Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-09-05 Work Session Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 5, 2012 Page 1 of 12 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, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator; Sheriff Larry Blanton; Ken Hales, Community Corrections; Susan Ross, Property & Facilities; David Givans, Internal Auditor; Mark Pilliod, County Counsel; Joe Stutler and Ed Keith, Foresters; seven members of the Sheriff’s Office and several other citizens including media representative Erik Hidle of the Bulletin . Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Update on On-Site Employee Health Clinic. Dave McLarnen, Executive Director; Curtis Smith, Executive Vice President, and Philip Seger, Founder of MedCor came before the Board. David Inbody said that the current contract is expiring and they went out to bid. There were four bidders plus the current provider, HealthStat. The process was significantly better this time around. The panel reduced the number to two plus HealthStat. They did on site visits, and a thorough background check. The sense was the connection with MedCor was significantly better, and they have long established relationships with other organizations. They clearly identified what they can and cannot do. Ms. Connor stated that MedCor was her first choice when the clinic first opened. Erik Kropp said the next formal action would to bring a recommendation to the Board. Commissioner Baney asked about the types of services and how those would be different; and what things they do not do. Mr. Smith said they do not anticipate a lot of changes in the patient to provider relationship. A good job has been done getting a clinic started. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 5, 2012 Page 2 of 12 Much of what they bring to the table is behind the scenes efficiencies, so that more resources are delivered to the patients. There is a high level of automation, feedback and reporting loops and accountability. They do not think a huge change will be seen, but steady improvement will. Ms. Connor indicated they will not be taking away services, but just do not over-promise. Mr. Inbody added that most companies are ready to promise anything, but they may not be able to deliver. Mr. Smith stated that the vetting process was very thorough. They want to make it clear they will not be everyone’s medical home. There are good community resources available, and they hope to collaborate. They want to move forward the health risk appraisals and other programs. Commissioner Unger asked how the 3,000 insureds through the County compares to others. Mr. Smith stated that they have a wide range of clients. They have an obligation to provide health care. Target Company has 300,000 employees; some are stand-alone like the San Diego Zoo with 5,000 employees. The 2,000-5,000 range per clinic is typical to them. Mr. Seger added that they try to customize things. They realize health care is local and varies according to the group and situation. There is no cookie-cutter approach due to the numerous variations. 2. Jail Expansion Discussion. Sheriff Blanton explained that they moved forward with finalizing some interim plans for the jail expansion project, based on an August 6 conversation with the Board. They investigated competitive bids to come up with firmer numbers. Susan Ross stated that they came up with two cost estimates of $7.8 million and $8.1 million. An estimated contingency amount was added, for specialized equipment for the control room, medical facilities, sewer improvements and SDC’s, resulting in a total project amount of about $10 million. There would be $350,000 in SDC’s and permits. On the previous project, it was about $500,000. Therefore, this amount was pro-rated based on a scaled down project. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 5, 2012 Page 3 of 12 Commissioner Unger asked about servicing the bonds. Ms. Ross computed a 25 and 30 year bond; $633,000 for 25 years; $573,000 for 30 years. The overall cost of the bonding process is about $100,000. The interest rate assumption is 4%. This number won’t be firm until the bonds are sold. This is a conservative estimate, likely higher than it will be. Chair DeBone envisions this will be rolled into the general fund; some buildings will be rolling out of bonds and other things may be included. Mr. Kropp stated the current jail had a bond at 13 cents based on assessed value, then it goes down to 9 cents; then to nothing. Ms. Ross stated that those were voted on. This would be full faith and credit but not a tax increase. As elected representatives, the Board can make this decision. In regard to the medical unit, it is in existing space in th e jail and will be remodeled. Sheriff Blanton stated there would be an expansion of the current space. Ms. Ross said this would cost about $360,000. Sheriff Blanton stated that some would be used for medical segregation and mental health care. Mike Espinosa explained that remodeling the dorms frees up some additional space. Ms. Ross stated they need to have cells that are ADA accessible. Commissioner Baney said she did not understand the concept of jail