Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-05-23 Budget Meeting Minutes - AM Minutes of Budget Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2012 Page 1 of 14 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 MEETING – BUDGET MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2012 – Morning Session ___________________________ Allen Room, Deschutes Services Building ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator; Mike Maier, Clay Higuchi and Bruce Barrett, Budget Committee; Marty Wynne, Jeanine Faria and Teri Maerki , Finance; Dave Inbody, Assistant to the Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Ken Hales and Becky McDonald, Community Corrections; Tanner Wark, Parole & Probation; Anna Johnson, Communications; Patrick Flaherty, Mary Anderson, Debi Harr, Diane Stecher, Chad Morris and Kandy Gies, District Attorney’s Office; Rob Poirier, 911; and media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin. Mike Maier opened the meeting at 9:03 a.m. ___________________________ Ken Hales gave a PowerPoint presentation, starting with the locations around the County where Corrections and Parole & Probation services are provided. (A copy of the presentation is attached for reference.) He explained the four missions of his department: community safety, restoration, offender accountability, and competency development. Regarding service trends, they went through a period of declining numbers for juvenile offenses; however, this is changing. Most new cases are not adjudicated but diversion. Regarding adults, the numbers have been fairly flat. He highlighted a few services, including the mental health intern program, which has been very helpful. The community service crews have been a success as well, as the prisoners can be on a work crew instead of sanctioned. He added that these crews worked about 1200 hours with zero injuries last year. Minutes of Budget Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2012 Page 2 of 14 The budget is $7.2 million. Part of this is $85,000 not included in the budget documents previously. There is additional funding but it was from the Oregon Youth Authority and it is very restricted, available only for certain juveniles and services. He can balance the budget on the back of net working capital, but this is not sustainable. With revenue nearly flat and the growing costs of salaries and benefits, materials and services, there is an unfunded liability that carries forward. In 2013, there is an unfunded expense of about $150,000. This will be over $400,000 in 2014. Revenue is not keeping pace with costs and this cannot be maintained long-term. Both divisions had a healthy net working balance a couple of years ago, but this is going to be gone soon. Additional adjustments need to be made to the new budget to avoid a long-term problem. The best-case scenario is that there will be enough increased revenue to cover some of this, but it would not cover 2014 and beyond. The options are:  More county funding – what is proposed is not nearly enough ($85,000).  More State funding – nothing more is coming– there is the possibility of the formula changing in 2014, but at this point, this is only speculation.  Change in the State split – a big unknown.  Increase fees – can only be marginally helpful - offenders do not make enough to pay much.  Go after more grants – the domestic violence intensive supervision grant saved one FTE. However, many times grants require an increase in services, so at times this does not help the bottom line.  Decrease materials and services expenses – this would help marginally. He gave layoff notices to five employees last week . In the proposed budget, there is a vacant Parole & Probation supervisor; five vacant juvenile officer FTE’s; and the elimination of on-call staff (transporting and filling in when staff is gone). The post-budget submission affects 1.75 probation specialists; two community justice officers; a .5 FTE analyst; and freeze the juvenile field services manager position. Mike Maier asked if the proposal is meant to help balance the budget. Mr. Hales replied that it would bring the expense line down; they are already over revenue. For fiscal year 2013, already in the works are:  Labor agreements (with no COLA).  Post Accuterm issues – they are trying to develop a records system in conjunction with Lane County. Minutes of Budget Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2012 Page 3 of 14  No juvenile detention on-call provider.  New medical services (they moved the nurse from a contract with Health to this department).  