Washington County, Oregon COUNTY COUNSEL Recruitment Brochure Text

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION

UPDATED VIRTUAL MEETING 01/04/2021 JANUARY 5, 2021 8:30 a.m. 1. Swearing in of Elected Officials: (30 min.) · Commissioner Roy Rogers · Commissioner Nafisa Fai · Sheriff Pat Garrett

9:00 a.m. 2. Introduction of Commissioner Nafisa Fai (10 min.)

9:10 a.m. 3. Board and Leadership Communication & Formal Agenda Item Discussion (45 min.)

10:00 a.m. CONVENE FOR REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING 1:00 p.m. 4. County Counsel Recruitment (30 min.) -Elizabeth Mazzara Myers, Chief of Staff; and Heather Gantz, Novak Consulting Group

1:30 p.m. 5. Homeless Plan Advisory Committee Appointments (20 min.) -Komi Kalevor, Director of Housing Services; and Annette Evans, Homeless Program Manager

1:50 p.m. 6. Planning Commission Appointment Discussion (20 min.) -Stephen Roberts, Director of Land Use and Transportation; Theresa Cherniak, Principal Planner, and Todd Borkowitz, Associate Planner

2:10 p.m. 7. Proposed Revisions to Washington County Code Chapters 8.04 and 8.08 Pertaining (45 min.) to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee -Marni Kuyl, Director of Health and Human Services; and Thomas Egleston, Manager of Solid Waste & Recycling

2:55 p.m. BREAK – 15 MINUTES 3:10 p.m. 8. Review 18-Month Assessment of Emergency Ambulance Services Franchisee: Metro (30 min.) West Ambulance -Tricia Mortell, Public Health Manager; and Adrienne Donner, EMS Program Supervisor

3:40 p.m. 9. Conciliation & Law Library Financial Update (30 min.) -Erin Calvert, Deputy County Administrator PULLED 10. Report: Community Investment Conversations - Elizabeth Mazzara Myers, Chief of Staff; and Marcus Mundy, Coalition of Communities of Color

WORK SESSION Item #4 WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Session Date: January 5, 2021 Length of Time Requested: 30 minutes Title of Topic: COUNTY COUNSEL RECRUITMENT Department: County Administrative Office Presented by: Elizabeth Mazzara Myers, Chief of Staff; Name(s) & Title(s) Heather Gantz, Novak Consulting Group

LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS OR PRESENTATIONS: Position Profile Updated recruitment timeline

PURPOSE & DESIRED OUTCOME: For the Board of Commissioners to provide feedback on the position profile developed for the County Counsel recruitment. Opportunity to touch point with the recruiter regarding timeline.

POLICY QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER: Are there edits or amendments you would like to make to the County Counsel position profile?

SUMMARY OF TOPIC: The Board of Commissioners is working with the Novak Consulting Group in a nationwide Executive Search for a new County Counsel. The January 5th check-in will provide the Board opportunity to provide direct feedback regarding the position profile, the timeline or any other areas of interest or concern.

Washington County, Oregon COUNTY COUNSEL Recruitment Brochure Text

The Opportunity The County Counsel acts as a key advisor in providing public policy and legal advice to elected officials, county management, and affiliated agencies. Within broad objectives established by the Board of County Commissioners, the County Counsel develops and implements goals, objectives, policies, and priorities. This position provides an outstanding opportunity to address the most complex legal challenges, work closely with elected and appointed policy officials, and lead a team of dedicated professionals.

A highly effective leader, the County Counsel manages the Office of the County Counsel with responsibility for hiring, directing, and evaluating staff that provide quality service internally to departments and externally to Washington County residents. The County Counsel develops and implements the strategic plan and collaborates with staff to establish annual work plans with identified goals, objectives, and measurable outcomes. The County Counsel develops annual and supplemental budgets for the Office of County Counsel and actively monitors revenues and expenditures. This position also presents budget proposals to the Budget Committee and the Board of County Commissioners.

The County Counsel provides or oversees legal representation in all civil matters on behalf of the County and prosecutes, defends, and appeals legal actions, suits, and other proceedings. This position reviews and analyzes court decisions and pending legislation and directs the research and preparation of legal opinions, memoranda, ordinances, resolutions, contracts, agreements, deeds, and other legal documents. Representing the County in court, the County Counsel prepares and presents cases at trials or hearings and can effectively evaluate and negotiate out of court settlements.

The County Counsel reviews and interprets Federal, State, and local legislation, statutes, rules, and regulations and makes recommendations on proposed policy or procedural changes. This position also directs the preparation and analysis of proposed state and federal legislation affecting County operations. The County Counsel attends public meetings and work sessions advising on legal rights and responsibilities and other legal issues. They also approve the legal form of all official ordinances, orders, and actions of the Commissioners.

As a member of the County’s Executive Management Team, the County Counsel supports the facilitation of high quality, effective service delivery in all County programs. The County Counsel routinely advises County departments on appropriate action for a variety of legal problems and issues, particularly those involving county-wide policies or politically sensitive issues. With an equity focus, this position also assists in the development of department, division, and county-wide policies, procedures, and business practices.