beds, but now knows more about the classifications needed. There are a variety of issues such as mental health, chronic health problems, etc. You have to have not just a number of beds but also the right kind of beds. Sheriff Blanton stated that there are risk management issues to deal with every day. Chair DeBone said that $10 million had been discussed and that appears to be where it sits. It is an enclosed facility and more secure, rather than utilizing a different building. Commissioner Baney noted that the conversation of jail expansion has go ne on since 2006. The question is what they have now and what is needed, and what can be paid off. A building discussed several times was the juvenile facility. It is secure and underutilized, and is not at its potential. It is not at capacity due to efforts towards restorative justice, keeping the population low. Deschutes County is known nationally for its work in this regard, and is a model for keeping these numbers low. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 5, 2012 Page 4 of 12 She said she can’t go forward in good faith at this time to support the jail expansion. She wonders if there is something in place that can be used instead for juveniles. The discussion involves keeping the juvenile facilities to cover needs for many years. The cost associated to run the juvenile facility is not commiserate with the number of juveniles. The conversation goes to a policy direction regarding juvenile offenders. They have never had this conversation that she recalls during the past six years. There is an opportunity to acknowledge this hard work and look at options. She knows this is not a perfect situation for the Sheriff’s Office. Chair DeBone stated this conversation was expected but they have not talked about this as a Board before now. The worst thing that could happen is to not let people know they have done good work. This is about what is there and what is needed. Mr. Hales said the objective is to increase jail capacity for immediate and future needs. It has to be efficient to operate. Another objective is to have Juvenile needs met as efficiently as possible. Commissioner Baney said she couldn’t answer the juvenile question. She wants to know where this is going for the next twenty years regarding facilities. Mr. Hales stated he can provide expert analysis on what the population trend s might be, descriptions of programs and services such as mental health, logistics that impact the court (satellite or not), and the cost to build a facility if needed. Commissioner Baney asked about ideas for the juvenile facility. She feels that part juvenile and part adult won’t work. That is a lot of change for not much gain. Ms. Ross said using the juvenile detention facility would provide about 88 beds for adults. The Sheriff would have to close down minimum security as he can’t operate in three locations. They looked at options of splitting the space but it won’t be efficient for the Sheriff’s Office. They also looked at opening up the downtown former juvenile facility, which would accommodate seven or eight beds maximum. The basic space and code requirements can be met. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 5, 2012 Page 5 of 12 There would need to be a minor remodel, adding a control room and more electronics and hardware. It was constructed originally for juvenile medium security purposes. They looked at swapping juvenile facility with minimum security (the work center). It is not suitable for that. All options were investigated. Commissioner Baney asked about the average daily population. In the short- run, they are contracting beds with other jurisdictions to offset costs. The priority is the juveniles. Average daily numbers for mandated is about seven. Mr. Hales said when school starts, the number changes and goes up. They have to analyze this more. The trend has been in the low teens. He commented that it is true the size of the cells meet standards. The size of the day room is right, but it is a sub-standard facility. There is no classroom, no office for mental health, no visiting room, just the basics. There is no natural light except in a few locations. It has a number of drawbacks. Court is also a problem since satellite court is elsewhere. There is a staffing issue for this. There is no classification opportunity, no mental health room, and they would have to kick out visitors to do intake. It might have the minimal required size and be brought up to Code, there will be no room for programs. It would only have seven beds and they would have to triage if they got more. Commissioner Baney said that there is an issue with these things and she does not want the juveniles hitched with the same situation where they are. The facility needs to be right sized. They will have either jail issues or juvenile issues. Mr. Hales stated that there are two needs to satisfy. Do you do both or just one? What is the preferred solution to take care of the needs? This has to be pursued. It all costs money. Commissioner Baney stated the juveniles cost about $250,000 each. There are 25 FTE for the detention facility. In the short term, they may need to triage. They need a vision