The reduction in work force. In addition, there would be system changes, in response to whatever happens in the justice system. There is Court administration and other unknowns. Bend Police Department is discontinuing the early intervention program for juveniles, so this will require some response from Mr. Hale’s department. They are working on performance maintenance and organizational improvement during fiscal constriction; they to get more efficient and better but with less capacity. They can manage short-term, but without proper quality control, no one knows the impacts in the future. Mr. Maier said he is glad they are taking steps now to avoid a catastrophe. They can come up with a modest increase from the general fund, but there is not a lot of capacity. Mr. Higuchi stated he likes the proactive approach, and asked how much. Mr. Hales said maybe a $250,000 overall adjustment is need. When he submitted the budget proposal, the questions around the layoffs were not yet solidified. Mr. Maier asked what can be done differently; if anything can be eliminated. Mr. Hales responded that they have made several big cuts over the past few years. They changed detention and shut down the transition house. If revenue does not grow, he will have to revisit the scope of their mission. They are already back to the 2005 level for FTE’s. Other expenses are up by about 20-25%. Mr. Wynne noted that this is a big transfer and is a huge impact to the department. Mr. Higuchi said that it might be beneficial to inform the County and State that if the scope changes, these are the impacts. Maybe the County and cities can look at the potential social and monetary impacts to them. Mr. Hales stated that at the next meeting of the Public Safety Coordinating Council, he will talk about the impacts of the City of Bend budget cuts. This will bring more work to Corrections and they will be able to just triage. These amount to community value questions. Mr. Higuchi stated that this brings up the issue of Bend Police Department reducing their expenses, but what is the impact on the community and business. People need to look at the overall impacts. Minutes of Budget Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2012 Page 4 of 14 Mr. Barrett said he agrees with the comment acknowledging a grant is not necessarily an opportunity. It can grow into a big expense. They need to focus on what they can do well. He does not see this situation changing for a while. Commissioner Baney indicated it seems that they are growing closer to the discussion of what types of services to provide. There will probably not be more general fund money. In good faith, they cannot continue to look at what is spent in detention per juvenile without looking at ways to find other options. This is a large amount of the funding needed, and it is a huge amount per juvenile in detention. Mr. Hales replied that they can look at this per capita rate, per occupancy or capacity. The capacity has to be financed because the population varies. The rate is good in this regard. At occupancy, it becomes more expensive. It is more efficient to be full. This needs to be restricted to just what they need. The way it is designed, it is difficult to operate less than two pods. There are some inefficiencies because of this. They end up holding juveniles who just have to go to court. Commissioner Baney said that she believes in restorative justice and what is being done, but perhaps a different model is needed. Maybe they should put more into programs and less in facilities. It is the fixed costs that drain the budget. Mr. Hales responded that the most expensive is the juvenile detention center due to the economies of scale, and what is required to be provided to them. Commissioner Unger asked what other counties are doing. Mr. Hales said the smaller counties are closing their centers. The larger ones are open. If a county population is under 400,000, they do not have to have a facility, but they still have to provide services. Deschutes County may be the only operating facility in a county this size in the state. Most places have an adult jail. He knows other counties this size run about sixty juveniles. They do not detain as many here due to alternative placements and programs. Sometimes the police get upset because they are forced to cite and release some juveniles when they would prefer the juvenile be detained. The facility is not in crisis and the juveniles are safe and properly treated. Mr. Maier observed that this is probably the best -run facility in the state. Mr. Hales said they are considered a model for new practices adopted by others. They can’t run much leaner, though. Minutes of Budget Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2012 Page 5 of 14 Mr. Kropp said they are looking at options with an internal group, the Sheriff and others. Ultimately, recommendations will come to the Board and may factor into next year’s budget. Chair DeBone stated that he observed cognitive thinking classes, and those made a lot of sense to him. It saw that it works for many. He supports this program. Commissioner Baney asked about the value of the training facility to Corrections. It would be shared with the Sheriff. She asked if this is going to cost Corrections more. Mr. Hales did not think there is an impact; at least not for Juvenile. Mr. Wark added that they can use it if they want, and any cost would be small. Mr. Hales and Mr. Wark left the meeting at 9:50 a.m. ___________________________ At 10:00 a.m., the District Attorney’s presentation began. District Attorney Patrick Flaherty introduced his team, and brought up the matter of a