Priorities · Quickly develop and maintain positive and productive relationships with the Board of County Commissioners. Establish trust, ensure effective communication, and proactively provide sound legal advice. · Establish collaborative working relationships throughout the organization. Become a dedicated business partner to the County Administrator and work in collaboration to achieve Board priorities and strategic County initiatives.

26 E. Hollister Street, Cincinnati, OH 45219 www.raftelis.com www.thenovakconsultinggroup.com Washington County, Oregon Page 2 County Counsel Recruitment Brochure

· Modernize and improve the Office of the County Counsel. Review current recommendations and consider best practices in order to structure and staff the Office to meet the growing needs of the County. · Identify and articulate technology and system needs in order to effectively leverage data and increase efficiency in support of performance excellence. · Quickly come up to speed on the current work of the Office. Actively discuss cases, develop strategies as needed, and successfully partner with the staff to provide sound legal advice on ongoing initiatives. · Demonstrate a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as a key organizational value. Support the County’s ongoing DEI initiative to deliver equitable outcomes throughout the County’s programs, budgets, decision-making, and service delivery.

The Successful Candidate The County Counsel is apolitical yet politically astute, with a strong history of developing effective relationships with elected officials and providing balanced and sound legal advice. The successful candidate develops positive partnerships throughout the County, establishes a high level of trust, and actively collaborates with others to find creative solutions to problems and assist in achieving the public policy objectives established by the Board of County Commissioners. Additionally, the ideal candidate will have a vision for the Office of the County Counsel and the appropriate role the Office has in shaping and implementing public policy consistent with the Board and senior county management. With unquestioned integrity and sound ethics, the County Counsel is considered a thought partner dedicated to public service and works in the best interest of the County at all times.

The County Counsel has substantial government law experience and leverages that knowledge to anticipate issues and proactively mitigate risk. A confident leader, the successful candidate navigates controversial issues with ease and is strong enough to stand up to pressure and provide unpopular advice when needed. A highly effective communicator, the County Counsel is candid in their interactions with County officials and also enjoys coordinating and preparing responses to inquiries by the media and general public regarding county legal matters. This includes the ability to explain complex legal issues to lay employees and the public.

With a commitment to leading the equitable delivery of Washington County’s services, the County Counsel embraces change and continuous improvement. The successful candidate has an appreciation for lean management, uses data and analytics to drive decisions, and leverages technology and innovation in support of efficient operations. In addition, the County Counsel has a strong background in financial management and budget administration.

A genuine and authentic leader, the County Counsel is approachable and actively nurtures an open and welcoming environment that continues to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion. The successful candidate leads and empowers staff, encouraging development of creative options while still providing sound legal advice to complex government problems. Likewise, the ideal candidate solicits input from the team and leverages the deep knowledge and expertise of staff to collectively determine the County’s legal liability, vigorously defend claims, and ultimately seek efficient and effective resolution.

Qualifications The ideal candidate will be a member of the Oregon State Bar with at least ten years of increasingly responsible legal experience, with an emphasis on government law. A successful track record as a City or County Attorney, Deputy Attorney, or experience in a private law firm advising public sector clients is ideal. Direct leadership experience managing professional and paraprofessional legal personnel is

The Novak Consulting Group Trusted Advisors Transforming Communities Washington County, Oregon Page 3 County Counsel Recruitment Brochure essential. Knowledge of the principles and practices of municipal law, litigation, and labor relations law is required, as is expertise in successful negotiation, mediation, and conflict resolution.

Federal, State, and local statutes, regulations, rules, and ordinances applicable to County activities and functions, including municipal liability, public meetings, torts, land use, public records, and public financing, is required. Knowledge of civil trial and appellate procedures in state and federal courts and administrative tribunals is ideal.

Inside Washington County Washington County is a home rule community that operates under the council-manager form of government. The five non-partisan elected Commissioners appoint a County Administrator to serve as the Chief Executive of the organization. The Chair of the Board of Commissioners is elected at-large, while the four other Commissioners are elected from districts. All Commissioners are elected to serve four-year terms.

Through a dedicated workforce of 2,229 FTEs, county services are provided through five major functional areas: General Government; Public Safety and Justice; Land Use and Transportation; Housing, Health, and Human Services; and Culture, Education, and Recreation. The County Counsel is the only department head that is appointed by and reports directly to the Board. The County’s All Funds Budget for FY 2020-2021 is $1.36 billion, of which $320 million is the General Fund Budget and $307.9 million is the Capital Budget.

The County works cooperatively with the cities that are wholly or partially within the County’s boundaries, five fire districts, plus Clean Water Services and other service districts to serve the County’s shared residential, business, and institutional constituents. The County provides classical county services in the rural areas, including zoning and public safety/sheriff patrols. The rural acreage of Washington County far exceeds the size of the urban area of the County.

Washington County is committed to fostering, supporting, and strengthening equity and inclusion in all programs, practices, and policies, and structures the organization to model services, practices, and engagement approaches that equitably meet the needs of all residents.

Mission: Our mission is to provide excellent and cost-effective services that support healthy, peaceful, safe, and sustainable communities and encourage meaningful participation in community activities and county governance.