to get closer to lower operational costs and a smaller facility. Mr. Hales would like a new facility, which would be perfect. Operational costs moving to the other site may save a few FTE. The jail would have to increase FTE's to operate a second location. It won't provide capacity for either group, and won't be efficient either way. Commissioner Baney said the best use is not the work center. If that was closed and the juvenile facility used, staff could be transferred over. Sheriff Blanton stated that over time, whether 144 beds or more juveniles, no matter how the space is used, there might need to be more staff to handle more population. That would not happen immediately. Commissioner Baney said there needs to be a policy discussion regarding the juveniles. Restorative justice principles have had a positive impact. Another option is that some counties are getting out ofjuvenile detention altogether. There are only ten in Oregon. Perhaps they could contract beds rather than having a facility. She sees short-term pain but wants to look at this as a viable option. Commissioner Unger feels that the committee looked at these things carefully. A path to move forward was found. He is okay with revisiting these. A short period of time might be appropriate to reevaluate. However, this should not take a long time. Mr. Kropp stated that there are the capital costs and operations. One approach is to look at the options and fill in the blanks. Look at a new juvenile facility both ways as well. Commissioner Baney said that they need to decide whether to contract beds, and how much area or pods are needed. The overhead is high. She wondered how many are mandated or what classification is needed. Mr. Hales said if there is no detention center someone has to drive three hours. Sheriff Blanton stated he is tired of pitching things around. They have had to use mattresses on the floor, with high liability, and no mental health facility. It costs $36,500 a year for an adult inmate, $250,000 for a juvenile. He has put his personal and professional life on the line, stressing quality of life issues, not turning out people when they should not go out, and over time matrixed 1,000 people when the levy failed. Some of those should have been released. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 5, 2012 Page 6 of 12 Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 5, 2012 Page 7 of 12 Chair DeBone said there is a problem with the cost of juveniles. Long-term costs and problems at the jail is the main driver. He sees the $10 million expense. Operations can be controlled, and it would not be multi-site. He’d rather be clear about building it. In the scale of things, is $10 million appropriate. How long will this carry things. He does see doing the building project but there are some big issues. He is glad there is a positive trend with juveniles, but that’s a different issue. Commissioner Baney said that it will be closer to $15 million with the long- term cost of money. Chair DeBone stated they have been asked to support this for a lot of reasons. The number is known and the need is there. He does not want to change course. Commissioner Unger asked if this decision needs to be made today. A lot of this is new information. He feels it is more cost effective to do what has been proposed; however, he is not clear on the juvenile facility part. It may be an opportunity to use some of this information. He wants to think it through and bring it up in a week. Commissioner Baney said that a meeting would have to be on Tuesday afternoon. Sheriff Blanton asked what will be discussed next week. They need 144 beds. They worked hard to come up with a plan that is acceptable to law enforcement in the area. They have to make decisions about other things based on this. It has been stalled for too long and they have run out of options to protect inmates, the public and employees. Judges are called all the time to get conditional releases. Part of the frustration is thinking there is just an inconvenience when it is serious. He wants to know, are they getting 144 beds or not. The juvenile issue is not his issue. Commissioner Baney said the problem is the operation of two facilities. Chair DeBone said it involves a scenario of using part of the juvenile space. Ms. Ross said the minimum facility would have to be closed. Sheriff Blanton stated that the bottom floor of juvenile could be used but he would have to close the work center. He would not add staff at that point. There are 90 beds in the work center, which is too many, but they need the space. He said he will take whatever he can get. Commissioner Baney said the recreation area might hold beds. A long-term decision might be to close one recreation area and use it for beds. Sheriff Blanton said there may be some potential out of ADA space. When the jail study began in 2005, the Omni Group tried to determine what might suit jail needs. The work group looked at this space again. Mr. Hales stated they want the best long-term solution. The 144-bed expansion is the best solution for the Sheriffs Office. If there has to be a right sizing of juvenile, they can look at that, but it still is not the best solution