separate e-mail system for the District Attorney’s Office. Commissioner Unger said that he is open to change if required by the law, but he is no closer to seeing this as a requirement. Commissioner Baney asked if the funds should be set aside until they can have a further discussion. Commissioner Unger said they could be put in a contingency fund. Chair DeBone indicated that he tried on several occasions to communicate with the District Attorney on this matter but received no response. He has questions about policy and support. He said there is an entity that audits all departments, and wanted to know how this might be impacted. He is looking at the high-level concepts; helping people in the system and not negatively affecting them. He does not want to proceed with funding this project at this time. Commissioner Baney moved to set aside the funds in contingency, and Commissioner Unger seconded it. However, no final action was taken. Mr. Flaherty said they have had this discussion for 18 months. The County is not complying with the law now. As District Attorney, it is important that his office comply with the law. If they are referring to other agencies having access to the D.A. files, this is not an issue. It is a simple issue of legal necessity. The D.A. needs to control access and does not have that control now. That is how simple this issue is. Minutes of Budget Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2012 Page 6 of 14 He is already in the process of implementing new case management software and is talking with other law enforcement about accessing each other’s information. These include the DCSO, the City of Bend and others. It comes down to the law, with the D.A. controlling all D.A. records. They have to comply with this and State archives law through the Secretary of State. He is not trying to deprive any legitimate law enforcement agency proper access to records. If the Commissioners want to talk to the Sheriff or the Police Chiefs, they will say they have no concerns about this. Discussions do take place between the law enforcement agencies. These are not the County’s records. One way or another, this issue has to be resolved. Commissioner Baney stated that she is worried that there is still a missing link regarding the interpretation of what the D.A. is saying and what other counties are doing. Are they all out of compliance as well? She does not want to be adversarial. How hard would it be to come to an agreement? She needs to see some kind of interpretation, perhaps from the Attorney General. She asked if this would be lengthy or costly. Mr. Flaherty indicated that it would be both costly and time-consuming; and he feels unnecessary. If Legal’s counsel is contrary to what he has said, he wants to see what is used to back it up. Statutory law is very clear. He said they should look at his last memo in reference to Chapter 192. Part of the confusion arises because the D.A. is a State agency, elected to State office. He is responsible for all records received or created by the D.A.’s Office. This is the basic problem. Chapter 192 defines a State agency and public records, and the obligations of the officer. From there to the OAR’s, it sets forth a retention schedule for records. This is important on a number of levels. The law restricts disclosure of most records in the D.A.’s Office. It is obvious that if only certain entities can access these records, they cannot have an I.T. system in place that allows other access. The I.T. Director will say that they have not complied with the retention schedule. Chair DeBone stated that he tried to communicate with the D.A. outside of public meetings, trying to build a relationship between two officials. He would like to spend a few minutes doing so. Mr. Flaherty said that they had this conversation a couple of weeks ago at a work session. He has not been able to get together or respond since then. He will try to do so. Minutes of Budget Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2012 Page 7 of 14 ___________________________ Mr. Flaherty asked the Budget Committee to approve the budget as proposed. He feels there will be a surplus to the general fund if they do. The D.A.’s Office is creating a cost savings that is impressive, about $350,000. During discussions last year, he said he would make every effort to run the D.A.’s Office as cost-effective as possible. He plans to continue this, and has efficiencies planned for next fiscal year. He will also be asking to add an FTE to handle child enforcement cases they plan to take over from the State. Mary Anderson gave a PowerPoint presentation, detailing their caseload for the past year. The case volume has been fairly consistent. The biggest undertaking will be the use of Justware. Accuterm was used in the past but it is now obsolete. Law enforcement is using a new system that will interface with Justware. Expenditures are 14.41% up due to this implementation. At the same time, they will be replacing equipment that is outdated. Justware is more efficient and allows for better linkage and tracking. It will provide better performance and