The Office of the County Counsel The Office of the County Counsel represents Washington County, including the Board of Commissioners, the Sheriff, and all county departments and employees. The Office also represents the Housing Authority, and all County service districts with the exception of Clean Water Services. Dedicated to providing legal advice and assisting the County and affiliated agencies achieve their goals, the Office provides the full range of civil representation, including general counsel and litigation with the exception of workers’ compensation, bond issuance, and most collective bargaining matters.

With a budget of just over $3 million, the Office of the County Counsel is staffed by a talented and dedicated group of employees led by the County Counsel. Eight Assistant County Counsels, two Paralegals, two Legal Specialists, a Management Analyst, and an Administrative Specialist complete the team. The Office delivers quality legal services and creative solutions at a reasonable cost while adhering to the highest ethical standards.

The Novak Consulting Group Trusted Advisors Transforming Communities Washington County, Oregon Page 4 County Counsel Recruitment Brochure

The Community The area currently known as Washington County, Oregon, rests on land that was first inhabited by the Atfalati Kalapuyans, also called the Tualatin people, who flourished here for thousands of years. Settlers began arriving in what would become Washington County in the 1830s. Presently, Washington County is the most culturally diverse county in the State of Oregon. Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and other communities of color have rich histories and present-day experiences that encompass living, working, recreating, and establishing businesses and faith communities in Washington County. In 2020, the Washington County Board of Commissioners publicly committed to creating an inclusive community that celebrates diversity and ensures all residents have equitable opportunities to lead healthy, peaceful, safe, and sustainable lives.

Washington County is Oregon’s second-largest county with a population of 613,410. Residents have the unique privilege of engrossing themselves in some of the nation’s finest cultural amenities without forgoing access to picturesque natural landscapes. A beacon of originality, the Portland metropolitan area is home to one of the nation’s most vibrant music scenes, internationally famous street food, an iconic microbrew culture, and a full calendar of events that is sure to provide year-round entertainment. Nicknamed the Silicon Forest, Washington County boasts Intel’s largest research and development location and share of employees and is the headquarters of Nike, Columbia Sportswear, Reser’s Fine Foods, and Leupold & Stevens.

Most of Washington County lies within the Tualatin Valley, formed by the Tualatin Mountains to the East and North, the Chehalem Mountains to the South, and the Northern Oregon Coast Range to the West and North. The County seat and largest city is Hillsboro, which is widely known for its concentration of high-tech companies and its minor-league baseball team – the Hillsboro Hops. Beaverton is the County’s second-largest city, and with a population just shy of 100,000, it consistently ranks among the nation’s best places to live.

Rural lands and forested areas surround the entire urban area of the County, and three small, rural cities on the outskirts of the County’s urban center account for approximately one percent of the population. While 56 percent of the County resides within the ten Metro area cities, another 38 percent live in unincorporated suburban neighborhoods. Over 30,000 residents live in Washington County’s large, rural areas of farm and forest land. The County’s vibrant agricultural economy is sustained through the growing of berries, grapes, and grains.

From hiking through lush forests and nature parks to enjoying the serenity of a day at the lake, outdoor adventure is never far away in Washington County. The Tualatin Valley’s pristine rural wetlands and nature preserves are a haven for bird and wildlife watching enthusiasts. The Northern and Western portions of the County are forested and sparsely populated but offer miles of trails and bike paths. Washington County enjoys the temperate year-round climate found throughout the Pacific Northwest.

Compensation and Benefits The County Counsel contract is at the discretion of the Board of Commissioners, with a salary range of $XXX,000 - $XXX,000. A competitive total compensation package will consider the candidate’s experience and expertise. Benefits offered to all employees include the following:

· Medical, dental, vision, life, and disability insurance · Enrollment in the Oregon Public Employee Retirement System · Vacation, administrative, holiday, and sick leave · Washington County Wellness Program · Employee Assistance Program · Free TriMet pass

The Novak Consulting Group Trusted Advisors Transforming Communities Washington County, Oregon Page 5 County Counsel Recruitment Brochure

How to Apply Washington County values a culture of equity, diverse perspectives, and life experiences. The organization embraces innovation, collaboration, and work-life harmony, offering job stability and an opportunity to serve and support the growing, diverse community. Washington County is an equal opportunity employer with a commitment to diversity and an inclusive workforce. Women, minorities, veterans, and people with disabilities are encouraged to apply.

Applications will be accepted electronically by The Novak Consulting Group at thenovakconsultinggroup.com. Applicants complete a brief online form and are prompted to provide a cover letter and resume. Please apply no later than February 21, 2021.

Please direct questions to Heather Gantz at [email protected] or 513-221-0500.

