Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-06 Work Session Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, June 6, 2012 Page 1 of 8 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, JUNE 6, 2012 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone and Alan Unger; Commissioner Tammy Baney was out of the office. Also present were Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, David Givans, Internal Auditor; Anna Johnson, Communications; Judith Ure, Administration; tom Anderson and Peter Russell, Community Development; Patrick Flaherty and Mary Anderson, District Attorney’s Office; media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin; and six other citizens. Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Discussion of Child Support Enforcement Services. Ms. Jean Fogarty, Director of Child Support in the Attorney General’s Office, was introduced. She said the program is federally funded; in Oregon, it is structured in the Department of Justice. There are thirteen branch offices and has contracts with the District Attorney in twenty-six counties to handle the program. The Department of Justice has responsibility for the remaining ten counties. They took on the work in Deschutes County ten years ago. The State is responsible for those where families are on some kind of public assistance. Private caseloads are assigned to the D.A. Offices, but the DOJ does both types in the ten counties with no contract. The assistance caseload is not a voluntary process. For the D.A. and for private cases, it is voluntary by application, and there is no set income level. This is unique from the federal and state standpoint, leveraging federal dollars. For every general fund dollar, they get two federal matching dollars. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, June 6, 2012 Page 2 of 8 Another federal funding stream is the incentive program. This has performance outcomes with five measures driving the incentive payments. They compete with other states for this. Last year they got over $6 million in incentives, and this is shared with the D.A. Offices. The counties also compete against each other for this. The goal is self-sufficiency for families, and constant and reliable support for children from both parents. This makes the biggest single impact in keeping kids above the poverty level. Ms. Fogarty said she met with the District Attorney on this matter. It is his prerogative per statute to take this on, and she supports his efforts. He wants it to be successful. There is a benefit having a local presence. They already have a memorandum of understanding in place to work together. The caseload for the State is about 800; for the D.A., it is 500 to 600. Erik Kropp asked about having two offices in Bend. Ms. Fogarty replied that the State does public assistance case, including those for other central and northern Oregon counties. There are about $1 million in receipts a day, and about 125 employees in the counties. By statute, it is a hybrid. The non- assisted cases would be served by the D.A. Alternatively, the State can agree to handle them, as it does in Deschutes County now. Commissioner Unger asked why they can’t support this as it is, instead of adding more work. Ms. Fogarty responded that they are really talking about making services available to more citizens. It would be better to have the D.A. handle it. The State is working at capacity and they can’t do as much for each case as they should. Mr. Kropp said he thought it might be more cost-effective to have all cases in a single office. Patrick Flaherty noted that it is a lot less cost-effective to do it that way. The counties that contract with the State work much better with the funds that are provided. Ms. Fogarty added that the DOJ had more resources at one time, but no longer. It is not easy work. She has a sense that if this work was combined with other types of work at the D.A. level, it would be better off. Commissioner Unger noted that $400,000 is going to the State. He asked what that loss would mean to the State. He said that maybe it is better to try to add value to what is already being done instead of moving it around. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, June 6, 2012 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Flaherty stated that he represents the people of Deschutes County, the 1700 cases. He needs to focus on this. It would be easier for the D.A. to handle. The State sometimes has to send over attorneys from Salem, and that is not cost-effective. Mary Anderson said that Judge Alta Brady encourages this change. One issue is how much can be done under a MOU. They can fully step in if it is being handled through the D.A.’s Office. They would start the program in January 2013. This will help them get up to speed. There is a lot that can be done before lawyers have to get involved. Mr. Kropp said that he is concerned about the cost to the County. Eight positions had to be eliminated at the Sheriff’s Office and eight more elsewhere. He is concerned about the timing. Chair DeBone said it might be a good value, but in light of the rece nt budget discussions, it is a very scary time. It could be a good thing for the people involved, but perhaps it could be delayed until more is known. Ms. Anderson stated that a lot has to happen to make it work. They need a definite timeframe. Mr. Flaherty said that they could discuss this at a public hearing. He does not want to put it off any longer. The Board needs to make a rational decision. It is not necessarily pertinent to the economy. Chair DeBone asked if this is to be discussed during budget hearings. Mr. Kropp replied that the document would have to be changed, as it is not in the budget at this time. 2. Discussion of Redmond Application/Planning Fees to Add 19th St./Quarry to the TSP Map. Peter Russell explained that the City of Redmond wants to add 19th Street as a collector, and could not fold it into the ongoing timeline previously. The City wants to apply for an amendment, separate from the existing TSP. Under Code, they have to submit an application, and there is a fee for this. They agreed to do all the work in exchange for waiving the $5,000 fee. No goal exception is required for this as a collector, and not an arterial. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, June 6, 2012 Page 4 of 8 Mr. Anderson added that the fee would not be collected. The revenue was not budgeted anyway. Community Development is supported by the general fund to a large extent already. Mr. Russell said that there is a public benefit. Staff is not being asked to do the work. It is a 20-year planning document. The only difference would be putting this on the plan. This location was not anticipated in 1988. Chair DeBone indicated he wants the City to buy in. Commissioner Unger noted that they would do all the staff work. It is not part of the County work plan. It seems to be to the advantage of all. Mr. Russell said there would be some internal staff review. If they paid the fee, the County would have to do all the work. Chair DeBone stated that the City needs to show why it matters to them. Mr. Russell said that ODOT is not putting anything in to the construction. Redmond will have to do most of it. The cost is $15 million and the County pays for just a small part of it. James Lewis of the City of Redmond said this is a line item for Redmond, as shown on the plan. Many other planning documents show this . The DSL is also involved. Quarry Road is already on the County’s TSP. They added this alignment to the TSP, but for various reasons they just got off track with the timing. They did not want to hold up the bigger plan, so agreed to add this later. The City will pay for the traffic consultant, and prepare finding and a burden of proof. The goal is to minimize staff time. Commissioner Unger stated that fifteen years ago, when the County moved the Fairgrounds, they started talking about community solu tions. They need to extend 19th Street to relieve traffic. He sees this as a public benefit. They need to support each other, but let the City do the work. Mr. Lewis is wrapping up consultant work and the City wants to submit this next month. This can affect the overall timing. Mr. Anderson said that maybe they can agree to something in between. There are some costs to the County for administrative time and Planning Commission meetings. They could reduce this to the actual cost of service, but he doesn’t know what that amount is. It could be $1,000 instead of $5,000. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, June 6, 2012 Page 5 of 8 Commissioner Unger indicated that this sounds reasonable to him, but they may want to find out what Commissioner Baney thinks. The challenge is that 19th Street is aspirational. There is the big picture including the State Lands property and economic development. This is key to that. In regard to SB 1544, Central Oregon Irrigation District and the School District property, and having more industrial land, the key to all is transportation. Supporting 19th Street gives more flexibility, and this does not just benefit the City. This is a partnership issue and they need to anticipate for the future. Chair DeBone said it is more than ten years from now, but it is this year’s money. He asked if this is that much of a problem for Redmond. Mr. Lewis replied that it is not in their budget this year. Originally they looked at it being administrative. It was not included in the TSP before due to staffing issues at the time. Commissioner Unger stated that he wants to waive the fee because it benefits all. It demonstrates a good working relationship also. DEBONE: Move that the application fee to Redmond be reduced to $1,000. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair vote yes. 3. Discussion of Draft Grant Administration Policy. Mr. Kropp discussed the external auditor’s recommendation to centralize grant tracking. Once applications are applied for, the departments are handling tracking and reporting, and there is less control and oversight. The Departments would be required to get Board approval before applying. The Audit Committee has also reviewed this. Commissioner Unger said that they should track grants through the process. If it is not done right, they could be out of compliance and may have to repay funds. Judith Ure noted that this is not a huge problem, and all departments administer grants, but not everyone is familiar with the process. They should be able to check the status and progress of each. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, June 6, 2012 Page 6 of 8 Chair DeBone said that this has been a recommendation for several years. Mr. Kropp responded that they tried to come up with an automated system first, but the process should be established first, followed by the system. He will schedule the grants for discussion at work sessions; the formal part would be accepting the grants when they are awarded. UNGER: Move Board approval of the Grant Administration Policy and authorize the Interim County Administrator to sign it. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair vote yes. 4. Discuss Upcoming County Forecast Presentation. Chair DeBone said that the County presentation is not going to La Pine after all. The program for the meeting was already set. The Chamber there wants to schedule it as more of a special event. Commissioner Unger stated that they need to think about the total picture. They should reach out to other communities as well. Mr. Kropp said that they are drafting topics. The Chair would make an opening statement and it works well when each Commissio ner speaks to certain subjects. Anna Johnson added that the focus is to get honest questions from the audience. Department heads could be in the room as well in case there are specific questions. Commissioner Unger said he has to attend ODOT Connect Oregon meetings that day so will have to submit his comments in writing. 