accuracy, is a self-sufficient system, user friendly and up to date. Mr. Maier noted that Accuterm served well over the years, but it is time for a change. Ms. Gies gave an overview of the practical implications of having a better system in place, which gives them a lot more flexibility. ___________________________ Ms. Anderson said that the HIDTA (Oregon High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas) grant is year to year, but they will continue to support Stephen Gunnels’ work. No other county is receiving funds for prosecution, and limited funding is going to law enforcement. The CODE team's work will not go away, but will be supported differently. Cases to be covered will be expanded. They are the primary support of the CODE team. Mr. Maier said there should be discussions about the cost with other counties and entities, since this is regional. ___________________________ Ms. Anderson pointed out that they have space issues in their offices. There are a lot of problems with this. Most employees have a very small work area. They are utilizing every bit of space, and this issue will need to be addressed. Victims Assistance volunteers and advocates don’t have any privacy, auditory or visual. They are working with Susan Ross of Property & Facilities on this. Minutes of Budget Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2012 Page 8 of 14 ___________________________ Ms. Anderson pointed out some of their efficiencies. Regarding EDP, case review, there has been a reduction in case resolution time. They are working on trial readiness procedures, a warrant project, CLE training, crime mapping with Bend Police Department, and community outreach including with law enforcement. They try to move cases through the system quickly. Some are ready to go, but then get set over by the courts. And there is a lot of expense tied to murder cases. Mr. Barrett asked if they changed oversight or the process. Ms. Anderson replied that Ms. Gies and Beth Bagley are supervisors. They meet regularly to decide what cases to file, what charges to file and what outcomes to expect. Defense knows there is a basis for knowledge of the case. Mr. Flaherty said they might have talked previously about the abstract program. It was scrapped because it did not function properly. They decided with the courts to bring the other one back. If early disposition cases are set over by the courts, it gets expensive. If they follow guidelines, it is efficient. The OPBS and PSCC play a part in this. They are also working with the Bend Police Department on crime mapping, which is an intelligence-based policing framework. ___________________________ The group spoke about taking over part of the child support enforcement program. Mr. Flaherty said they are meeting in June on this. Yamhill and Jackson counties already have this in place. It could bring in over $998,000 to the County. Mr. Barrett pointed out that it also entails three more FTE’s. Ms. Anderson stated that one would be an existing attorney; the three would be two experienced case managers and one support staff. The federal government would cover 2/3 of the cost. Mr. Maier said that most everyone was happy when the State took this over years ago. They would be assuming a State responsibility with ongoing expenses. The County is looking at layoffs in Community Corrections and the Sheriff’s Office. He asked if there has been an attempt made to find out why the State is not doing its job in this regard. Minutes of Budget Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2012 Page 9 of 14 Ms. Anderson replied that she works closely with the child support division. This is actually a responsibility of the District Attorney’s Office that can be delegated. However, the State is not able to maintain this as they should. Mr. Maier said that he questions the statistics. They retained a consultant to look at this. Many people cannot afford to pay support, so the statistics should reflect this. Ms. Anderson stated that she believes collections will increase. Mr. Maier suggested that if they don’t have to hire an attorney, perhaps they can have him just help the State instead of splitting up the program. Mr. Flaherty said he disagrees with Mr. Maier’s analysis. The District Attorney has a statutory obligation to prioritize child support enforcement. He can delegate as was done in 2001, but he feels this hurt the County because collection rates then went way down. They won’t necessarily get all of the charity cases. He feels collections will be good. Many people feel he should take back child support enforcement, because the State process is too inefficient and they have a big backlog. Mr. Maier restated that the funds would only support more staff. He feels they should let their attorney help the State. Mr. Flaherty said that the Constitution does not allow consolidation. He wants to take care of Deschutes County. He wants to provide high quality services here that the State attorney is not able to provide. He has a statutory obligation regarding public assistance cases. For some single- parent families, child support can make up