The Novak Consulting Group Trusted Advisors Transforming Communities

Washington County, OR COUNTY COUNSEL

Recruitment Process and Timeline

BCC Week of Activity Status Participation 11/02/20 Kick Off, Recruitment Planning Roundtable discussion with Board of County Commissioners *11/05/20* First look at Job Description Review and discuss recruitment strategy 11/30/20 County Counsel Analysis Roundtable discussion of analysis *12/03/20* Review timeline

11/30/20 and Backgrounding and Discovery Discussions 12/07/20 Meet with County Commissioners 1:1 (after analysis) Meet with County Counsel and Counsel Senior Staff Meet with County Administrator Meet with Sheriff Begin update of position profile 12/21/20 Declare Vacancy *12/22/20* Board of County Commissioners declares vacancy with intent to post January 4, 2021 Continue updating of position profile Solicit input from Chief Equity and Inclusion Officer *12/23/20* Send draft of position profile to Board of County Commissioners 01/04/21 Review and Approve Position Profile *01/05/20* Board of County Commissioners Work Session for first review and discussion of position profile Update position profile with changes as discussed

01/04/21 Visibility Campaign, Active Recruitment and Outreach Launch visibility campaign, targeted advertising Begin targeted recruitment and outreach Ongoing networking and source for referrals Weekly updates to Chief of Staff and others as directed

01/25/21 First Review Begin screening and interviewing of potential candidates Provide detailed search update to Board of County Commissioners, electronic or in person as determined by BCC Discuss and further define interview process with Board of County Commissioners *02/21/21* Target Date for Candidate Materials (*actual date*) Complete active recruitment phase; Interested candidates should provide materials (cover letter and resume) by this time Screening and interviewing still in progress

*02/26/21* Deliver Candidate Materials (*actual date*) Provide Board of County Commissioners with candidate materials in preparation for candidate presentation 03/01/21 Candidate Presentation *03/02/21* Meet with Board of County Commissioners to present and discuss candidates, determine who will proceed to semi-final interviews Finalize arrangements for semi-final interviews

03/15/21 Semi Final Interviews Conduct semi-final interviews with Board of County Commissioners and others as identified Determine candidates to proceed to final interviews Finalize arrangements for final interviews

03/29/21 Final Interviews Conduct final interviews with Board of County Commissioners and others as identified Reference and background checks completed by this time Successful candidate selection

Immediate Offer and Negotiation Contingent Offer Contract Negotiations

*MO/DA/YR* Refers to a certain date within any given week of activity

WORK SESSION Item #5 WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Session Date: January 5, 2021 Length of Time Requested: 15 Minutes Title of Topic: HOMELESS PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Department: Housing Services Presented by: Komi Kalevor, Director Name(s) & Title(s) Annette Evans, Homeless Program Manager

LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS OR PRESENTATIONS: · Homeless Plan Advisory Committee position matrix · Applications (hyperlinked online)

PURPOSE & DESIRED OUTCOME: · Update the Board on the 11 applications received and the interview outcomes for five positions on the Homeless Plan Advisory Committee (HPAC) that include: Citizen At-Large, Business, Homeless Consumer, Philanthropy and Hospital/Healthcare. · The number of applicants for each position are as follows: Citizen At-Large – 6; Business – 1; Homeless Consumer – 2; Hospital Healthcare – 1 and Philanthropy - 1. · The sixth position is a vacant County Commissioner position to be recommended by the Board of County Commissioners.

POLICY QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER: · Not applicable.

SUMMARY OF TOPIC: The Homeless Plan Advisory Committee (HPAC), created by your Board on September 23, 2008 (R&O 08-112), was established to provide oversight to the implementation of the County’s homeless plan and to provide leadership in the development of resources to meet the ambitious goals outlined in A Road Home. Specific categories of membership have been determined necessary to adequately represent the interests of the community, partner agencies and service recipients. The 17-member committee is comprised of individuals who bring knowledge about the needs of homelessness and extremely low-income persons with agency authority to participate in policy and budget decisions that impact the community’s housing and supportive service system.

The Board authorized a six-week recruitment ending October 13, 2020. In addition to the County’s media release and publication, recruitment for applications included a media release to more than 500 email contacts on the Housing and Supportive Services Network listserv. Homeless Plan Advisory Committee

Description The Homeless Plan Advisory Committee is comprised of members who have authority within their agency/jurisdiction to make policy and budget decisions that impact the community’s housing and supportive services system. The Committee provides high-level oversight to the implementation of A Road Home: Community Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness, encourages collaborative partnership building, provides guidance to the annual work plan, works to create resources and funding, and promotes and sustains the vision and leadership of the Plan. The Committee advises the county Homeless Program Manager, the Director of Housing Services, the County Administrator, and the Board of County Commissioners.

Members Details: The 17-member committee includes a representative from each of the following categories: Washington County Commissioner official, a mayor or city councilor, philanthropy, business, Housing Authority of Washington County, a nonprofit housing provider, a nonprofit service provider, Washington County Sheriff’s Office, Washington County Community Corrections, state or federal entitlement/mainstream resource programs, representatives from hospitals/healthcare, a representative from the faith community, 3 citizens at-large, and a homeless/formerly homeless consumer.

