Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-05-09 Work Session MinutesDeschutes 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, MAY 9, 2012 Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator; and, for a portion ofthe meeting, Marty Wynne, Finance; Joe Sadony, Information Technology; Dave Inbody, Assistant to the Administrator; Ronda Connor, Personnel; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack, Terri Payne and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development; Patrick Flaherty, CliffLu and Chad Morris, District Attorney's Office; media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin; and one other citizen. Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Discussion of District Attorney's Request for an Electronically Stored Information System. Mr. Flaherty said he needs to go forward with an IT project that would allow him to come into compliance with Oregon Administartive Rules. He feels he has to store this information separately from the County. This has been an ongoing discussion and was requested last year, but was not approved because the County Administrator at the time would not put this issue before the Board. He spoke with Joe Sadony about this and tried to educate him about the privacy and ethical issues. He has to protect the security ofD.A. records and comply with Secretary of State archives law. He has worked up a proposal with Finance. The numbers speak for themselves. He thinks the D.A.'s Office will return an unprecedented amount to the General Fund this way. He is asking for an $84,000 transfer from the personnel category into capital outlay. The bulk of the project would be a one-time expense for a system considered as capital outlay. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 9, 2012 Page 1 of 16 Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 9, 2012 Page 2 of 16 They have a tight timeline, and would like to complete this before they go live with Justware. Some people in his office are working full-time on this now, including Chad Morris. From a technical standpoint, it is simple and can be completed in that timeframe. Out of the $84,000, he anticipates a portion will be returned back to the General Fund because they may be able to go to Office 365, a cloud-based service that is less expensive overall. This suggestion was made by Joe Sadony. Commissioner Baney said that she trusts the D.A.’s reasons for wanting to do this are sincere. Her initial reactions are “why” and “how”. However, one thing makes this a unique relationship, and that is County-represented employees working there. They have to have the ability to establish a connection with AFSCME, and others need to access some records without having to go through a lot of work. If the County wants to obtain records and needs them, even if the District Attorney might disagree, how do they get ahead of this potential issue. Mr. Flaherty responded that it depends on the nature of the records sought. The D.A.’s Office is unique, as they deal with a lot of protected records. The D.A. is entitled to reports regarding child abuse cases and others. Given the restrictions, the idea that other than the D.A.’s Office having access is not appropriate. Mr. Kropp said there could be issues based on County policy or a personnel issue. Mr. Flaherty stated that if it is a legitimate records request, they should be able to get it lawfully. There are many mechanisms to get these through a court order, subpoena or a search warrant. The crux of the problem is that there is no legal authority for someone from Personnel to tap into the D.A. electronics records system for any reason. This has come up before. It is not appropriate now for anyone to go into the D.A.’s records. This is the nature of the law. It has nothing to do with this project. It may be practical, but is unlawful. Commissioner Baney asked how this is handled now. Mr. Kropp said that the countywide e-mail policy allows access without advising employees. Many other departments deal with confidential information due to HIPAA and other laws. He has the authority to ask I.T. to grab some e-mails. He does not see how this would be different for the D.A.’s Office with County employees. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 9, 2012 Page 3 of 16 Mr. Flaherty stated that there is a distinction between the County and a State agency. This is a State function, including trial assistance. The County policy may apply to most County departments except maybe the Sheriff, and the County should have permission for that. In fact, the Sheriff and all other elected officials should have their own system to protect their information. County policy does not trump State law or the Constitution. Mr. Kropp asked if non-harassment and other policies apply to the District Attorney’s Office. Mr. Flaherty replied that this is based in statutory law already, not because the D.A. is a County department or that it is within the Board’s authority to control it. Some principles apply. If there is a violation of a policy, this is not grounds for legal action. Conduct could provide the basis for legal action. They could still take action and not enforce a County policy. Mr. Kropp indicated concerns about this. The law requires that if there is any allegation, the County will investigate. If it does not apply, how do they reconcile this. Mr. Flaherty said that this does not give the County the right to access D.A. records without authorization. The County cannot circumvent the law, Oregon Administrative Rules or the Constitution. By law, this is what it is. All data generated by any employee in the D.A.’s Office is by law records of the D.A. Chair DeBone said this is obviously a big issue, but he sees a disconnect. The employees provided to the D.A.’s Office are governed by union rules and County policies. How will the County get access to information is this type of situation arises? Do the principles apply but not the policies? Mr. Flaherty replied that Chair DeBone is implying that the County wants to be able to access these records without authorization. Th is is unlawful. It is not that he disagrees with the policies and not that he would say ‘no’ to a properly structured request. The County is assuming he would deny this, and that has never happened. He has denied requests to the media, but not to Mr. Kropp, County Counsel or the Commissioners for e-mails relating to a relevant investigation. Commissioned Baney said that Mr. Kropp may need e-mails because of the policies. If the D.A. does not acknowledge or support the policies, it is easy to say ‘no’. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 9, 2012 Page 4 of 16 Mr. Flaherty stated that he questions the enforceability of the policies. Mr. Kropp said that if the response is ‘no’, then what is the County’s recourse. Commissioner Baney stated that it should not have to get to that level. Mr. Flaherty said that there is no basis in their history on this. Mr. Kropp asked if there should be an agreement with the D.A. indicating the D.A. will cooperate when it is felt by the County to be necessary. Mr. Flaherty emphasized that this is starting out negative. Mr. Kropp said that they need to figure out how to work together before they go any further. Commissioner Baney added that it is a big shift for the County. Mr. Kropp noted that other departments have confidential and privileged information having to do with HIPAA, Parole & Probation records, and so one, and he does not know how the D.A.’s Office is any different. Mr. Flaherty stated that his is a State agency and not a County department. Mr. Kropp needs to stop treating them like a County department to be ru n or administered. The law requires this be separate. He is an elected official who is responsible for a State agency. All records there are State records. The law requires this. The law looks at who has the obligation to control them and who is held responsible for them. This is why they want this project, as they have records that have been destroyed or not properly archived. Mr. Kropp asked how they maintain these records now. Mr. Flaherty said they don’t have control over them now. Because of County interests, Mr. Kropp does not want to relinquish control but have no legal basis to do so. The County would not be held responsible for problems with the records since this is the responsibility of the D.A. He has done his best to lay out the law, but there is a selfish County interest and the County has no right to control the records. Mr. Kropp stated that he has never received anything from a State agency that the County is out of compliance. Mr. Flaherty said that Mr. Kropp just wants to be contentious. The County has no right to access these records. Legal action can be taken; this is laid out in the memo. Records have already been destroyed or accessed without authorization. This is the reason for the proposal. He wants to move forward. It is ludicrous that he has to spend so much time on this when he is responsible for the records but does not have control over them. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 9, 2012 Page 5 of 16 He can’t get to anything going back before 2010, as they appear to be gone. This is a really simple request. It will return far more money into the General Fund than any other department. It is a cost -effective solution in the long run and the County will save money with this. They need to have some faith in the D.A.’s Office and the law. It is not fair that he will deny a request when this has never happened. Commissioner Unger said that the D.A.’s Office is a State office, but is also a County department due to the status of the employees. Maybe this needs to be done differently, and perhaps they should be State employees and the County support the D.A. in another way. Mr. Flaherty stated that the legislature decided this a long time ago. Commissioner Unger added that all counties seem to manage in the same way and are in compliance. He is not against ideas on how to do things differently. Regarding a separate system, he wants to follow the law but can’t connect the dots. This County is set up like others, and there is no compelling reason to change this. The public wants government to be judicious with funds. He does not think this is time-sensitive, and needs to be worked through properly. He wants to be supportive, but does not see all the rationale. Mr. Flaherty said that statute and the OAR’s will connect the dots. Commissioner Baney stated that what they are bumping up against is that there has been one system in place for a long time. Change is difficult and they need to make sure how it is going to work. This concern is a natural outcropping of things that have occurred. They want to trsut the D.A.’s Office but also want to be legally sound. They could wait longer, but the same angst will still be there. She trusts that this makes sense. She hears the concerns and has the same ones; if the policy does not agree, that will be a problem. If an issue arises, they may end up at a crossroads. Mr. Flaherty is saying he does not have an issue with the policies and will make sure there is appropriate monitoring. She does not want to walk both sides of the fence, but Mr. Kropp has responsibilities as well. Chair DeBone said he is not ready to proceed today. He likes the idea of Office 365, which could mean less overhead in the future. There are policy issues to consider, though. They need to be in agreement before it goes forward. If there is an incident and things have to be locked down to do a valid backup and capture some information, he does not want a wall there. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 9, 2012 Page 6 of 16 Mr. Flaherty stated that it is their world in the D.A.’s Office. He is sorry trust is not uniformly shared. The County may need to be told by a Judge that there is no right for the County to have access. Chair DeBone noted that they are talking about electronic records. There are access control methods that can be used and ways to partition things off. There could be a policy or personnel issue requiring an investigation. Mr. Flaherty emphasized that the County does not have lawful authority to these records even now. It is not legal for the County to access them now for any reason. He has to authorize that. The County needs to trsut that he will find the most cost-effective way to implement this system. It seems that the County wants to access D.A. records without D.A. authorization. It has nothing to do with where the information is located. He emphasized they need to reconsider what they are saying. Chair DeBone noted that this is not a military encrypted environment. The assumption that there is control and limited access is a fallacy. It is a gray area. Mr. Flaherty said that it sounds like the County needs a Judge to direct them on this. They have had lots of discussions over the past year. The Bar came out with an ethics decision consistent with this. There appears to be nothing more he can do to education them about the law. They won’t accept his opinion and seem to think it is okay to access these records, when it is unlawful. Chair DeBone stated that a Judge here may say that, but it only applies to this D.A. He asked if Mr. Flaherty is saying that if this County has to do this, it applies to everyone. Does this set precedence for other places, that they are also breaking the law. Mr. Flaherty said that a Judge here may decide this but it only applies to this County. There are several counties with completely different systems, so this is not a novel approach. Mr. Kropp pointed out that there are 18 other counties that do things just like what is being done here now. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 9, 2012 Page 7 of 16 Mr. Flaherty responded that he was elected D.A. to do what he thinks is right. He does not disregard what others do, but he wants to do it the right way. It makes no different if they all do it the County’s way. This is the only right way to take care of records. To get hung up on concerns about accessing e-mails during a personnel investigation is going to cost a lot more time. They need to put this issue behind them and focus on other business. He wants them to let him run the D.A. Office. He is accountable for that. The Board has a myriad of other issues to handle. But they can’t administer the D.A.’s Office. Mr. Kropp said that there are certain things the County has in place that are centralized, such as Finance, budgeting, Personnel and Information Technology. It is a big deal to decentralize one of them. Mr. Flaherty asked what percentage of the I.T. database the D.A.’s Office comprises. Mr. Sadony said in terms of what is charged, which is the easiest way to make this determination, it is about $60,000-$70,000 per year. In comparison the Sheriff runs about $200,000, Community Development about $150,000. So the D.A. uses maybe 10-15%. Mr. Flaherty noted that is a tiny bite of I.T. Commissioner Baney asked how much of the $84,000 is a one-time cost. Mr. Sadony said that it will cost about $5,000 to $8,000 a year ongoing. Chad Morris added that there might be some higher amounts over time as things are upgraded. Commissioner Baney asked if there are space issues. Mr. Flaherty said he is not proposing moving hardware into the D.A.’s Office. Commissioner Baney asked if they could move some files to Salem. Mr. Flaherty replied that when he has proper control over the records, he will establish a records person to work with the Secretary of State on the D.A. records. They should be using State archives services to archive all records. Using DataStor and other third party companies is expensive. They could unload a lot of records now in the loft area. He feels they should be as cost- effective as possible and are doing that now. He wants this request approved now and trusts that there will be a less official so lution. He has a surplus in his budget now. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 9, 2012 Page 8 of 16 Commissioner Unger stated that he recognizes that this involves State employees but the County also has responsibilities. He is not able to make a decision today but wants to work through this. They need to figure out how to make the D.A. Office more independent. Mr. Flaherty noted that it is already independent. He needs control of all the records. Commissioner Unger said that they support the D.A.’s Office through I.T. and other functions, and feels it is secure. Perhaps that is the issue. Chair DeBone said that they might be able to address this in budget meetings, but he is not ready to move forward now. He wants to work through this. Mr. Flaherty asked what is the hard part, what part of the law don’t they understand. Chair DeBone stated that this has to do with personnel policies. The County may have to respond to a policy quickly. He is not necessarily worried about the money or the technology. No one else in the D.A.’s Office is an elected official. They are not concerned about case files, but personnel records. Mr. Flaherty noted that it is all about access to records in his office. That’s what this is about. Chair DeBone said he wants to discuss this with Personnel and Legal to make sure he is not missing something. Mr. Flaherty emphasized that the D.A. has control over the records in his office. Staff might be County employees, but when they receive or create a record related to the D.A.’s Office, that is a D.A. record only, by law. It does not matter who did it. The law defines who has the right to access and control that record. It is that simple. It allows him to comply with the law and OAR’s and Rules of Professional Conduct. If the County thinks they have a lawful right, they are wrong. The law is clear. He has spent a year trying to convince them of that. He said the County is stonewalling, that is what they have been doing. Commissioner Baney indicated it is time to fish or cut bait. Maybe the budget discussions will be enough. They may need a Judge’s opinion, or not. They need time to figure out what is needed. They have talked about this before. The money is there. The issue is the decision. She is hearing that more information is needed. She would like to carve out some time for a further discussion, not with the full Budget Committee. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 9, 2012 Page 9 of 16 Mr. Flaherty said that he already has the law to back him, and it is clear. Commissioner Unger asked where in the law it says they shall do this. He does not see this. This decision is too broad and they have to consider how it affects other things. In terms of what the County is required to do, this path has seemed to work for years. Cost is one thing, but they need to clarify how the laws requires them to support the D.A. There are firewalls to separate out information with the system they have today. He said if this is working, why do this instead. He wants to see the specifics. Mr. Flaherty said for him to talk to Joe Sadony, as they have had this discussion before. Mr. Flaherty, Mr. Lu, Mr. Morris, Mr. Wynne and Mr. Sadony left the meeting at this time. 2. South County Plan Update. Peter Gutowsky, Terri Payne, Nick Lelack and Tom Anderson came before the Board.. Ms. Payne said there was a South County Plan update in February, but a lot has happened since then. They have had three community meetings, a partnership meeting with twenty agencies invited, a public open house and more. They have worked well with a good turnout. There were two more meetings in March. Discussion points were the comprehensive plan, high groundwater issues, regional problem solving and other issues; and they asked the public for what is missing. They used an on-line survey for two months. The results of the meetings can be found on their webpage. About 65% of the residents felt the quality of life is good or very good. The top three concerns are the natural environment, proximity to outdoor recreation, and rural neighborhoods with plenty of open space. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 9, 2012 Page 10 of 16 They had meetings at Three Rivers School, but found it was hard to get parents involved, mostly due to scheduling issues. They contacted organizations involved in river issues and the Citizens Action Group, homeowners’ associations and road districts. Several more meetings are set for the future. They are coordinating meetings with other south County groups such as the Upper Deschutes Watershed Coalition, the DEQ, La Pine Park & Recreation, transit officials, schools and others. There are two more meetings set for May. One is on a Saturday since they were asked to include a weekend. One meeting is at the La Pine Senior Center (May 19) and the other at the Sunriver Library (May 23). A draft document will be presented, with issues in categories. They want to hear about obstacles, solutions, and who else should be involved. These issues are not easy or they would have been solved long ago. The comprehensive plan in 2011 already addressed some of this. The south County area is unique due to wetlands, rivers and the huge number of platted lots. They hope to take all this information and put it all together, and develop focus groups to review them. In July they should have the last set of community meetings. The intent is to have a final draft plan by last August. Then it would go to the Planning Commission; then to Board work sessions and hearings by October. The Commissioners said they are grateful for the hard work. They are glad people are paying attention and getting involved. It is important to work through all of this. Mr. Gutowsky stated that the partnerships are important; resilient rural communities can react to change better by knowing the players, both public and private. They need to be open to cultural change, underscoring the importance of other participants, sharing priorities and being more efficient to achieve mutual goals. They are really reaching out and leveraging information and time. Chair DeBone asked if there is a way to connect with people who live out of town. He asked about having a booth at Frontier Days with the various agencies there. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 9, 2012 Page 11 of 16 Ms. Payne said that direct mail is about the only way to reach everyone. Perhaps there are more property owners there in the summer. They might be able to have a booth one day but can’t cover the entire long weekend. Mr. Lelack added that they hope to reach many through associations and other groups. A tax bill enclosure might help, but that would delay the process. These individuals left the meeting at this time. 3. Consideration of Approval of Pharmacy Contract. Dave Inbody and Ronda Connor joined the meeting. Mr. Inbody said they have worked for a year with Take Care regarding pharmacy issues, and have confidence in the organization. Space has been built and is ready to go. They want to move forward with a contract. He and Ms. Connor went over the proposed schedule. UNGER: Move County Administrator signature of the agreement, pending legal review. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Ms. Connor left the meeting at this time. 4. Discretionary Grant Requests.  Together For Children ($1,200) – Together For Children Assistance  Community of Christ Church ($2,400) – Bridging Gaps  The Nature of Words ($2,500) – 2012 Literary Festival  Cascade Theatrical Company ($2,500) – Main Stage Season  Crooked River Ranch Senior Group ($4,000) – Emergency Fuel  Orchard Neighborhood Association ($3,000) – Let’s Pull Together Mr. Inbody said that last month it was determined there are no remaining funds, but the Board has discretion to draw from other funds if they feel strongly about any of the requests. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 9, 2012 Page 12 of 16 Commissioner Unger suggested these get pushed out until funds come in the new fiscal year. Chair DeBone agreed. Mr. Inbody stated that a few have events that occur this fiscal year. Commissioner Unger wants to rethink the program anyway. There will never be enough money for all of them. Commissioner Baney would like to see the Crooked River Ranch Senior Group be referred to COIC and Dial-a-Ride. There should be a coordinated service for that area. This issue will be calendared for a future discussion. 5. Consideration of Community Grant Recommendations. Mr. Inbody stated that this is part of the budget process , and $350,000 is proposed for next year. There were 62 applicants, all for specific purposes. One concern was that there was a crime prevention fund previously distributed to County departments as needed. It was decided to allocate those directly. One exception was those managed by the Children and Families’ Commission. The challenge is, there are three organizations this year that follow the guidelines. The selection committee wants to know if this is an obligation. Some get significantly more than others. Some community partners don’t go through a competitive process but get funds already. It is not competitive for some programs. Commissioner Baney said that Bethlehem Inn claims there are no government funds supporting them. Mr. Inbody added that Volunteers in Medicine group says the same thing. They do good work, but do get County funding. They are County-endorsed and do important things. However, there are many other organizations where small dollars would have a much bigger impact. Commissioner Baney said that, for instance, the Alternatives to Incarceration program has been in place for six years, but she is not sure if it was meant to get permanent funding. Mr. Inbody says that this needs clarification. There is up to $90,000 intended for juvenile crime prevention, but some is now directed to community grants. The selection committee feels they are obligated to continue this juvenile crime prevention process, but it is not truly competitive. Ifthis needs to stay the same, it should be paid in another way. Commissioner Baney noted that some programs were meant to fund initiatives, but those were identified to get to an end result some years ago. They focused on crime prevention, to fill gaps in the system for programs that enhance the work the County does. There are other organizations that claim to work towards prevention. The question is, should those be part of the $90,000 fund? Commissioner Baney stated that the top three should not be considered service partners. There are other entities in the community who do the same kind of work. There needs to be a better reason to keep this going than it has always been done this way. Mr. Inbody said the committee is split; some feel they should be part of the competitive process, while others feel it should stay in place as it is. Commissioner Baney feels there is merit in determining an amount just for crime prevention. They should focus especially on behavioral and cognitive Issues. Commissioner Unger said that some programs need to be consistent year after year. However, ongoing support needs to be evaluated. There is a lot of change happening with the CFC. The federal government is abandoning programs and expects this work to be supported at the local level. It is hard to know whether they should and how to help in these cases. Mr. Kropp feels that perhaps an amount should be set aside for those who want to apply for just crime prevention, regardless of the organization, but for that purpose. Mr. Inbody said as funding from other sources dry up, a lot of groups are coming to the County for help. It will become more challenging over time. Chair DeBone said that some of the groups don't even acknowledge the County's assistance. Maybe some of this should be handled by someone other than the government. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 9, 2012 Page 13 of 16 Commissioner Baney feels the County has cultivated a climate to identify need. The question is, what are basic needs. Mr. Inbody said the categories helped involve emergency food/shelter, health care, abused/neglect/addicted, juvenile crime prevention, elderly and children. Some don't fit neatly into these categories. Funds need to be used effectively and help as many people as possible. They have to justify and quantify what they are doing. Commissioner Baney stated that the County's coverage might be too broad. Some groups are doing similar things. Each relies on volunteers and staff. Mr. Inbody said they are asked who they collaborate with, since this is significant. Those are the ones who tend to be better funded. Mr. Kropp asked about giving it all to the United Way. Commissioner Baney indicated that it should support County activities. Some like the Latino agency could be considered a service partner. Central Oregon Veterans Outreach might be as well. Mr. Inbody stated that some fulfill work that the County would otherwise have to provide. Some want to become community partners but perhaps they don't need to be. This process can become much more focused. However, the Board has always liked being flexible as needs arise. Commissioner Baney wants to spend some time on this issue, defining who is a service partner, and how to handle discretionary grants and community grants. Mr. Inbody said the budget committee decides the total amount, but not the individual allocations. Sixty-two organizations asked for funding at some level. He will notify all parties that the Board will be reviewing this in the future and there may be significant change in the process. This will be calendared for a future discussion. 6. Other Items. Commissioner Baney stated there has been a request from Mary's Place to make an appeal to the Board for general fund money. They want to bring a Judge with them for support. They were told they could come over during budget meetings. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 9, 2012 Page 14 of 16 Commissioner Baney said that Doug LaPlaca of Visit Bend, Jody Barron and other members of the Visit Bend board have decided they won't attend the COY AlVisit Bend morning meeting. If it is due to cost, she will remove that barrier. They do not feel this is something they want to participate in at this time. She has done as much as possible, so asks what is next? They are supportive of the afternoon conversation, but it would be a much smaller group. Originally, she understood they wanted more than this. She also wonders at what point the County has done all it could to provide options for communication. It appears that the Visit Bend board is not entirely open to hearing options. She wants to stay away from the final decision; they all need to get together to get there. They cannot dismiss the fact that these are public funds. The private organizations need to work things out. Commissioner Unger said that other places dedicate these funds to chambers of commerce or direct marketing organizations. The new conversation is how the County's work relates to the cities. It has changed. There are a lot of players. Let the County start the conversation, but others have to take it from there. Commissioner Baney stated there is a need for better alignment when an event comes to town. During the Iron ManlLead Man fiasco, it became clear there was a breakdown in this. Someone needs to make sure this does not happen again. Local government has a role in getting the groups together for this kind of discussion and to help them to work towards costs savings and efficiency. Commissioner Unger said that some activities hurt each other by the timing of events and they should all do what they can to avoid this kind of conflict. Chair DeB one feels that COY A and Visit Bend need to have a relationship. There is always a conflict with Sunriver, but maybe a seasonal COY A presence should be there. The City of Bend does not want to seem to hear anyone else's position. The County should continue with facilitation of the round table discussions. The DMO of choice would be a Board action, but COY A wants some things also. The Board indicated support of spending lottery funds for this effort as part of economic development efforts. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 9, 2012 Page 15 of 16 At this point, the Board went into Executive Session, called under ORS 192. 660(2)(h), pending or threatened litigation. Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 3:15 p .m. DATED this ;;lI1!:: Day of ~ 2012 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Anthony DeBone, Chair ..............: Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTEST: lSSlOner ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 9, 2012 Page 16 of16 I 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 I WORK SESSION AGENDA -REVISED DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2012 1. Discussion of District Attorney's Request for an Electronically Stored Infonnation System -Patrick Flaherty 2. South County Plan Update -Terri Payne 3. Discretionary Grant Requests -Dave Inbody Together For Children ($1,200) -Together For Children Assistance Community of Christ Church ($2,400) -Bridging Gaps The Nature of Words ($2,500) -2012 Literary Festival Cascade Theatrical Company ($2,500) -Main Stage Season Crooked River Ranch Senior Group ($4,000) -Emergency Fuel Orchard Neighborhood Association ($3,000) -Let's Pull Together 4. Consideration of Community Grant Recommendations -Dave Inbody 5. Consideration of Approval of Phannacy Contract -Dave Inbody 6. Other Items Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(h), pending or threatened litigation; and ORS 192.660(2)( d), labor 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) (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 COWlty meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes COWlty provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-\-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative fonnats or for further infonnation. Work Session _ -------'­(l_PleasePri'!!) Name A~encv -P-c., --;­f ,-,'( k F/atv /17 oA 1-ofc C I :PI Lc./ ( ( _ u~ M.of!fO<. II -0 o-L 5 ~ J 0-, \ " \ uc II Mailin~ Address c~w ;g-f~J r ( ---+-BaJ fJ ~~iE ---t­ oJ.. 1 ( Phone # - Wed .. May 9. 2012 e-mail address o~ {t;-41)~?rC,'3 ft:> I CI+AD .M~~Oe>. ()~ ,- I pC'! AIV(":J _ Sfl _b IQ '6/~ I,...<?~v _~~(l 14..,0 \..j ' r;:> Il iJJal~"--~~1 I I~ 1--­ ---1­ I . pa£esl ----~------j ofPa£e # Deschutes County Appropriation Transfer Request Line Number Item (HTE 14 digit code) 1 001-1100-412.12-57 2 001-1100-412.18-72 3 001-1100-412.34-18 4 001-1100-412.94-45 TOTAL , Category Description (Pers, M&S, Cap Out, (Element-Object, e.g. Time Mgmt, Contingency) Temp Help. Computer Hardware) Personnel Deputy District Attorney Personnel Time Management Materials & Services Expert Witness Testimony Capital Outlay Technology Improvements -----­----­ Current Budgeted Revised Amount To (From) Budget 1,437457 Q~f.i!t:J 3G{OOa· 1,407,457 56500 r:~,;;t~ ~~"QOJa· 27,500 35000 ~0~E~+~;~. ~~'M' 10,000 5,000 ~~~~;:~~~;QjJQ~ 89,000 .... 1,533,957 -.... 1,533,957.._­ A transfer of appropriation is required tbr the following reason and will be used for the following purpose: Fund: Dept Requested by: Date: General Fund DiStrict Attomey Patrick F(aherty April 30, 2012 Qty Product 2 Switch 1 VM Host 1 VM Host Server Ucense 1 Tape Backup Host 1 Tape Drive/SCSI card 30 Tapes 1 Backup Software 7 Backup Agents 1 Server Antivirus 1 Mail Antivirus 50 Workstation Antivirus 1 E-Mail Software 1 LaserFiche Software 25 Laserfiche Ucenses , 1 Laserflche Weblink TOTAL Cost Price One Time Cost / Annual Recurring $7,000.00 One Time Cost $7,000.00 One Time Cost $1,500.00 Annual Cost $4,000.00 One Time Cost $5,500.00 One Time Cost $1,500.00 Annual Cost $600.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $500.00 Annual Cost $17,000.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $U,OOO.OO One Time Cost $86,600.00 Description 24-Port Cisco 3750G Gig Switch Citrix Xen VM Hardware Citrlx Xen VM License Dell R310 16GB RAM, 2xlTB, RAID1, Win 2008 Dell Autoloader (capable of Expansion) LT05Tapes Backup Exec Allows BackupExec to backup servers Trend Micro Server Protect Trend Micro Exchange Trend Micro OfficeScan (Worry-Free 1 year) Microsoft Exchange Server , laserFiche Server, Weblink & 1st year maintenance laserflce client licenses Laserfiche Web Server Professional Services Deschutes County District Attorney's Office Budget, Actual and Projected Expenditures FY2012 I I FV 2012 Budgeted Appropriations Year to Date Actual (May 3, 2012) Estimated for May and June (1) I (2) Total Projected Variance I Personnel Salaries 2,763,616 2,201,688 452,293 2,653,981 109,635 Benefits 1,213,448 960,328 196,227 1,156,555 56,893! ! Total Personnel 3,977,064 3,162,016 648,520 3,810,536 166,528 I Materials &Services 866,432 598,794 199,598 798,392 68,040 Capital Outlay 25,000 25,000 Transfers Out 10,800 8,100 2,700 10,800 Total 4,879,296 3,768,910 850,818 4,619,728 259,568 (1) Personnel for May and June is estimated based on March 2012 actual. (2) Materials &Services for May and June Is based on assuming YTO actual represents nine months of expenditures. I Finance/JRF 5/3/12 Community Development Department Pfenning DIvision Building Safety Division Environmental Solis 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: May 2,2012 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner MEETING: May 9, 2012 RE: South County Plan Update I. BACKGROUND Deschutes County has initiated a process to prepare a land use plan for the South County area (excluding Sunriver and La Pine). During Comprehensive Plan update meetings in 2009 and 2010, South County residents expressed interest in an area-specific plan to replace one titled Regional Problem Solving for South Deschutes County, which has been in existence since the late 1990s. The South County Plan created through this process will be adopted as a distinct chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.1 II. COMMUNITY MEETINGS Starting in January 2012, staff utilized two kick-off meetings to introduce the project and begin identifying community expectations of the area. The results of those meetings were shared with the Board of County Commissioners (Board) at a work session on February 8. Since then three additional meetings have been held. • February 21, 20125:30-8 p.m. La Pine High School • March 20, 20126-8 p.m. La Pine Senior Center • March 21, 20126-8 p.m. Sunriver Ubrary The February 21 meeting brought together over 20 representatives from local, state and federal agencies that staffed tables and gave presentations to respond to community interests and questions. Representatives included the Bureau of Land Management, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Transportation and the City of La Pine. Other partners included: Sunriver Resort LLC, Sunriver Homeowner Association, and the Deschutes Soil and Water Conservation District. Besides the Community Development Department, Deschutes County representatives included the Road Department, Property and Facilities, and the County forester. Approximately 80 residents were in attendance. 1 Adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, the Comprehensive Plan is the current land use plan for Deschutes County. This plan provides policy direction for land use and development for the unincorporated areas of the county, consistent with Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals. Quality Seroices Performed with Pride To complement the agency presentations and their own resource materials, planning staff provided handouts to attendees summarizing existing demographic and land use conditions in South Deschutes County. These summary sheets are posted on the website listed below. The March meetings relied upon a series of table exercises to enable participants to first discuss, then identify, and later prioritize their respective land use issues under four themes: Land Use/Economic Development, Transportation, Natural Resources/Natural Hazards, and Recreation/Other.2 As a starting point for these discussions, staff summarized land use issues identified in Regional Problem Solving, the High Groundwater Project (2009), and the Comprehensive Plan Update. The results of the meeting are also posted on the website listed below. The next community meetings in May will be focused on reviewing a draft vision for South County and examining land use solutions, potential obstacles, and opportunities to collaborate with the region's local, state, and federal partners. • May 19 (Saturday) 10-Noon La Pine Senior Center • May 23 (Wednesday) 6-8 p.m. Sunriver Ubrary III. OTHER OUTREACH The following list summarizes Deschutes County's other efforts to engage and inform South County residents and stakeholders: Website: The website at www.deschutes.org/southcountyplan is regularly updated. Survey Monkey: A twenty question land use survey was posted on the South County website from March 1-April30. Fifty-four people completed the survey and the results are posted on-line. Schools: Staff reached out to schools and PTAs and met with the Three Rivers Elementary School PTA in February and hosted a table at the school in March to provide information and receive feedback from parents. Results can be found on-line. Organizations: Staff contacted a number of organizations and has had meetings with the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, Trout Unlimited and the Soil and Water Conservation Board to hear their views on South County. Notes can be found on-line. Regular updates are provided to the Upper Deschutes River Coalition and Project Wildfire. Interviews: Staff contacted approximately twenty people who are active in South County, requesting fifteen minute telephone interviews. Seven people responded and the results are posted on-line. Homeowner Organizations: Staff has contacted homeowner organizations and road districts with known email or phone numbers and three homeowner discussions are scheduled so far, starting May 12. On..going: An email list is maintained and updates are provided regularly. Press releases are issued for all the community meetings. Outreach to the community is continuous. 2 Both meetings relied upon the same agenda to make it easier for residents to attend. -2­ IV. NEXT STEP~ Draft goals and policies will be prepared and reviewed at community meetings in July. Outreach will continue to ensure that there are opportunities for the community to review and revise initial drafts over the summer. Focus groups are also anticipated so stakeholders can provide feedback on specific elements of the draft plan. -3­ TO: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FROM: DAVE INBODY SUBJECT: ONSITEPHARMACY DATE: 5/8/2012 CC: ERIK KROPP Background In February 2011, Deschutes County began operation of an onsite employee health clinic, the Deschutes Onsite Clinic (DOC). Initially, it was intended for the DOC to dispense prescriptions thereby reducing plan expenses for the medication costs and increasing convenience for employees and their families. Two primary issues prevented this from developing in the manner originally conceived. 1. Healthstat, the company hired to operate the DOC do not prescribe or dispense narcotics at their clinics. Since narcotics represent a significant portion of the cost of prescriptions in the health plan and tend to be the more expensive medications, their exclusion significantly reduced the potential for cost savings. 2. The DOC staff includes a full time nurse practitioner and a part time physician. In the State of Oregon, although a nurse practitioner can prescribe medications, they are prohibited from dispensing medications. This created an additional inconvenience for patients seeing a nurse practitioner. They were now required to see the physician to have their prescription dispensed. Since the physician was liable for this dispensed prescription, this required a review of each prescription before dispensing. The result was that nearly all of the physician's time was consumed dispensing medications. In fact, additional physician hours were added to address the prescription dispensing. Despite the limitations associated with dispensing prescriptions from the DOC, it still resulted in $12,316 in savings and $23,644 in savings to patients (through March 2012). With the potential for prescription savings limited through the DOC, the alternative of opening an onsite pharmacy was explored. A request for proposal was released and in August 20 II, the Board of Commissioners approved a letter of intent with Take Care Health Systems, a subsidiary of Walgreens. Onsite Pharmacy Operations Located next to the DOC, the onsite pharmacy (DOC Pharmacy), will operate very similarly to a retail pharmacy. Prescriptions, whether written in the DOC or by an outside provider, can be filled in the DOC Pharmacy. The pharmacy will be operated by Take Care Health Systems and all staffing will be Take Care employees. There will be an incentive for using the DOC Pharmacy instead of a retail pharmacy as highlighted in the chart below. Type of Medication Co-Payat DOC Pharmacy Co-Payat Retall Pharmacy Generic Drugs $0 $10 Brand Name Drugs-Multiple Source $10 $20 Brand Name Drug-Single Source $20 $35 The DOC Pharmacy operating hours will be from 9am-6pm Monday through Friday. The staffwill include one full time pharmacist and one full time pharmacy technician. A drop box will also be available for leaving prescriptions when the pharmacy is not open. Additionally, the Walgreens retail store, located in Redmond, will honor the discounted DOC Pharmacy co-payments. Confidentiality for all transactions through the DOC Pharmacy will be maintained by Take Care. Deschutes County will not have access to individual transaction information. The County will receive monthly aggregate, de-identified reporting on activities at the DOC Pharmacy. Financial Impact The County's health benefits plan spends about $200,000 per month on prescriptions. The ingredient costs through the DOC Pharmacy are expected to save 19%. The success of the DOC Pharmacy relies on utilization. A 65% penetration level, or the percentage of prescriptions dispensed through the DOC Pharmacy, is projected in the first year with it increasing to 78% by the fifth year. This chart outlines the projected savings from the DOC Pharmacy for the first five years of operation. ! i I ! ! Category Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Penetration Level 65% 70% 72% 75% 78% Ingredient Cost Savings $290,412 $327,903 $353,547 $385,972 $420,606 Other Cost Savings* $191,369 $394,798 $422,852 $458,731 $496,830 Co-Payment Adjustment ($234,524) ($251,330) ($262,399) ($277,435) ($292,860) Net Operating Costs ($297,614) ($319,394) ($332,681) ($346,148) ($360,275) Plan Cost Savings (S5O,357) S151,976 S181,319 S221,120 S264,301 Employee Cost Savings $234,524 $251,330 $262,399 $277,435 $292,860 TOTAL COST SAVINGS $184.166 $403,306 $443.719 $498,555 $557.161 *-Other Cost Savings includes program cost savings and generic conversion. The implementation and start up costs are expected to be $103,772. Based on these projections, the DOC Pharmacy will breakeven in the beginning of the third year. Higher penetration rates, program savings or generic conversion will result in the project breaking even sooner. The overall success of the DOC Pharmacy will be gauged based on the three primary objectives of the Triple Aim: • Improve the health of those on the Deschutes County Health Benefits Plan • Provide a more positive and more convenient health care experience • Save money in the Deschutes County Health Benefits Plan Recommendation It is recommended that the Board ofCommissioners sign the five-year contract with Take Care Health Systems for operation of the DOC Pharmacy. 2 FY 2013 Community Grant Recommendations