almost 30% of their income. If they don’t get this, they go on public assistance. Mr. Maier asked if they would assume responsibility for the State employees. Mr. Flaherty indicated that the State should realize some savings, and the State attorney will not have to travel here. Deschutes County would take on the case managers, and the D.A. would provide an attorney here. Mr. Maier asked if the way it is now handled is breaking the law. Mr. Flaherty said he can appoint any attorney to do this. He wants only highly qualified prosecutors here. Mr. Higuchi said that they see federal and state grants come about, and then disappear. They need to look at priorities. The grant and program may be worthwhile, but then they find they have to discontinue it. The initial return on investment is not good unless there is a guarantee that it is ongoing. He does not want to add more workload and expense to the department. Some departments are being forced to revisit their mission, and this is very serious to the citizens. There needs to be more of a global view. Minutes of Budget Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2012 Page 10 of 14 Mr. Flaherty stated that the mission of the D.A. is defined by the Constitution and the law. Everyone has to set priorities, but public safety should be at the top. Mr. Maier said he is not questioning the importance of the work. He just wants to know if they will keep feeding it if it comes to that. It is a matter of priorities. They lost the HIDTA funding. They are losing a lot of grants and support. They might be able to maintain, but other costs will go up. The priority is HIDTA over one that already has a home base. Mr. Flaherty stated that if he had to choose between HIDTA and child support enforcement, he feels child support is more important than having someone end up in federal court. Ms. Anderson said it involves incentive funds and is not a grant, and has been in existence for decades. Although it is not easy or cheap, they need to prioritize the children and support them financially. The County can help with this. Otherwise, it will not get done properly. Chair DeBone asked that they explain this further. Ms. Anderson went over the CSE chart. They should see increases in what is collected out of what is due. The goal is to catch up on the arrearages and keep them current. They want to work with the individuals so they can get caught up. The State is overwhelmed with this. Chair DeBone asked what happens if they are on public assistance. Ms. Anderson said that the Department of Justice has to enforce some of them. They can go after the ones that have the wherewithal to pay. ___________________________ At this point, Diane Stecher of Victims’ Assistance explained the Victims’ Assistance program. She said it went from no volunteers to 12. They are involved in 25,000 points of contact each year, dealing with 750 to 1,000 victims a year. These can be adults or juveniles. The program has become vibrant, and they have extended out more proactively with law enforcement. About 950 DUII cases are ordered each year. ___________________________ Mr. Flaherty brought up the I.T. project and archiving issues once again. Mr. Maier said that the County has a wonderful archives facility that was developed with the help of the State Archivist. Mr. Flaherty noted that the law requires him to work with the Secretary of State on this, although there can be an agreement. Minutes of Budget Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2012 Page 11 of 14 Mr. Higuchi asked if the I.T. project is a budget line item. Mr. Kropp said that the request is in the current year budget because of underspent personnel services. They may have to move this from personnel to another fund. Mr. Flaherty said that there is a surplus in personnel and materials, capital outlay, so it can go anywhere it is needed. He is working with I.T. and Chad Morris. The e-mail piece is a big part of the cost. Ms. Faria said it is not in the budget. It can be appropriated but not spent. Commissioner Baney said she prefers it be set aside in a fund. Mr. Wynne stated that it does not always work that way. The D.A. could have an excess, but another general fund department may not, so there might not be anything to carry over. Mr. Kropp noted that there will be ways to transfer those funds if and when needed. Mr. Maier pointed out they are talking about a savings this year, but are asking for an 11% increase in D.A. funding. Mr. Flaherty said that this is mostly materials and services charged for internal services. Mr. Kropp stated it also is $155,000 to supplement the HIDTA grant. Mr. Maier said they cannot predict surprises. The history has been if they get a big case with lots of expenses, it comes from the general fund contingency. Mr. Wynne stated that many others have been in the general fund in the past. Most was moved out so they could carry over funds. They did not do this with D.A. funds because they over-expended due to some big issues. ___________________________ Mr. Flaherty suggested that it is important to reward cost effectiveness in some way. Mr. Barrett