for the Sheriff. Sheriff Blanton said that no one can do anything until something is decided. By spring, they may be able to start work. This is an interim phased approach to the bigger Omni master plan. There is risk now. They are not adding on to laundry, the kitchen or booking. This just talks about beds. This work is already 18 months away. Every delay flies in the face of safety. Chair DeB one likes the idea of the package after looking at it. This is the cleanest solution. Commissioner Baney stated she is not willing to spend $15 million as long as the problem with Juvenile exists. She has supported all of the prevention programs. Every budget looks at making Juvenile run leaner. Mr. Hales said he is sensitive to this. Sometimes there is more than can be accommodated in one pod but too few to fill two. One pod won't work because of variables. That has less adverse impact on the justice center. They have the counseling space, booking and other necessary spaces. If they move out, they have lost capacity if needed. The best he can say now about contracting with others is that it would be seven now, but it was thirteen this time last year. It could go up to that again this fall. Most are there pre-trial. Some are awaiting placement. He would estimate no lower than twelve average. You don't build for the smallest number. So far sentenced would be seven, but a year ago it was thirteen. Sheriff Blanton said that there is 2417 staffing necessary in the Sheriffs Office, Juvenile and 911. It is going to take so many staff regardless of how many inmates. Law enforcement is expensive. There is a point when you can only get so lean. They have fifteen a shift, but usually just twelve are there due to court, vacations and other issues. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 5, 2012 Page 8 of 12 I Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 5, 2012 Page 9 of 12 Mr. Hales suggested two alternatives to make things less expensive. They could rent more vacant beds out or close a pod. He is not ready to pull the plug on the pod. You can’t lay off that many people, though, as staffing has to be at a certain level.. Commissioner Unger said he understands the frustration. He is where Chair DeBone is. The 144 beds makes sense. They look at how they need to spend money and have not been able to discuss this completely. He wants this continued until next Tuesday. Commissioner Baney feels this is needed. Sheriff Blanton asked what will be decided. Commissioner Unger said he has not been a part of the committee and needs to do some due diligence. He wants to be sure this is the right way to do it. Commissioner Baney is concerned about the expense of Juvenile, and she wants to do just what is mandated. They could contract with another facility. Mr. Hales stated if there is no detention center, there would be no place for the kids to go when brought in. Jefferson County brings them to Deschutes. This is the only detention center on this side of the mountains. Redmond or Bend Police Department would have to travel 3 hours each way. They’d have to negotiate capacity at other facilities, some of which are going to be full. Logistics are difficult. Sheriff Blanton stated that they are renting jail beds now, and this can change. It is also expensive. You can’t count on someone else to house needs. He asked again what they will talk about on Tuesday. He does not want to attend another meeting just to kick things the same things around. Commissioner Unger said the beds are needed but they need to figure out how to handle this, including Juvenile. If one Commissioner has an issue with something, this should be accommodated. One week is not too much to ask. Commissioner Baney said the committee did not talk about Juvenile much, which is why she is bringing this up now. Sheriff Blanton said he hopes Tuesday will mean a decision whether to move forward. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 5, 2012 Page 10 of 12 Commissioner Unger is not clear on how the Juvenile situation will be handled. He does not take the $10 million decision lightly. He wants to consider this but evidently Juvenile is now part of the equation. He wants to look at this for a few days since he came to this part of the discussion cold today. If Juvenile moves back to the old facility, it is a step backwards and is inadequate, and does not function well. He wants to learn more, though. He wondered if there might be a cost savings by using part of the current juvenile area. He wants a little time to make a sound decision. It was clear to him until this issue was raised. Commissioner Baney feels this needs to be fully vetted. The Committee did not discuss it much, and this option was not brought up. Sheriff Blanton said some plans for Juvenile were brought in but were from one end of the spectrum to the other. Commissioner Unger wants all to be on the same page. Mr. Kropp said that if the Board wants to move forward, they should discuss options. Then they need to approve a resolution to go forward with selling bonds. 