Term Length: 3 years

Term Limit: 2

Vacancy Total: 6

Applicant Total: 11

First Term District* Appointed Expires Position New Applicants Recommended for Appointment Stacey Triplett * 12/31/2023 Business Kara Kazemba 4 12/19/2017 12/31/2023 Citizen At-Large Michelle Markus 4 12/31/2023 Homeless Consumer Members with Expiring Terms Seeking Reappointment Kasi Woidyla 3 10/27/2020 12/31/2020 Philanthropy Talia Buchsbaum 2 12/18/2018 12/31/2020 Hospital/Healthcare Sarah Huggins Smith 4 1/7/2020 12/31/2020 Homeless Consumer Other Applicants Blake Nelson 2 Citizen-at-Large Alexander Flores 2 Citizen-at-Large Ken Knowles 4 Citizen-at-Large Cesar Maldonado 2 Citizen-at-Large Kathryn Leonardi 2 Citizen-at-Large Current Members Kemp Shuey 1 1/7/2020 12/31/2022 Nonprofit Service Provider Komi Kalevor * 4/3/2018 12/31/2021 Housing Authority of Washington County Phillip Williams 1 6/19/2018 12/31/2021 Entitlement/Mainstream Steven Berger 4 12/17/2013 12/31/2021 Community Corrections Brenda Christoffer 2 12/18/2018 12/31/2021 Citizen At-Large Erroll McCrea 2 1/7/2020 12/31/2022 Sheriff’s Office Elena Uhing 4 1/24/2017 12/31/2022 Mayor or City Councilor Rachael Duke 1 5/24/2016 12/31/2022 Nonprofit Housing Provider Vera Stoulil 1 12/23/2014 12/31/2022 Citizen At-Large Carol Herron 3 12/17/2013 12/31/2022 Faith Community Dr. Beth Uno * 10/27/2020 12/31/2021 Hospital/Healthcare Expiring Terms (Not seeking reappointment) Jeff S. Hindley 1 1/1/2018 12/31/2020 Citizen At-Large Commissioner Schouten 1 121/16/2008 12/31/2020 County Commissioner Kara Kazemba 4 12/19/2017 12/31/2020 Business

* For information purposes only; members are not appointed by Commissioner District. N/A indicates the person does not live in Washington County but has work interests in the County. WORK SESSION Item #6 WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Session Date: January 5, 2021 Length of Time Requested: 20 minutes Title of Topic: PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT DISCUSSION Department: Land Use & Transportation Presented by: Stephen Roberts, Director; Theresa Cherniak, Principal Planner; Name(s) & Title(s) Todd Borkowitz, Associate Planner

LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS OR PRESENTATIONS: · Attachment A: Planning Commission Matrix · Attachment B: Application materials submitted by applicants (hyperlinked online) PURPOSE & DESIRED OUTCOME: Consider applications for two positions on the Planning Commission (PC), one representing District 1 and one representing District 2, and provide direction on appointments.

POLICY QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER: Should the Board authorize an action item for the Jan. 19, 2021 Board meeting to appoint one PC member each for District 1 and District 2 to four-year terms?

SUMMARY OF TOPIC: The PC is a nine-member body appointed by the Board to advise on certain land use and transportation planning issues. Members are residents of various geographic areas of the County, with appointments staggered so that two or three terms expire each year. Community Development Code (CDC) Section 107-2 (Planning Commission) establishes the terms for PC membership, the responsibilities and authority of the PC, as well as certain rules and procedures. Operations of the PC are further delineated in Rules of Procedure that were adopted by the Board by Resolution and Order (R&O) 2013-03. The CDC establishes term limits for PC members (typically two four-year terms, unless a member is appointed midterm), and specifies that no more than two members can be engaged in the same occupation, particularly the buying, selling or development of real estate.

Due to term expirations, there will be two vacancies on the PC as of Jan. 31, 2021. There is one available seat representing each of the following Commissioner Districts: • District 1 (Commissioner Ian Beaty is not seeking reappointment) • District 2 (Commissioner Deborah Lockwood is seeking reappointment)

Per Board procedures, the County Administrative Office solicited applications for PC membership. Ten applications were received (including Ms. Lockwood’s) but three were withdrawn. The following active applications are available for consideration:

(continued)

· District 1: Raymond L. Eck, Jr., Michael Ngo1, Anastasia Milliman · District 2: Deborah Lockwood (current), Frank Shen, Mahesh Udata2, Allen R. Ross

LUT staff performed a brief phone interview with each applicant and can share this information with the Board if directed. For District 2, staff recommends reappointment of Commissioner Lockwood to a second four-year term.

Attachment A describes the role of the PC and certain limitations on appointments, and includes a table listing the Commissioner Districts and occupations of current Planning Commissioners and applicants. The table includes appointment and term expiration dates for sitting Planning Commissioners.

Information the applicants provided to the County is included in Attachment B.

1 Principally involved in the buying, selling or developing of real estate. (CDC Section 107-2.1 E.) 2 Graduate of the Civic Leaders program of Washington County and Adelante Mujeres. ATTACHMENT A

Planning Commission (PC)

Description: These nine appointed volunteers advise the Board of Commissioners (Board) on land use and transportation planning issues. They conduct public hearings, make final decisions on some changes to land use plans, and convey recommendations to the Board on Comprehensive Plan and community development ordinances.

Member Description: Nine members who are residents of the county. While not required by the Community Development Code (CDC) or PC Rules of Procedure, generally two members are nominated by each District Commissioner, and one by the Board Chair as an at-large appointment. No more than two members can be engaged principally in the buying, selling or developing of real estate. No more than two members can be engaged in the same occupation.