said the Road Department found some efficiencies, and put the funds towards a project, chip seal. If there are efficiencies, should those go to something else? Mr. Flaherty said they had a lot of savings in personnel. He would like more flexibility on how to allocate funds. For instance, for Deputy D.A., there are seven steps. A better model would be to have three levels with perhaps 9 to 11 pay grades. This could help keep individuals from getting topped out and stagnant. There would be flexibility for the D.A. to award for merit. Some models out there allow for this. It could become a performance measure. Minutes of Budget Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2012 Page 12 of 14 Mr. Higuchi stated that when you do something well, there should be more than just a pat on the back. In private business, sometimes the policy is that if you are under budget, you can use the funds for what you feel is important. This helps to try to create efficiencies at all times. The District Attorney and his staff left the meeting at 11:40 a.m. ___________________________ At 11:45 a.m., the group convened as the governing body of the 911 County Service District, and Mr. Maier opened the meeting. Rob Poirier joined in. Mr. Poirier indicated they are looking at holding to the status quo. Now that they are in the new building, they are able to better identify the cost of utilities, etc. A major point is budgeting for no COLA’s across the board. The trainer position was a great investment, resulting in better retention. The costs of turnover can really hurt a department, especially those involved in public safety where training is very expensive. ___________________________ The budget as previously submitted reflected anticipation of passing a new taxing district. This could result in a tax rebate to the taxpayers, levying just 33 out of 39 cents. However, since it did not pass, it needs discussion. Mr. Kropp said the recommendation is to levy the 39.18 cents to plan for the uncertainty. There needs to be a discussion of the 911 Executive Board and the Board of Commissioners as to whether to try again in November. ___________________________ Mr. Maier noted that scheduled overtime has been a big expense in the past. He asked if there have been attempts to fix this. Mr. Poirier said this is in the works. They are coming off the four 12-hour shifts. They work at 182-hour work month. About one-third is overtime monies. They need to backfill by two positions on scheduled overtime. They would still come out with a savings of $30,000 or more after benefits. The Executive Board wants more positions filled that are already authorized. Some of this is weighted. ___________________________ Minutes of Budget Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2012 Page 13 of 14 Mr. Maier asked if crime mapping would help. Mr. Poirier said they can use some of the data if it trends consistently. But you can’t build the narrowest road, especially when some agencies are exercising austerity that is adding workload to others. For instance, if a dispatcher has to stay on the phone to explain something to a caller because there is no law enforcement response, it takes away from other calls. Commissioner Baney noted that one jurisdiction may save money, but it costs another. These are unintended consequences on the backs of taxpayers for another jurisdiction. This is the third department that has mentioned this problem. ___________________________ Mr. Poirier said was a good move for him to now report to the C ounty Administrator instead of the Executive Board. He has a symbiotic relationship with the E-Board that can make the situation difficult and political. ___________________________ He based the budget on the status quo. Even with no COLA, there are still step increases and overhead. Capital projects are carryovers and there is no additional revenue. They have to be prepared for whatever might happen. There is no guarantee the public will be supportive of the work his department does. If they have to go to the full levy amount, it needs to be available. They cannot let 911 shut down. ___________________________ Mr. Maier asked if there is a possibility of combining services with other counties. He realizes they would have to get over some trust issu es with other agencies. After funding is squared away, he would like to see this pursued. It would benefit all. Mr. Poirier responded that it is happening in the background. They have a consolidation task force, but this was tried before. It would result in better systems, but it is a local decision for all. The Kimble report says to go to the next generation system. He worked with Jefferson County and they recommended partnering with Lake and Klamath counties. For field operations, there is another mix of counties. It is hard to figure out how this will work since they all want something different. No one wants to feel like they are being assimilated. But he is prepared to go for this whenever the time is right. ___________________________ Chair DeB one asked if they change the local option number or the base number. Mr. Wynne said they can do it either way. They could reduce the permanent rate. Mr. Poirier stated that they worked hard to get the message out that stable funding can result in a rebate-type program. They can't do this if the measure does not pass. This will require a discussion. Mr. Kropp added that if the measure fails again, they will be operating on contingency or will have to go to user fees. 2012 is the last year on the local option. Mr. Poirier said the budget was optimistic. Things will go away if there is no permanent funding. Mr. Wynne added that they can't go any longer than a year on contingency. Mr. Poirier left the meeting at this time. Being no further discussion, a lunch break was taken at 12:35 p.m. DATED this ~ 11; Day of ~ 2012 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissione Anthony DeBone, Chair Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTEST: ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Budget Meeting Wednesday, May 23 , 2012 Page 140f14 PLEASE SIGN IN Budget Meeting (Please Print) Name _ ~f1~ -r:-"",,,,-v< W6-V k ..:J(;/JAIlA/{3 ,c11 ---­-m t;¥y<-~ VJt~ -='I ltLj ,&vvwl Wed., May 23, 2012 &~k~u­ _tl-~~+ ~~ f"7 vtc:uC£. ~J~Y\ l\fle /)DC~ 8v c c­ 13 uJ4e-+ G,VltV}1~tLe_e _ ~ --­ / 1 / r -0D GG /::::-/;t./II ;ut. C v .~ Please return to Bonnie. ----- ------------ PLEASE SIGN IN p/s/#'~~l7?J'f4cy'J Budget Meeting Wed .. May 23. 2012 (Pleas~rint)_ -j - ----­ Name ~~/tJL k~;1 ~-,. ------­ 1/~1~ 'f1rY\~ IIpcb; /fCt rV' __ I ( ~. ().JAe. ~ --L./\ - - - --­ _Cttkr:> M~s ~_ r ,_ g"R9'CC - ~O'( _ ~a I , ___1 _ _ _ 1 I 1-------­ Please return to Bonnie. 9:00 AM 9:00 -10:00 AM 10:00 -10:15 AM 10:15 -11:15 AM 11:15 -Noon Noon -1:00 PM BUDGET COMMITTEE AGENDA Wednesday, May 23 rd , 2012 • Reconvene the Deschutes County budget meeting Community Justice (Adult and Juvenile) • Introductions • Budget discussion Break District Attorney • Introductions • Budget discussion Deschutes County 9-1-1 County Service District (Budget Committee-Commissioners, Bruce Barrett Clayton Higuchi & Mike Maier) Open public meeting and introductions • Budget discussion • Public comment • Motions to: 1) Approve Deschutes County 9-1-1 County Service District operating budget of $15,189,447 and set tax rate at $.1618 per $1,000 of assessed valuation (Fund 705) • 2) Set local option operating tax rate at $.2300 per $1,000 of assessed valuation (Fund 705) • 3) Approve Deschutes County 9-1-1 County Service District Equipment Reserve budget of $2,310,000 (Fund 710) • Motions to be seconded • Budget Committee votes • Close budget meeting Lunch -Discussion 1) Mary's Place Presentation Program Budget Page No. 66 78 276 Page 1 1:00 -2:00 PM 2:00 -3:15 PM 3:15 3:30 PM 3:30 -4:30 PM BUDGET COMMITTEE AGENDA Wednesday. May 23 rd • 2012 (A) Sheriff's Office. (B) Countywide Law Enforcement District (District 1), and (C) Rural Law Enforcement District (District 2) • Open public meeting for Countywide Law Enforcement District (District 1) • Open public meeting for Rural Law Enforcement District (District 2) • Introductions • Budget discussion • Public comment • At conclusion of presentation, continue Countywide Law Enforcement District meeting to Thursday, May 24 th, at 9:00 a.m. • At conclusion of presentation, continue Rural Law Enforcement District meeting to Thursday, May 24th, at 9:00 a.m. Support Services Introductions Budget discussion • Board of Commissioners ........................................ • Administrative Services ......................................... • PersonneL ............................................................ • Finance ............................................................... • Information Technology ......................................... • LegaL .................................................................. • Property and Facilities .......................................... Break Review and Discussion • Recall departments for further clarification of budget • Other issues and considerations Continue the Deschutes County budget meeting to Thursday, May 24th, at 9:00 AM I f Program Budget Page No. 91 I f I t f r r ! ~ 215 , ~ 220 l 225 i t 240 J 251 I259 f., 263 I, t ! t Page 2 I Proposed FY 2013 Budget Committee Schedule Direct Services 1:00 -2:00 Solid Waste 2:00 -3:00 Road 3:00 -3:15 BREAK Public Safety 3:15 -3:30 Justice Court Service Partners 3:30 -4:00 Economic Development of Central Oregon (EDCO) 4:00 -4:30 Central Oregon Visitors Association (COV A) Wednesday, May 23, 2012 Public Safety 9:00 10:00 Community Justice (Adult Parole & Probation and Juvenile) 10:00 -10:15 BREAK 10: 15 -11: 15 District Attorney's Office 11:15 -12:00 Deschutes County 9-1-1 CSD 12:00 - 1:00 LUNCH -Discussion 1:00 -2:00 Sheriffs Office Support Services 2:00 -2:10 Board of Commissioners 2:10 2:20 Administrative Services 2:20 -2:30 Personnel 2:30 2:40 Finance 2:40 -2:50 Information Technology 2:50 -3:00 Legal 3:00 3:15 Property and Facilities 3:15 -3:30 BREAK 3:30 -4:30 Review and Discussion • Recall Departments for further clarification of budget • Other Issues and Considerations Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:00 -5:00 Final Decision Making and Budget Approval 2 I (2012Deschut ,ounty program estimate .. County Population Cases FTE Cases/FTE 2012 Total Budget . Federal Funds Incentives Federal Funds 66% Match General General Funds General Funds County $25 Funds State Annual Fee County Jackson ! 208,370 2,5011 7.00 357 1 $585,315 $89,057 $327,531 $58,778 I $9,052 I $100,898 Yamhill I 98,932 1,3521 5.20 260 I $452,223 $52,397 $263,885 $34,582 1 $5,506 I $95,853 i Deschutes ~oun!y [DA17] 1 158,792 1,71~L 5.56 309 -­I $472,834 $64,464 $269 ,524 $42,547 I $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 affinal incentives [depends on annual final award] DESCHUTES COUNTY f-"JGRAM IMPROVEMENT Based on FFY 2011 Data -~.r mUNWGHTO aTNS WGHTOaTNs FFY ~Ol1 Actual $6,442,762.45 $6,740,868.55 5% Increase $6,764,900.57 , $7,077,911.97 10% Increase $7,441.390.63 $7,785,703.17 15% Increase $8,557,599.22 $8,953 ,55 8.64 Actual Po""""m.. eRNT sPRT sPRT CLTNS ORDRs DUE ON ARGS CSTEFF 9?2~ 68.3% 71.1%1 $14.63 '97:1%1 71.7% 74.7% ..' $14.63 : .97~1~J 78.9% 82.1%1 . : slr~ 97;1"1 90.7"1 94.5% . . 514'.63 PEIIfOAMANa INaN11V~I'ERCElfTIIGE W£JGKTED cou.~CTI0NS· INCENTIVe peRf PERCENTAGE CRNTSPRT CLTNS CST EFF SPRT ORDRS WT CRNT sPRT DUE CLTNS ON SPRT ARGs WT 0:75 CST EFF WT 0.75ORORS DUE ONARGs (EST) 1.0 WT1.0 100%, 78% 82%,-100% $6,740,869 I $5,257,877 $4.145~ 23,055,651 ,. ':100%! 82%, 88% I" . ' 100% $7,077,912 $.s,s.~4,671,4ZZ --$5,308,434 ~iOO%~i 10~H~ $7,785,703 $7,474,275 I $5;839,277 I $5,839,277 ' IOO% I 100% I 100% . ' .100% $8,953,559 i $8,953,559 ! $6,715,169 I $6,715,16' TL INCTV CLTNS (8S0 ON WT COL) $21,200,032 $22,861.656 52&,938,533 $31.337,455 A 10% Inoru,. would brln,ln an additional $998,628 to Deschutes county Families . ~OM:Collections increase, but caseloild remains the same 1'< .. Np than~~. in·~erfo·,!,an. ~-:==J 0ST8% -1.59% 1.71" 2.02" 2.35% . INCTV FNOS STGEN FNO (ESn (ESn $64,464 _. $.42,~1 _ $69,517-,­__$4':;,88.2. 581,914 554,064 $95,290 . $62,892 4/13/2012 I JUSTICE-1I3339446-vl-U-13_Deschute5_Caunty_lncrease_Case ,XLSX FY 2013 Budget Request 97 97 20 20 La Pine Bend RedmondSisters Unger Building, Redmond South County Service Center, La Pine Public Safety Campus, Bend Community Safety Offender Accountability Competency Development Restoration •Cognitive training •Treatment •MH, SO, DV, D&A •Case management •Moral Recognition Therapy •Family therapy •Enforcement orders •Restrict activities •Sanction •Detain •Revocation •Victim advocacy •Victim mediation •Community service placements •Community service crews •Electronic monitoring •Home visits •Investigations •UAs •Risk assessment JUVENILE DIVISION ADPS 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 YTD 2012 Detention Probation Diversion Status Violators ADULT DIVISION ADPS 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2009 2010 2011 YTD 2012 Adult Electronic Monitoring Other Local Control Parole / Post Prison Court Probation Choices Program M57 Program Community Connections EPICS & Carrey Guides Mental Health Interns Adult community service crews Consolidated electronic monitoring Domestic violence intensive supervision Juvenile Fund 230 Resources Requirements BNWC $1,010,415 Personnel $5,280,230 State Revenue $459,347 All Other Expense $1,246,968 All Other Revenue $199,060 Contingency $631,798 County Revenue $5,490,174 $7,158,996 $7,158,996 Adult Fund 355 Resources Requirements BNWC $570,000 Personnel $3,207,878 State Revenue $3,000,923 All Other Expense $876,023 All Other Revenue $262,000 Contingency $453,182 County Revenue $704,160 $4,537,083 $4,537,083 FTE BY DIVISION UNFUNDED SALARIES & BENEFITS 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Adult Juvenile $0.00 $50,000.00 $100,000.00 $150,000.00 $200,000.00 $250,000.00 $300,000.00 $350,000.00 $400,000.00 $450,000.00 FY 2013 FY 2014 Adult Juvenile JUVENILE FUND 230 ADULT FUND 355 $- $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 F Y 2 0 1 0 F Y 2 0 1 1 F Y 2 0 1 2 F Y 2 0 1 3 F Y 2 0 1 4 Revenue BNWC Expenses Requirements $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 F Y 2 0 1 0 F Y 2 0 1 1 F Y 2 0 1 2 F Y 2 0 1 3 F Y 2 0 1 4 Revenue BNWC Operating Expense Requirements ADULT $(400,000) $(200,000) $- $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 FY 2010 FY 2011FY 2012FY 2013FY 2014 Net Resources less Requirements Net Revenue less Operating Expense BNWC JUVENILE $(1,000,000) $(500,000) $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Net Resources/Requirements Net Revenue/Operating Expense BNWC More county funding More state funding Change state split Increase fees Get more grants Decrease materials & services expense Reduce the work force IN PROPOSED BUDGET Cut 1 vacant P&P supervisor Cut vacant .5 juvenile FTE Eliminate on-call staff POST BUDGET SUBMISSION Layoff 1.75 probation specialists Layoff 2 community justice officers Layoff .5 analyst Freeze juvenile field services manager Labor agreements Post Accuterm No juvenile detention on–call New medical services Reduction in work force changes System changes Performance maintenance and organizational improvement during fiscal constriction