3. Other Items. Joe Stutler said that OEM is offering some funding for administrative costs due to budget classification adjustments. More funding was thrown in to transfer the oversight to the Oregon Department of Forestry from Oregon Emergency Management. They had a conference call today to confirm this. Their role was clarified, and there will be an intergovernmental agreement between OEM and ODF. ODF and the County are working on this now. The relationship will allow the County to get funding; some would go to Crook and Klamath Counties under an intergovernmental agreement. OEM’s only role will be to write a check. There are some other questions, such as up-front funding and a timeline. The letter from the County as subgrantee to FEMA and OEM clarifies the intent and relationship. FEMA would be the responder. The answers need to be in print. The 2007 grant has been reconciled and finance should handle it. The 2008 grant has been submitted, and Mr. Stutler feels it should go through since the contested 10: 1 ratio has been approved. UNGER: Move approval of the letter. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Regarding a request for the reading of a proclamation, Oregon Days of Culture, it was declined as there did not appear to be a local sponsor and the request seemed to be sent out en masse. County College starts next Tuesday. Mr. Kropp, Anna Johnson and Chair DeB one developed the agenda, which was then reviewed. They hope to get people thinking, especially on the basis of running the County like a business, and give examples. One exercise is to come up examples where this is being done and how or when it can't be done under public law. Another is to explain how the State and County function, what services they provide, and how and when they can work together. Commissioner Baney said that the City of La Pine wants to rename Highway 97 through the city in honor of Ashton Eaton, Olympian who used to live in La Pine. The Olympic Committee said that they did not have the permission of ODOT. This is being pursued. Mr. Kropp said he is ready for a press release with the five candidates for County Administrator listed. All have agreed to interviews. Background checks are in process. Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(b), a personnel issue and (e), real property negotiations Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 5, 2012 Page 11 of12 Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. DATED this ?-~~ Day of ~k . 2012 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners: Anthony DeB one, CHhir Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTEST: issionerTammy Baney, Co ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 5, 2012 Page 12 of 12 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 :30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5,2012 1. Update on On-Site Employee Health Clinic -Dave Inbody, Ronda Connor 2. Jail Expansion Discussion 3. Other Items Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS I 92.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192 .660(2) (b), personnel issues. Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to clrange. All meetings are conducted in tire Board ofCommissioners ' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otlrerwise indicated. Ifyou Irave questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes COWlty 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 TIY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. - - --- Work Session (l'leafe Print) _ L _ -=1 Ag~~0'Name - rp~lL-' P ~ c.vITQ ~1~ fV\~ 1 ' " Mailing Address City 'i&£W. fe,~lif l ;i,=~ .., , ,~ )' .,~ -­ C'omld~ Irbf r -E~L ~c,tJ l( ;;5Ez:-([7? 'i+c-s-o PeSo 1) C S b I bc c-o 0<::..50 bc.c;u _ D(!.S c) DGS-t;) --1--­ ... ~_i.e_ &:.o~) t' l " b \ tc '-­ 1 I Phone # co 1.5 "305 "i .:£xJ , . I' wedneSday ~' 2; 2012 e-mail address fS~(!ltfra:rx·G I" , I t __DQ?t1~z-...Jcd Kf, 1 :~~i:f:;:r1 $c..c."~@,_J~c:.~. 7 d iLXd de.?<-h lAj~o~_ IO~'( f'::\~~/6"'..s....F-"-"-..---~-: ,~ ~c-~i-(~rr.Jfl&:7rJ.- j}mt-r'l t NQ ~"'''I.(. ~l-kr~~~ _~c.o"-(j~oI ~ Ud-tf:r 5,wt J?os S' [S/-fIIrJG ,JEtSo,J . ~ 9\ \j m ~ ~ --ii~1S~fY) __ -. -ryto7k ~~-~dTLDI -. 3.81 -6'1(0 F@c,J};m" Pa2:e # of Pa2:es -j1 I I TO: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FROM: DAVE INBODY & RONDA CONNOR SUBJECT: ON~SITE EMPLOYEE HEALTH CLINIC DATE: 8/3112012 l CC: ERIK KROPP I Background on Deschutes Onsite Clinic (DOC) 1 On February 3, 2011, the Deschutes Onsite Clinic (DOC) began providing health care for I J County employees and their families at no cost. Instead of relying on the fee-for~service model for delivery of health care services, an organization was contracted to operate the DOC for a monthly administrative fee with all other costs being passed through to the County. The notion is that such a model allows the County to save the health benefits plan expenses provided an adequate number of patients are seen at the DOC. Since the costs are fixed, the more patients seen at the DOC, the more savings are incurred by the DOC. Healthstat, Inc., based out of Charlotte, North Carolina, was selected to operate the DOC. The primary reasons the selection committee gave for selecting Healthstat to operate the DOC were their experience with clinics similar to the model Deschutes County had in mind and their having established clinics for other city and county governments. A two­ year contract was signed with Healthstat. Initial estimates indicated that Deschutes County could feasibly breakeven within the first year and experience annual savings of at least $250,000. The DOC actually broke even in eight months and, saved the County $534,415 in the first 18 months. Employees saved $258,583 during the same time period. The DOC had 7,399 office visits, conducted 4,228 labs and wrote 6,615 prescriptions, 2,569 of which were filled at the DOC's pharmaceutical dispensary in the first 18 months. The DOC saw 1,399 different patients at least once, representing about half of all covered lives on the health benefits plan, and about 70% of all employees. 