5. Update on Employee Recognition Event. Anna Johnson said this will be on the Saturday of the annual Fair. Three will be food for the employees, and concert tickets with a minimal fee. She will coordinate this with one person in each department. It will be a simple lunch from 11:30 to 1, and a brief presentation. They will get the food, admission to the Fair and two tickets to any concert. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, June 6, 2012 Page 7 of 8 This is a lot less expensive to the County. The concerts are free anyway through various outlets. This will also mean more revenue for the Fair, since some will buy tickets for rides or other food. There are a lot of free activities, though, so people don’t have to spend a lot of money. Mr. Kropp noted that not everyone is excited about this, but no matter what you plan, you cannot please everyone. They may try to do something different in a couple of years. 6. Other Items. Joe Stutler completed a customer satisfaction survey for the Oregon Department of Forestry, and wants the Board to approve it. The Commissioners reviewed and approved it as is. _________________________ The County can apply for a grant to stop juvenile drinking, through the Think Again Parents Coalition. A small amount would go to the County for st aff costs. The Commissioners indicated support. _________________________ The Commissioners then discussed their upcoming calendars and various events. _________________________ The Board had planned to go into Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(e), Real Property Negotiations, but this item was delayed indefinitely. Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m. DATED this n~Day of ~ 2012forthe Deschutes County Board of Commissioner d«J~ Anthony DeBone, Chair Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTEST: Tam~r ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 6,2012 Page 8 of8 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall S1., 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, JUNE 6,2012 1. Discussion of Child Support Enforcement Services -Mary Anderson, District Attorney's Office 2. Discussion of Redmond Application/Planning Fees to Add 19 th St.lQuarry to the TSP Map Peter Russell 3. Discussion of Draft Grant Administration Policy -Erik Kropp 4. Discuss Upcoming County Forecast Presentation -BOCC 5. Update on Employee Recognition Event -Anna Johnson 6. Other Items Executive Session, called 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) (h), litigation; ORS 192.66O(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 ITY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. N I I , ~ 0 \II N \II Q) L.. I I -0 Q) "0 c "0 I ~ ro """' 'n; I \J I Q) E ~ I Q)! District Attorney Phone: (541) 388-6520 Patrick J. Flaherty 1164 NW Bond Street Admin. Fax: (541) 330-4691 Felony Fax: (541) 388-6615 Bend, OR 97701 Grand Jury Fax: (541) 330-4698 www.deschutesda.org Juvenile Fax: (541) 383-0901 DESCHUTES COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM Oregon's Child Support Enforcement program is primarily supported by Federal Matching Funds and Federal Incentives Funds. The goal of the Deschutes County District Attorney's Office is to return the DA caseload (non-assistance cases) to the DA's Office to provide the best enforcement of court ordered support for the children of Deschutes County. Enforcing support for children promotes healthy family relationships, health care coverage for children, economic stability and emotional support. The Oregon Child Support Program was established in 1975 under Title IV -D of the Social Security Act. The Oregon program consists of two primary partners, the Department of Justice Division of Child Support (DCS) and County District Attorneys (DA). In 2001 the Deschutes County DA CSE Program was transferred to the Department of Justice by an Intergovernmental Agreement. In exchange for DCS assuming Deschutes County DA's support enforcement responsibilities, DCS receives all of the Federal incentives and other funds for the program. In Oregon, Child Support case loads are divided into two types of caseloads, the DA caseload for families and children not receiving public assistance and the DCS caseload for families and children involving current and former recipients' of public assistance where support rights are or have been assigned to the state as a condition of receiving cash assistance. CSE statewide reporting show that when the DA caseload that is assigned to aDA's office has had a higher percentage of collections than the mixed caseload . The return of the DA case load to Deschutes County will provide increased enforcement, strengthen our partnership with DCS, and ensure that the children of Deschutes County are provided with every opportunity for the financial support they deserve. ~ES~I:!U~~S5.0UN!!:E~~TRlq ~rr.~~~~Y __ l. ___ ... I L.. PROPOSED BUDGET -CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2013·2014 .. Beginning Net Working Capital --~"'---'!---. -....--.~----~-.~. ____ Interfundse~/BUird~~~icesJ__ _ .~ I $ _9.;../5_0_4,_00_+___._. _____ IntecfundServ/Admtn., ._ ...1____ __.1 '_'_ .t_3,003.00 Interfund Serv/Boce I $ 1,334.001...-.---. . ...._______ ._. -.•_-,-_. _ .•: J ___ f-~-·.--· Inlierfund Serv/Finance .: I $ 3,558.00 1 lnterfund Serv/legal Counsel .-;._-----~--.. ----..-'$ -3,2iQ.Oo 1--1-----1---.-.--..­ I --....-...... -_. --...._-.._...._.. .. _.-. -'-­ =~:=~~::::£'nT~'-~.' I ---.~!---~-±-it::~-=._-~I-__~~~~_~ Ilmterfundserv/ITServef__~__.~_____: _._. ! _.___~ _.1 ....~514.00TL_ j Repairs & Maintenance -Office f.qulp\llIIelllt . $ 500.001---''------.-----'--'----':-":...---------...,.. -..--+------.-_ ..--­~::h~:~:;~;rMa"""7-:-y---~j~ -'-' ~nference&Seminais _.=-__.. =-I .·---~=.=r$-1,000.00 -.--r-~~~.~ £ducat,on &Training r r. ..r-.. '. ._ -ll. 1,000.00 r-____. IcomputerSoftwareliam5eS __' .... . L __.._l_____.$ 9,750.00 ./------1----1 ,General liability Insurance _~i_.._~_____1__ $ 1,173.00 ____.1-----1 PmpertyDamagelnsu ..nce 1 _____ ;;:. .I $$ 431.00 --_.1---....­ Printing & Binding; --:-r 500.00 Travel/Meals j _.' ,j --.___ ;r--~--:-$--5-00-.oo--t--.~.~~:~~====1 Travel/Accomodations :: 'L... $ 1,000.00 _-+____. M _Travel/Mileage Reimb. 'I I' $ 1,000,_00-+____+-___ 1 Computer Supplies! -t" .; .I $ 500.00 Office Supplies i=\,";.i--' .[ $ 1,000.00 ;~:ge/Frtgh:.~__~ _-I~~~~-=~.! ~ -=t~...~T --~~~:: ----._.-II..=---.--~.= ~or Tools &Equipment _2_. ___ -=~~=-.....:-_~ _ ____j __8,000.00 i .-.~.-.-t-'-----I Computers & Peripherals ! I ~ $ 5,000.00 ___J~__ I --__~==_ ._-= _=~.===.. ..­=-.I-=.:~~---:_~~__ +-_---­ Total Materials & Services I $ 83,727.00---I '--T .----.'1------.--~--.-~---_.__.. ~~_~.~Coprer i------J---==E~_-~_--~_ 5~:::c__ _ --=~=- :~:~:-l --j-~---: ~--=t:-----1~~:7:::-,=---,---~ ~etRe50u~ces/(DefiC~fOrRSCafVear---'j' .-T-------Ts---·o.1i1 "'-'----1 -­ 4/4/2012 Deschutes County program estimate County Population Cases HE Cases/HE 2012 Total Budget Federal Funds Incentives Federal Funds 66% Match General Funds State General Funds County $25 Annual Fee General Funds County - Jackson 208,370 2,501 7.00 357 $585,315 $89,057 $327,531 $58,778 $9,052 $100,898 Yamhill 98,932 1,352 5.20 260 $452 ,223 $52 ,397 $263,885 $34,582 $5,506 $95,853 Deschutes CountyJDA17] 158,792 1,718 5.56 309 $472,834 $64,464 $269,524 $42,547 $6,634 $89,665 Amount distributed from the Oregon Child Support Program Amount that the county would have to come up with from their existing budget note : Douglas & Linn counties were close in population and cases, but neither currently have child support programs - Due to Program: Annual Budget Annual Audit Letter Quarterly Reimbursement Requests Due from Program: Quarterly Reimbursement federal match passthrough [distributed based on quarterly reimbursement request] Quarterly Reimbursement -state general fund [distributed based on quarterly reimbursement request] Quarterly Estimated Incentives Quarterly Distribution of $25 annual fee Annual distribution of estimated incentives reserves [depends on annual final award] Annual distribution offinal incentives [depends on annual final award] DESCHUTES COUNTY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT Ba5ed on FFY 2011 Data Actu.1 Perform.ncl Wl:IGKT'ED COLlEcnON5 • INCENTIVE PERF PERCENTAGEP£J!FOI\W\NC£ INCfNTlVE PERCENTAGE C:RNT ClINT TL 'NCTV C:LTNSSPRT ORDRS WT CRNT SPRT DUE CLTNS ON INCTV FND5 STGEN FNOTTL UNWGHTO 5PRT 5PRT CLTNS SPRT SPRT c:LTNS c:ST EFF (BSO ONWT OSTB"1.0 WTl.O ARGSWTO.75 c:sTEFFWTO.75 [EST] (ESTleLTNS WGHTD CLTNS ORDRS DUE ON ARGS c:ST EFF ORPRS DUE ON ARGS (EST] COLI, $..6~442,762.45 I $6'740'S6S.5~1 -9Z'_1~J~C3.!~I __~:1%;__Sl~'_6.3~ 100%1 7S%1 82%1 1~1___S_6'~!l_~; ~5,257,S77 1 $4,145,634 I $5,055,651 __ 521,200,OH .. . _1.59." __ _ $~,~&4 . $42.547 $7,077,912 : $5,803,88S 1 $4,671,422 i _ $5,.308,434 522,861,656' 1.71" $69,517 I $45,882$6,764,900.57 r-----sz''O~,~1.~_ ~9_9".'_21.7".! 74.7%,_ _ ' $i~~~. _,' _. !O_~ 82"~~!,_~~ __$2,785,703 :S2,474~1 $5,839,2771 $5;839,277 ---526,938,533 ' --'2.0'2% ----$81,914 · '$54,0&4 $S,557,599.221"$S,953,55S.64 $7,441,39_~3 r--S7,7S5'7.P.~1z.. _: ._9.~1~ 78.9%L82.1%1_·_$14.. ~:~_1_q,~_. 96%i~~L.:...:.l,Q.~~ ' ," .97:1%1 90.7%1 94.5%i· . >$14'.63 ...... 100%1 100%1 100"1.:.·.: ·'100% $8,953,559 $8,953,559 $6,715.169 $6,715,169 S31?37,455 2.35" $95.290 : $62,892 A 10% Inerease would bring In an additional $998,62.810 C : .No change i" ~erfo~..n.~ -.1 Deschutes County FamilIes. IAssumptions: Collections increase, but caseload remains the same 4/13/2012 1JUSTlCE·1fl319446-v1-11~13_De'5chutll!~_County_lnCrea'5e_CZ!i'5e.XL5X I I I ! ~ t. 12/13/2011 I , i f ii j Oregon Department of Justice I j- I 1 JOHN R. :KROGE,R. At~"qltly G~rwral Olvlsi(')ll Of ChUd. S-upporl: MARX H\ WILliAMS, Deputy Attorn!!y Gehei<iI 1162 Coti'rt S~NE ISaiew,·OR 97301-4.096 I .f Telepnonm (503)·941·!l388 oiegdndrlldSupportSov MEl\10MNDUM OF·l.JN"PERST.ANP1NG:1 1 Oregon Department ofJrtstfce1 Division ofChjId SUPPQrt~ and the . Deschutes'County District Atto.mey's Office. I MEMORANDUM. OFUNDERS'rANDINq i t iI. rmsqoclJJl).ent mem~rialiZes the :agreement between the:Deschutes County; District 1 At:tomey, Patrick Flaherty.. and the Ol'egl:!» D~part01eAt ofJustiG~, pivision of Child i I I fSupport.through Chi1¢lS~pporfJ?ro.graJJ.lDi~ecto:r.Jean Fogarty. IT. The goal pfbQt;l1 pa,rtft;:s. is·to inqrease child support collection in Deschutes County. Both partl~S_i:~~ognize that it is mutually beneficial to reduce the eQst of child S!lPPQrt enforcem~nt'in Deschute.s County and to provide traihlng opportunities for .Deschutes Coun'o/ Depilty District Attorn:eys, lIt. The Dese-htites County District ,Attorney wlU prQ~id~Deputy District Attbmeys to. appear in court~']n De&chuJes. Cpunty, on oebaIf of the Depattment ofJustice, DivJsioll of child Sup}?ort.1n non-evidentiarj and brief enfotcemeni hearings. These appel'qanct;s ~U he schedUled .in: advance 'and coordinated by the Depl'lJbnent of ,., Justice... I I j.1V. The Deschutes County Disuitt Attorney r~c9~izesthe ll,e~d.to redUCe the number of ·.a:ppeai'l¢ces fOJ: Assistanf Attom~ys ·General tr~veling from outside dfBend..attd beI~~s .it d~s.irable to. ~stablish and maiutain a cooperative wotkihg relations~p with Ith~ De:partr.nent of'Justice. I y.. The Departmenfof Justice, Divisici1l ofChlld Support" ~w.ees to assist ,ip:the trainin~ I ofthe DepUty District Attomeys who appe.ar.in c.oUrt QD Chllq Support cases, and to. I work toward furtheringlo«al.cooperative ~fforts tQ cQordfn!:ttethe enforcement of ~ I 'jChild SUppOlt cases and to facilitate ~t! wmcipated retum o.fthe District A~orney ca$~Io.ad to 1h¢Pvsc:b:q:t~s County P.i~~rict Attorney's Office.. I Community Development Department Planning Division Building Salety 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 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner Date: June 1, 2012 Re: City of Redmond request for fee waiver Background During the County's update of the Transportation System Plan (TSP) the City of Redmond approached the County about including 19th Street from southeast Redmond to the US 97/Quarry intersection as part of the update. The City would provide the necessary findings; however, due to staffing changes in Redmond the City was not able to meet the County's timeline. The City of Redmond will now make a separate land use application to amend the County's TSP map to add 19th Street. The road would be designated a collector and stop at Quarry, unlike the County's earlier efforts to add 19th Street to the map as an arterial all the way from Redmond to Deschutes Junction. The City would again provide all the findings. Issue The fee for a plan amendment that does not need an exception from a Statewide Planning Goal is $5,000. As Redmond is proposing to add 19th Street as a collector that will remove local traffic from a state highway, under Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0065 a goal exception is not needed. Under the fee waiver policy, the Board has the discretion to waive the fee. Enclosed is a letter from the City of Redmond saying why the City feels this public benefit has been met. Proposed actions The Board can choose to invoke the public benefit clause of fee waiver policy and waive the $5,000 fee or the Board can choose to require the fee. Attachment: May 28, 2012 letter from City of Redmond Quality Services I>erfonned with Pride CITY OF REDMOND 716 SW Evergreen Avenue Community Development Department Redmond, OR 97756 (541) 923-7721 Fax: (541) 548-0706 www.ci.redmond.or.us May 28, 2012 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Honorable Tony DeBone, Chair Honorable Tammy Baney, Commissioner Honorable Alan Unger, Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 RE: Requested Waiver to Application Fees for Deschutes County Transportation System Plan Update – Quarry Road extension from U.S 97 to 19th Street at Redmond City Limits. Dear Commissioners: In recent correspondence to you, we have outlined the coordinated work that the City of Redmond and Deschutes County staff have done to address interrelated transportation issues that benefit both Deschutes County and the City of Redmond. Specifically, our respective staffs have been discussing an amendment to the Deschutes County TSP to add a new road alignment between the planned Quarry Avenue Interchange at US Highway 97 and the southern Redmond City limit at 19th Street (Quarry Avenue extension to 19th Street). Such discussions and coordination began during the recent County TSP update process, with this project originally discussed as being included as part of the overall County legislative process. However, as the City engaged in the work to complete the analysis and develop findings to support the proposal, the County legislative process to complete the TSP update continued. We understood the rationale for the County to continue with and complete the TSP update, with the knowledge that this proposal would run a separate course. As part of this understanding, it was acknowledged by all that the City would be responsible for the work to support the proposal (staff and consultants), while the County staff would continue to coordinate the overall amendment to the TSP as originally contemplated. Nonetheless, because this will be a separate land use action from the legislative TSP amendment, the proposal requires a formal application, public notice, public hearing and associated fees. However, in this regard the City is respectfully requesting a waiver of the fees associated with this action. It is our understanding that the Board of Commissioners has the ability to waive fees in cases where a public benefit is served. In such consideration, we believe that the public benefit will be served by the addition of the proposed road alignment to a County planning document, and by making the County TSP consistent with other adopted federal, state and local plans which all reference this project. Further, as was coordinated with the County Planning staff, the City has taken on the responsibility of preparing the required findings which address the applicable State and County criteria, and have retained traffic consultants to prepare a traffic impact analysis to support the proposal. Thus, all efforts have been made to minimize the County planning staff time dedicated to this project. For these reasons, we believe the proposal provides a public benefit and takes into consideration the fiscal impacts to the County Community Development Department thereby providing justification for the fee waiver. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Respectfully submitted, Heather Richards Community Development Director Department of Transportation Region 4 Planning James R. Bryant Interim Planning Manager 63085 N Highway 97 Bend, OR 97701 Phone: (541)388-6437 Fax: (541 )388-6361 Email: james.r.bryant@odot.state.or.us April 20, 2012 Mr. Peter Russell Senior Transportation Planner Deschutes County 117 NW Lafayette Ave., Bend, OR 97701 SUBJECT: Draft Deschutes County TSP Dear Mr. Russell: The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) appreciates the opportunity to again comment on the draft Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP). This letter is intended to supplement our letter of December 15, 20 II, and to respond to questions that have arisen in the interim as expressed at the Board of Commissioners' hearing on April 16, 2012. There were four areas of the TSP pertinent to ODOT that generated some discussion during the TSP process and were raised at the Board of Commissioners' hearing. These areas are west of Sisters, Tumalo, Deschutes Junction and Quarry Road. • US 20 west of Sisters OooT appreciates the input from members of the Sisters' community who have expressed their concerns about four-Ianing US 20 between Black Butte Ranch and Sisters. In light of their concerns, ODOT collaborated with the County to identify certain triggers that OooT would utilize to determine the need to add lanes to that portion of the highway. It should be noted that although the deficiency identified in the TSP extends for 10 miles between