Term Length: 4 years Term Limit: 2 terms (1 term for reappointment)

Vacancy Total: 2 Applicants: 10 active and 1 for reappointment

First Term District* Position Occupation Appointed Expires Current Members Jeffrey Petrillo 2 6/26/12 1/31/23 District 2 Financial Analyst Matt Wellner** 3 6/26/12 1/31/23 District 4 Land Use Planner Anthony Mills 1 2/1/14 1/31/22 District 1 Security Services Contractor Eric Urstadt 4 2/1/14 1/31/22 District 4 Geotech Engineer/Surveyor Ian Beaty 1 1/24/17 1/31/21 District 1 Recruiter, U.S. Army Deborah Lockwood 2 1/24/17 1/31/21 District 2 Writer (retired) Mark Havener 3 2/18/20 1/31/24 District 3 Assistant Chief, TVF&R Sushmita Poddar*** 4 2/18/20 1/31/24 At-Large Business Owner (apparel) Blake Dye*** 3 2/1/21 1/31/24 District 3 Human Resources Active Applications District* Date Applied Interviewed Occupation Raymond L Eck, Jr 1 12/5/20 Yes Retired Michael Ngo** 1 11/25/20 Yes Real Estate Agent Anastasia Milliman 1 6/14/20 Yes Business/Financial Analyst Frank Shen 2 11/5/20 Yes Project Manager, Construction Mahesh Udata*** 2 10/13/20 Yes Technology Services Allen R. Ross 2 5/12/20 Yes Wound Care Specialist Edward Kimmi 3 8/5/20 Yes Chiropractic Physician Ken Knowles 4 4/1/20 No Database Engineer Nancy E. Thomas*** 4 3/21/20 No Human Resources Shane Vertner 4 1/14/20 Yes Technical/Web Consultant * For information purposes only; members are not appointed by Commissioner District. ** Engaged principally in the buying, selling or developing of real estate. *** Graduate of the Civic Leaders program of Washington County and Adelante Mujeres. Light gray shading indicates applicants under consideration for current positions

WORK SESSION Item #7 WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Session Date: January 5, 2021 Length of Time Requested: 45 minutes PROPOSED REVISIONS TO WASHINGTON COUNTY CODE CHAPTERS 8.04 AND Title of Topic: 8.08 PERTAINING TO THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Department: Health and Human Services Presented by: Marni Kuyl, Director, Health and Human Services Name(s) & Title(s) Thomas Egleston, Manager, Solid Waste & Recycling

LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS OR PRESENTATIONS: Presentation, Attachment A, Attachment B, Attachment C PURPOSE & DESIRED OUTCOME: To follow-up on the November 17, 2020, work session and provide an overview of proposed changes to Washington County Code (WCC) Chapters 8.04 and 8.08, and proposed bylaws that pertain to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. To receive guidance that ensures that the proposed changes to WCC 8.04 and 8.08 and the draft bylaws are consistent with your Board’s vision for engagement approaches that equitably meet the needs of all community members.

POLICY QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER: Do the proposed amendments to WCC 8.04 and 8.08 and the draft Committee bylaws align with your Board’s direction from the November 17, 2020, work session to clarify the committee’s purpose and duties?

SUMMARY OF TOPIC: At your Board’s May 12, 2020, work session, staff gave an overview of a project to begin revising WCC 8.04 and 8.08 to facilitate more equitable representation on the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. On May 26, 2020, your Board authorized County Counsel, in consultation with Health and Human Services, to file an ordinance to make such revisions. Over the past few months, several listening sessions concerning the Solid Waste Advisory Committee were held with stakeholder groups. Additionally, staff evaluated approaches taken by other committees and agencies to incorporate equity considerations into advisory committees. Proposed amendments to WCC 8.04 and 8.08 were presented to your Board at the November 17, 2020, work session. At that work session, staff was directed to take another look at the proposed code language to ensure that the Committee’s purpose and duties were aligned with proposed amendments to the Committee structure. Also, staff was asked to return to a future work session with draft Committee bylaws. The proposed bylaws provide the details of how the code changes would be implemented. At the November 17, 2020, work session, much of the conversation revolved around whether the Committee’s purpose is to act as a “technical” advisory committee or as a “community” advisory committee. The proposed code amendments and Committee bylaws are aligned with a community advisory committee purpose and duties. Staff will also present membership configuration options for discussion at the work session.

Solid Waste Advisory Committee Proposed amendments to Chapters 8.04 and 8.08 and draft bylaws regarding the Solid Waste Advisory Committee

January 5, 2021 Department of Health and Human Services www.co.washington.or.us Policy Question

Do the proposed amendments to Washington County Code 8.04 and 8.08 and the draft Committee bylaws align with your Board’s direction from the November 17, 2020 work session to clarify the committee’s purpose and duties?

www.co.washington.or.us | Department of Health and Human Services 2 Actions to Date

• May 2020: Work session to kick off project • May 2020: County Counsel authorized to work on ordinance • Summer 2020: Listening sessions and research • November 2020: Work session • December 2020: Meetings with commissioners

www.co.washington.or.us | Department of Health and Human Services 3 Board Input

• Ensure purpose and duties of the committee align with proposed amendments • Focus on equity and diverse membership • Consider whether the committee acts as a “technical” or “community” advisory body • Ensure the committee is accessible to community members interested in serving • Demonstrate how the draft bylaws implement proposed code language

www.co.washington.or.us | Department of Health and Human Services 4 Proposed Changes to Code (1 of 2)