2012 RFP Process With the Healthstat contract expiring on December 31, 2012, an RFP process was initiated in June 2012 for operation of the DOC. Although the County had the option to extend the existing contract with Healthstat, it was believed to be in the best interest of the County to compare the current fees and service delivery to other vendors in the field. Eight proposals were received in response to the RFP. A committee was formed to review the proposals and provide a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners for approval. The committee consisted of the following members: • Ronda Connor -Health Benefits Coordinator, responsible for overseeing the DOC • Dave Inbody Assistant to the County Administrator, responsible for overseeing the DOC • Erik Kropp -Deputy County Administrator • Timm Schimke Director of Solid Waste and Employee Benefits Advisory Committee Chair • Kate Moore -Program Manager in Health Services Department and Registered Nurse • Therese Madrigal -County Wellness Coordinator • Jennifer Floyd -Senior Web Applications Developer in the Information Technology Department and member of the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee • Kelly Elzner Employee of Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council After reviewing the proposals, the committee selected five vendors to make presentations. Through this process, two additional vendors were eliminated. The remaining vendors were Medcor of Chicago, CareHere of Nashville and Healthstat. Medcor and CareHere were provided follow-up questions, current and former clients were contacted, conference calls were scheduled and site visits were made to examine each vendor in greater detail. This resulted in Medcor being selected unanimously to operate the DOC. Some of the reasons identified by the committee for selecting Medcor were the commitment they placed on building a strong relationship with the County, a clear explanation of the services they can and cannot provide, an understanding of the County's vision for the DOC, and the consistent and attentive service provided to their current clients. Transition Plan During the next three months, the County will work closely with both Healthstat and Medcor to transition operation of the DOC. Medcor provided a detailed transition plan as part of their proposal (attached). Through the RFP process, the committee identified several components of the transition that will be critical to its success. Continuity with staff, hours of operation and services provided will be imperative to ensure employees' health care needs are still being met. A transfer of electronic medical records will also be necessary. Fortunately, both Healthstat and Medcor use NextGen as their EMR software, which should make the process run more smoothly. Finally, communication with employees regarding the transition will be important. Medcor will meet with departments to introduce themselves and their philosophy for operating the DOC. 2 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT MEMORANDUM DATE: September 10,2012 TO: Dennis Sigrist, Oregon OEM; Jeffrey Markham, FEMA RIO; Chris Jonietz-Trisler, FEMA RIO FROM: Deschutes County BOCC RE: 2010 FEMAlOEM Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants for Deschutes, Crook and Klamath Counties _.________H _.________~ Thank you for the email correspondence regarding the proposed resolution of the issues associated with the pre-disaster mitigation grant for our counties. We are pleased that the Oregon Office of Emergency Management and FEMA recognize the "high risk" potential for wildland fire and the proven track record in central Oregon of providing mitigation through both education and fuels treatment. Based on the three proposed solutions offered, we accept the alternatives and are looking for clarification and direction on both how to proceed and the timeliness. 1. The current 2010 Deschutes County wildfire project is PDMC-PJ-10-0R-2010-oo1"2010 Central Oregon Wildfire Mitigation" for a Federal Share of $2,882,350 and nonfederal share of $1,048,950 =total project cost of $3,931,300. The project is cost shared at approximately 73.3% and 26.7% (with some rounding taking place). Response: We agree with the proposed numbers and percentages. 