Black Butte Ranch and Sisters and has an estimated cost of $20 million, the improvement would be phased in over time as passing lanes of a mile in length or so. Regardless, OooT has committed to use these triggers to ensure that the addition of travel lanes would be employed only when it is established that they would be a cost effective counter measure to reduce or eliminate crashes in the corridor. Further, given the uncertainty of predicting traffic volumes 20 years into the future and, again, in response to the expressed concerns of the Sisters community, we have reduced the priority from high to medium and would rely on the triggers to indicate the need for the improvement. • Tumalo OooT is nearing completion of a three-year effort to identify the long term solution in Tumalo consistent with the current Deschutes County TSP which identifies an interchange as the solution and for which Deschutes County has been collecting SDCs. A TSP is required to identify and address the long term transportation needs with a future horizon of at least at least 20 years. The preferred long term solution is an interchange alternative which provides a grade separation at the US 20 and Cook/OB Riley intersection. OooT has looked a number ofalternatives including, specifically, the use of traffic control devices (Le. a traffic signal or roundabout) to modulate at-grade intersections at US 20/Cook/OB Riley and at US 20 @ 7ililBailey. The at-grade alternatives were not selected because they did not meet the project objectives for a long-term solution (Le. out to the year 2030). Once a long term solution is I 1 1 f ,I l 1 I ! t 1 I I established, then mid-tenn solutions, if needed, can be developed that would satisfy the mid-tenn need and work towards the long tenn solution. • Deschutes Junction ReC"mement Plan The existing Deschutes Junction interchange and US 97 are projected to operate acceptable to the 2030 horizon year and no improvements are needed or identified except for a safety improvement of a median barrier between Deschutes Junction and Giftl61 st to eliminate cross-over crashes. (We have included a drawing in the draft TSP for the frontage road concepts that would provide access to properties adjacent to US 97 whose access would be affected by the median safety improvement.) !fa refinement plan looks at intensifying the land uses at Deschutes Junction, it would, of course, need to assess the affect of the land use changes on the safe operation of the interchange and connecting state and county roads. We would again suggest that the frontage road language be flexible enough to allow OOOT to employ other measures to safely provide access to properties whose access might be affected by a median barrier. While a frontage road system is the preferred solution, there are on-system improvements that have been implemented in other areas that provide for the safe ingress and egress of properties that front highways with non-traversable medians. One example is a J-turn which allows out-of-direction traffic to safely perfonn a turning movement to head back in the opposite direction such as is currently be used on US 101 outside of Warrenton. The tum is initiated from a channelized left-turn lane and is completed on a modified, widened shoulder to accommodate the needed turning radius. J-turns could provide a timely, lower cost solution, perhaps as in interim until a frontage road system can be implemented. • Quarry Road Interchange/19th Street ODOT has previously suggested that the Quarry Road interchange be moved to the illustrative list as there is no demonstrated state or county need for the facility within the TSP planning period. The city of Redmond, however, has indicated that this interchange will be needed to accommodate future city traffic from Helmholtz on the west and 19th on the east and have assumed the cost of the interchange in their funding program. Accordingly, OOOT would support keeping the interchange in the plan and amending the TSP cost allocation table to reflect Redmond's financial commitment for the improvement. The city of Redmond has also proposed policy language to support their future land use actions to implement their TSP with respect to extending city streets to the Quarry interchange. It should be clear that any such roadway extension is to be predicated on the understanding that the connection to US 97 will be at a grade-separated facility not an at-grade intersection. The primary management objective of US 97 between Bend and Redmond is to eliminate, where possible, direct access and at-grade connections. To wit, we partnered with Deschutes County to close Pleasant Ridge Road due to number of crashes at that intersection. Earlier, of course, Deschutes County partnered with ODOT to build the Deschutes Junction interchange in response to the number of crashes that were occurring there as an at­ grade intersection. Thank you and again, if you have any questions or require additional infonnation, please contact me at (541) 388-6437. Sincerely, James R. Bryant Cc: Bob Bryant, OOOT Region 4 Manager Page 2 Date: May 31, 2012 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator Re: Draft Grant Administration Policy Attached is a draft Grant Administration Policy for Board consideration at your June 6, 2012 work session. The new policy will provide clearer direction for staff and better oversight over countywide grant administration. SAMPLE I DRAFT GRANT TRACKING SYSTEM The Grant Tracking System (GTS) is intended to provide a centralized access point for collecting and disseminating information concerning the source, amount, use, and status of all grant funds awarded to the County as specified in the Grant Application and Administration Policy. The system will store documents related to grant awards and will facilitate the management and monitoring of grant activity from the point of application through completion. Grant Requestors, Grant Administrators, Program Managers, Department Directors, the County Administrator, members of the Board of County Commissioners and other approved staff members will be granted access to the GTS as either a system user or information viewer. Section 1 -Grant Application Procedures: 1. Prior to applying for any new grant or renewal of an existing grant,~e.;Grant Requestor shall complete the Grant Application fields in the GTS. " 2. Upon completion of the Grant Application fields, the system will assign a Grant Identification Number which will be synchron' dwilP the Q,~Partment ofAdministrative Services' existing document tracking system. ' 's n~per Will(?~ us~d to identify the . source, amount, use, and status of grant twtds U~tlt the apphcatlOn, award, and trackmg processes. ... . 3. The GTS will automatically forward i¢'ormatirih~ontiiined inthe Grant Application section to the County Administrator and Board ~lCounty \GqFf~~ioners as notification of intent to proceed with an application. . ...... 4. Following completion of the Grant Applicatioi\~ect}dn, the Grant Requestor may proceed with developing and submitting the grant applicatiori: Required Fields: • Department Requesting Grant Funds • Name of Grant Requestor • Name of Funding Agency • Date Application is Due • AmQunt Requested • Matching Ftln4s/In-Kind Contribution Required • DeScription ofGrant Funded Project/Program • Description and NUmber of New Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Positions Funded by Grant (if applicable) Section 2: Grant Award Procedures: 1. The department responsible for the grant application, award, and administration will assign a Grant Administrator to be responsible for completing the award, tracking, reporting, and closeout procedures. 2. Prior to acceptance of any funding or expenditure of funds on any grant activity, a written contract, agreement, award notice, or copy of the grant application must be prepared and submitted consistent with Policy No. GA-17 -Legal Review of County Documents. 3. The grant agreement must then be approved by the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with existing Board meeting procedures. 4. The Grant Administrator shall complete the Grant Award fields in the GTS. 5. The Grant Administrator will append a scanned copy of the original grant application and the signed grant agreement, contract, and/or award notice to the system. 6. The GTS will automatically forward to the Finance Department notice of the grant approval and access to all applicable documents. Required Fields: • Name of Grant Administrator • Date of Award Notice • Amount of Award • Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number or Other Funding Identifier • Duration of Grant • Special Conditions of Award (such as submittal of supplemental documents, compliance with specific governmental acts, rules, or regulations, public tJ).otification, etc.) • American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Source (if applicable) • Payment Basis (reimbursement or advanced funds) Date Award Documents Are Forwarded to Legru Counsel • Date Award is Approved by Board of Commissi~ners j'~ • Date Award Approval and Grant Documents are Forwarded to Finance Department Section 3: Grant Tracking Procedures: 1. The Grant Administrator is responsible for compliance with all requirements of the grant award including monitoring performance and submitting project status reports, tracking and accounting for grant fiuidSfW1d matching contributions, and ensuring that requests for reimbursement are accurate·and submittedm a timely manner. 2. The Grant Administrator shall complete the Grant Tracking fields in the GTS throughout the life of the grant. Required Fields: • Description of Required Grant Reports • ~t Reportin&,Sch~le • Date Required Grant Report(s) Submitted (to be repeated as necessary consistent with the grant reporting schedule) Section 4: Financial Tracking Procedures: 1. At such time as payment or reimbursement of grant funds is requested, the Grant Administrator, or designee, will complete the Date PaymentlReimbursement Requested and associated information fields in the Financial Tracking section. 2. Upon completion of the Date PaymentlReimbursement Requested and associated informational fields, the GTS will automatically send notification to the County's Finance Department. 3. At such time as payment or reimbursement is received by the County, the County's Finance Department will complete the Date PaymentlReimbursement Received and Amount of PaymentlReimbursement Received fields in the Financial Tracking section. 4. Upon completion of the Date PaymentlReimbursement Received and Amount of PaymentlReimbursement fields, the GTS will automatically send notification to the Grant Administrator. 5. Completion of these steps will be repeated as necessary throughout the grant period consistent with the grant payment schedule. Required Fields: • Date PaymentlReimbursement Requested • Amount of PaymentlReimbursement Requested • Anticipated Date of Payment • Revenue Account to Be Credited • Date PaymentlReimbursement Received • Amount ofPaymentlReimbursement Received Section 5: Grant Amendment Procedures: 1. In the event that the grant agreement is apleIlged . e throughout the course of the grant period (to reflect changes in th~<(fllowa.bl~p,se dtextensions of time lines, continuation of funding, or other provi$ipns), the Grant Administrator shall follow the same procedures for approval of contracts andagreementsl~d for legal review of documents as required in the initial grant award (steps 1 throllgh 3 <>fSection 2, Grant Award, above). 2. The Grant Administrator shall complete the Giant Arrtendment fields in the GTS. 3. The Grant Requestor will append,a scanned copy of the grant amendment notice or agreement to the systeQl~~~i' Required Fields: • Date of Amendment • Description of Amendment Section 6: Grant Closeout ProcedUres: 1. When all grant requirements have been met and/or grant funds have been expended, the Grant A~inistrator shall complete the Grant Closeout fields in the GTS. 2. The Grant Administrator shall append a scanned copy of the signed grant closeout agreement to the system, if applicable. Required Fields: • Date Final Report and/or Grant Closeout Agreement Submitted Department of Forestry Central Oregon District regon P.O. Box 670 John A. Kitzhaber, MD, Governor Prineville, OR 97754 541-447-5658 FAX 541-447-1469 http://www.odf.state .or.us May 15, 2012 Deschutes County Commission 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend , OR 97701 RE : Oregon Department of Forestry 2011 Customer Satisfaction Survey Dear Commissioners: The Oregon Department of Forestry is conducting its annual customer survey of the boards and commissions of Oregon's forested counties. The purpose of this survey is to solicit your feedback on the services provided by the Department of Forestry to Deschutes County and its citizens during 2011. This survey is one of 14 performance measures the department uses to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of our programs and our employees . This information will be summarized and reported, along with other performance measure results, to the department's Executive Team and Audit Committee , the Oregon Board of Forestry, and the Oregon Legislature. I am requesting that the commission take a few minutes at an upcoming business meeting to consider and collectively respond to the enclosed five-question survey and to also provide any additional comments that you would desire. The department views this process as an important opportunity to foster improved communication and collaboration with county governments and the citizens of Oregon. To that end, I would be happy to be present at the commission meeting when this matter is discussed. I am available to meet in advance with commissioners, either as a group or individually, at your convenience to answer any questions you may have about the Department of Forestry's programs, our recent accomplishments in improving the stewardship of forest resources in Deschutes County , and our interactions with public and private forest landowners in the county . This same offer extends to your staff. I would encourage you to solicit feedback from your staff prior to submitting your response to our survey . I would appreciate receiving your survey response no later than June 8, 2012 . Please contact me at 541-447-5658 or at kbenton@odf.state.or.us if you have any immediate questions or desire more information. Thank you in advance for helping the Department of Forestry to improve our service to Oregonians through this performance evaluation process. Sincerel~~/ Kevin Benton ~ Unit Forester -Central Oregon District Enclosure ---­----r - 2 2 ( 2 _J , .\~ Oregon Department of Forestry 2011 Customer Service Performance Measure Survey Please answer the following questions regarding your rating of service provided by the Oregon Department of Forestry during calendar year 2011 and add any additional comments: Scale: Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Don't Know Questions: TIMELINESS -How do you rate the timeliness of the services provided by the Oregon Department of Forestry? Rating: Comments: ACCURACY -How do you rate the ability of the Oregon Department of Forestry to provide services correctly the first time? Rating: Comments: HELPFULNESS -How do you rate the helpfulness of Oregon Department of Forestry employees? Rating: Comments: EXPERTISE -How do you rate the knowledge and expertise of Oregon Department of Forestry employees? Rating: Comments: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION -How do you rate the availability of information at the Oregon Department of Forestry? Rating: Comments: OVERALL SERVICE -How do you rate the overall quality of services provided by the Oregon Department of Forestry? Rating: Comments: Oregon Department of Forestry 2012 Customer Service Performance Measure Survey Please answer the following questions regarding your rating of service provided by the Oregon Department of Forestry during calendar year 2011 and add any additional comments: Scale: Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Don't Know Questions: TIMELINESS -How do you rate the timeliness of the services provided by the Oregon Department of Forestry? Rating: Good Comments: The competing interests of issues and available resources (people) make timeliness difficult at times. Deschutes County has the same issues, wanting to be more responsive and timely but the conflict with issues and available resources allow the County and ODF to do the best they can. The County does compliment ODF on prioritizing the most important issues, along with timely responses to those. ACCURACY -How do you rate the ability of the Oregon Department of Forestry to provide services correctly the first time? Rating: Excellent Comments: ODF is known for accuracy and is a great customer service trait. HELPFULNESS -How do you rate the helpfulness of Oregon Department of Forestry employees? Rating: Good Comments: Similar comments/context to timeliness response above. EXPERTISE -How do you rate the knowledge and expertise of Oregon Department of Forestry employees? Rating: Excellent Comments: Same comments as Accuracy. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION -How do you rate the availability of information at the Oregon Department of Forestry? Rating: Good Comments: ODF has plenty of information available; one constructive comment would be that some of the electronic forms could be more user friendly. A great example is the Forest Practices Permit Application, when there are multiple townships/range/sections it is impossible to add those and other portions of the report form could be improved to improve customer service for electronic users. OVERALL SERVICE -How do you rate the overall quality of services provided by the Oregon Department of Forestry? Rating: Excellent/Good Comments: Overall, Deschutes County is proud of the relationship and customer service offered by ODF. We are hopeful if ODF were to rate the County we would have similar results.