Proposal summary: • Name change to “Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee” • Open and equitable recruitment/membership • Increase the number of public member positions from 6 to 9 • Reduce the number of industry member positions from 3 to 1 and make it non-voting • Retain non-voting HHS member • Change the membership term from 5 years to 4 years • Add term limits to allow no more than two successive terms of membership www.co.washington.or.us | Department of Health and Human Services 5 Proposed Changes to Code (2 of 2)

Purpose and duties: • “Community” advisory committee • Advice from community members and businesses as consumers of the garbage and recycling system • Input on how the system meets the needs of the community it serves • Focus on consumer/user experience • Review rules that affect services provided • Input on education and outreach • Ensure diverse community member representation

www.co.washington.or.us | Department of Health and Human Services 6 Bylaws

The bylaws include: • Definition of public membership categories • Representation from historically marginalized groups with lived experience of racial and ethnic inequity • Inclusion of garbage and recycling system consumer groups • Rules for how committee selects its officers • Ground rules for how meetings are conducted • Educational opportunities/commitments • Pre-committee meetings, as requested • Accessibility considerations for members

www.co.washington.or.us | Department of Health and Human Services 7 Membership Options

Membership configuration options 1. Current proposal • Reconfigure to 9 voting community members, 1 non-voting industry member, 1 non-voting HHS member 2. Adjust voting status of industry position • Reconfigure to 8 voting community members, 1 voting industry member, 1 non-voting HHS member 3. Status quo • Leave membership and voting status as is (6 voting public members, 3 voting industry members, 1 non-voting HHS member) www.co.washington.or.us | Department of Health and Human Services 8 Next Steps

• Identify whether your Board is prepared to move to ordinances • Schedule first reading, second reading and first public hearing for Ordinance 871 and 872 • Identify whether your Board is supportive of draft bylaws • Schedule adoption of draft bylaws • Begin implementation of changes

www.co.washington.or.us | Department of Health and Human Services 9 Department of Health and Human Services www.co.washington.or.us/hhs

10 Attachment A – redline Chapters 8.04 and 8.08

ARTICLE II. -– GARBAGE AND RECYCLINGSOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

8.04.060 - CreatedPurpose.

The purpose of the advisory committee is to provide the board with recommendations on solid waste related decisions from community members and businesses that are consumers or participants in the County’s garbage and recycling system. Committee membership will ensure diverse representation of lived and learned experiences that will help produce equitable outcomes from decisions that impact all users of the garbage and recycling system. There is created a solid waste advisory committee consisting of: 8.04.065 Membership

The garbage and recycling advisory committee shall be composed of:

A. Nine (9)Six members representing the public who shall be voting members;

B. One (1) member or employee of the department of health and human services department who shall be a nonvoting member; and

C. One (1)Three members of the solid waste collection and disposal industry, each with not less than five (5) years of relevant industry experience, who shall be a nonvoting member. (Ord. 527 (Exhibit A(part)), 1999: Ord. 260 § 2(A), 1982: Ord. 64 (part), 1970; Ord. 59 § 5(A), 1969)

(Ord. No. 710, § 3, 3-24-2009; Ord. No. 727, Exh. A, 10-20-2009) 8.04.070 – Membership.* - Appointment

Members of the advisory committee shall be appointed by the board. The board shall ensure that the recruitment and selection process for appointments to vacant positions is open to all segments of the community and ensures a broad representation and diversity of membership.

A. The term of office of a member is fivefour (4) years. B. Garbage and recycling advisory committee members shall be appointed to no more than two (2) successive terms of membership unless otherwise approved by the board.

C. Members of the advisory committee shall serve until their successors are appointed and qualified. Any vacancy shall be filled by the board for the balance of the unexpired term. (Ord. 527 (Exhibit A(part)), 1999: Ord. 260 § 2(B), 1982: Ord. 59 § 5(B), 1969)

* Editor’s note: Ordinance 260, § 2(D), appoints advisory committee members to terms that have since expired. 8.04.075 – Bylaws

The department of health and human services and the advisory committee shall develop bylaws governing the administration and duties of the garbage and recycling advisory committee. The board shall review the proposed bylaws and approve or revise and adopt them. 8.04.080 - Meetings—Generally.

The advisory committee shall select one of its members as chairman and another as vice-chairman. The advisory committee shall meet annually and at such other and further times as deemed necessary or as Attachment A – redline Chapters 8.04 and 8.08

called by the department of health and human services or the board. The chairman or any three (3) members of the advisory committee may call a special meeting by giving ten (10) days' notice to other members of the advisory committee; provided, however, a majority of the advisory committee members may waive such notice. (Ord. 527 (Exhibit A(part)), 1999: Ord. 260 § 2(C), 1982: Ord. 98 § 2(4), 1971: Ord. 59 § 5(C), 1969) 8.04.090 - Quorum.

Any five (5) members of the committee shall constitute a quorum.

(Ord. 527 (Exhibit A(part)), 1999: Ord. 260 § 2(E), 1982) 8.04.110 - Duties - Generally .