2. FEMA HQ is allowing the subapplication to be amended to allow the subgrantee (Deschutes County) to maximize the available 5% subgrantee management costs. The cost estimate does not appear to include subgrant management costs for Deschutes County. If the Region confirms that the subapplication does not include subgrantee management costs then the county is allowed to add $117,650.00 to the Federal share of the project cost making the Federal share of the project $3,000,000 (the Federal share CANNOT exceed $3,000,000 for anyone subapplication/subgrant). The total project costs would also need to be modified showing the nonfederal share for subgrantee management costs. The cost estimate from the subapplication is below. PLEASE NOTE that FEMA is highly encouraging the subapplicant to include the 5% maximum management costs to allow them to do the best management job possible. Response: We will amend the subapplication to reflect the management costs and will need assistance to submit the amendment. Specifically, is the amendment forwarded to Oregon OEM or directly to FEMA R-l0? We are assuming that Dennis Sigrist (OR-OEM) and Jeffrey Markham (FEMA R-l0) will remain our contact, is that correct? 3. FEMA HQ is allowing the State of Oregon to submit a state management cost subapplication up to 10% of the total project cost of PDMC-PJ-l0-0R-2010-oo1 "2010 Central Oregon Wildfire Mitigation". FEMA has determined that due to the "high risk" designation being placed on Deschutes County'" that special consideration should be made to allow the submission of a State management costs subapplication although it is not customary for FEMA to allow the submission of a new subapplication after the application deadline. The Federal share for the State management costs subapplication would be expected to be $300,000 if the State chooses to submit the sub-application. "'(OEM:djs -largely driven by the mitigation activity and footprint of the overall project; it would be appropriate to discuss opportunities w / ODF in a collaborative way for a significant piece of the management costs). Response: Deschutes County has worked with the Oregon Department of Forestry at the local District and State levels and ODF is agreeable to this alternative. Additionally, there is a conference call scheduled with the principals (OEM, ODF and Deschutes County) on September 5,2012. The primary purpose is to again understand how the application can be amended, who will take the lead, timing of the application, and most importantly the role/relationship between OEM, ODF and the counties implementing the grant. Cost Estimate from PDMC-PJ-l0-0R-2010-001 "2010 Central Oregon Wildfire Mitigation" 300.2 -Vegetation Management -Wildfire Federal Share: $ 2,882,350.00 Forester Wages Contractual Personnel 570.00 Hour $ 35.00 $19,950.00 Project Wildfire Coordinator Contractual Contractual 1.00 Each $ 21,375.00 $ 21,375.00 Deschutes County Forester Benefits Contractual Fringe Benefits 570.00 Hour $17.50 $ 9,975.00 Property Owners and RFPA In-Kind Contribution Contractual Other (In-Kind Time/labor) 3,150.00 Acre $ 333.00 $ 1,048,950.00 Vegetation Removal Contract labor -Private Contractual Contractual 3,150.00 Acre $ 667.00 $ 2,101,050.00 land Crook County Project Coordination and Contractual Contractual 1.00 Each $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 Support Klamath County Project $ Contractual Contractual 1.00 Each $ 50,000.00 Coordination and 50,000.00 Support Vegetation ** Once we receive direction on how to amend the application and add the suggested Removal Contract $ Contractual Contractual 630.00 Acre labor -Public 1,000.00 land T~~~~~~}~~~~t'~;~~~.'i."""'" management and grant administration costs, the total costs and appropriate categories will be added to budget. Additionally, the counties have other questions and a few specific requests as we proceed: 1. When will the Environmental Assessment process begin in order to expedite the work on the ground? 2. Is there an opportunity to draw up front money against the grant value rather than 100% reimbursement after work has been completed? 3. What are the specific monitoring requirements for "sweat equity" work performed by property owners? 4. Will the 10 cubic yards equivalent to 1 acre treated still be a viable metric in the 2010 grant? 5. SpeCifically how do we proceed, or what is the process for amending the application for inclusion of management cost for both Deschutes County and the Oregon Department of Forestry? Who takes the lead and what is the CountyjODF jOEMjrole with this process? 6. Before, during the and after the environmental assessment work is complete, it will be imperative for FEMA, ODF, OEM and the counties to meet face to face and agree on the following: a. The exact environmental footprint and project areas. b. Process for scope of work revisions for on-ground accomplishment. c. Specific monitoring requirement for the soft match from sweat equity work performed by property owners. We appreciate the willingness of FEMA and OEM working with the counties to resolve the issues associated with the 2010 Grant. Joe Stutler will continue to be the lead and point of contact for Deschutes County on this issue until the EA's are complete and agreements are in place before the work begins. Sincerely, Anthony De Bone Chair, Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners