city. Instead, they are purposefully small organizations funded though the community DMOs and other memberships fees, and intended to execute regional marketini programs that community DMOs can buy into if they elect to do so. This funding structure in the other regions ofOregon eliminates duplication of tax funded services. The lack of this fundina structure in Central Oregon inherently creates duplication of tax funded services (i.e., Sisters Country receives city tax funding to promote Sisters, and COVA also receives tax funding from the County to promote Sisters. Same for 8eDd, Redmond, and La Pine). Travel Portland is the one exception. Travel Portland serves as both the DMO for the City of Portland, as well as the RDMO for the areater Portland area. This extended DMO model works for Portland because the destination ofthe expanded area mnains sinplar Portland. IpyA -(I""" Or., \'Isitop tWecW'") -AIIg IriI4k. tnthorse@eoni.com­ • No employees -Alice is a contracted consultant, (800)332·1843 • No local tax dollars -funding from local DMOs for minor cooperative advertising • No Visitor Center • Membership fees 51 t500 per year -purposely set high to discourage local businesses from bef;oming members of EOV A instead of local DMO. OCYA -(Ognt C.,. yJsitgp t\ursh""U -ape..LI&z -r:tagtj1tMw......... • No local tax dollars • No Visitor Center • Memberships are local DMOs and Chambers of Commerce as well as ladling properties and attrKtions • ('-41)574.2679 WAXA -Mil""Ye'kY YIsitpn AIIIIFiNitJal-N·"'Iwy.­ Ml'MTmell ,''''''-1y,gn ­ • No employees -only volunteers • No Visitor Center • No local tax dollars • Marketing cooperative between six DMOs -representatives from the largest DMO in each county • (541)743-8754 MlYA -Gil"'"Orsae YJIittD AlrrWhIl -CIObI uw­ CIIlIIg@........"......" • No Visitor Center • One employee and contractors • No local tax dollars • Seven-county regional cooperative • (541)SS2-0520 COXA -lCptraI Qrmt mID MwIaIIea) -AM g,ltz,. • Multiple employees and contracted services • Receives over 51.5 million in tax funding • Board consists of representatives from the lodging companies in Deschutes County t but the other DMO's in Deschutes County are not represented on the COVA Board. # #