The advisory committee shall:

A. Carry out the following duties as prescribed by this chapter and by Washington County Code Chapter 8.08:

1. Review and advise on matters pertaining to certificates for collection, storage, transport or disposal of waste and the customer experience of the garbage and recycling system, including exemptions (8.04.130); applications (8.04.150; 8.04.180, 8.04.190, 8.04.200); amendments (8.04.270); and suspensions, modifications and revocations (8.04.290); and

2. Review and advise on proposed increases or decreases in garbage and recycling collection rates established for certificate holders (8.04.330).;

3. Review and advise on proposed changes to the rules and regulations that affect the service provided by the garbage and recycling system; and

4. Review and advise on waste reduction and recycling education programs and campaigns.

B. Assess and report on the impact of decisions that affect all users of the garbage and recycling system including community members, businesses, and other affected groups.Make periodic reports containing its recommendations, if any, regarding proposed changes or additions to the rules and regulations promulgated by the board for purposes of carrying out the intent of this chapter.

C. Perform such other and further acts as may be necessary, proper or desirable to carry out effectively the functions of the advisory committee as prescribed in the advisory committee bylaws or by this chapter.. (Ord. 527 (Exhibit A(part)), 1999: Ord. 331 § 2(Exhibit A(1)), 1988: Ord. 59 § 6, 1969) (Ord. No. 727, Exh. A, 10-20-2009)

Attachment A – redline Chapters 8.04 and 8.08

Chapter 8.08 - SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES 8.08.12530 -– Garbage and Recycling Advisory cCommittee—Duties.

There is created a garbage and recycling advisory committee as outlined in Washington County Code Chapter 8.04.060.

8.08.130 Purpose

8.08.135 Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee – Duties

A. Review and advise on proposed changes to the rules and regulations that affect the safe and sanitary accumulation, collection, transportation, storage and disposal of wastes and solid wastes; Make periodic reports containing its recommendations, if any, regarding proposed changes or additions to the regulations promulgated by the board or amendments to this chapter as set forth in Section 8.08.020; B. Review and advise make recommendations related to, in consultation with county officers and departments, including but not limited to, the health and human services department, the county administrative office, the land use and transportation department, and such state, local or federal offices, agencies and departments as the board and the committee deem necessary,on appropriate long-range plans associated related towith the provision of adequate disposal sites and disposal facilities to meet future demands;, including but not limited to the regional solid waste management plan, which plans shall subsequently be recommended to the board for approval; C. Review and advise recommend, in consultation with necessary state, federal and local officials of this and other counties, cities or public agencies and private persons, on minimum standards for the location and operation of disposal sites Iincluding , but not limited to,the protection of adjacent or nearby residents; D. Assess and report on the impact of disposal site decisions that affect all users of the garbage and recycling system including community members, businesses, and other affected groups; and ED. Perform such other and further acts as may be necessary, proper or desirable to carry out effectively the functions of the advisory committee as prescribed in the advisory committee bylaws or by this chapter. Perform such other acts or duties as directed by the board or established by other ordinances or as may be necessary, proper or desirable to carry out effectively, the functions and duties of the committee and the intent of this chapter.

(Ord. 83 § 8, 1971) (Ord. No. 728, § 3, 10-20-2009)

Attachment B – Clean Version Chapters 8.04 and 8.08

ARTICLE II. – GARBAGE AND RECYCLING ADVISORY COMMITTEE

8.04.060 - Purpose.

8.04.065 Membership

The garbage and recycling advisory committee shall be composed of:

A. Nine (9) members representing the public who shall be voting members;

B. One (1) member or employee of the department of health and human services who shall be a nonvoting member; and

C. One (1) member of the solid waste collection and disposal industry with not less than five (5) years of relevant industry experience, who shall be a nonvoting member. (Ord. 527 (Exhibit A(part)), 1999: Ord. 260 § 2(A), 1982: Ord. 64 (part), 1970; Ord. 59 § 5(A), 1969)

(Ord. No. 710, § 3, 3-24-2009; Ord. No. 727, Exh. A, 10-20-2009) 8.04.070 – Membership. - Appointment

A. The term of office of a member is four (4) years.

B. Garbage and recycling advisory committee members shall be appointed to no more than two (2) successive terms of membership unless otherwise approved by the board.

The advisory committee shall select one of its members as chair and another as vice-chair. The advisory committee shall meet at times deemed necessary or as called by the department of health and human services or the board. The chair or any three (3) members of the advisory committee may call a special Attachment B – Clean Version Chapters 8.04 and 8.08

meeting by giving ten (10) days' notice to other members of the advisory committee; provided, however, a majority of the advisory committee members may waive such notice. (Ord. 527 (Exhibit A(part)), 1999: Ord. 260 § 2(C), 1982: Ord. 98 § 2(4), 1971: Ord. 59 § 5(C), 1969) 8.04.090 - Quorum.

Any five (5) members of the committee shall constitute a quorum.

(Ord. 527 (Exhibit A(part)), 1999: Ord. 260 § 2(E), 1982) 8.04.110 - Duties - Generally .

The advisory committee shall:

A. Carry out the following duties as prescribed by this chapter and by Washington County Code Chapter 8.08:

1. Review and advise on matters pertaining to collection, storage, transport or disposal of waste and the customer experience of the garbage and recycling system;

2. Review and advise on proposed increases or decreases in garbage and recycling collection rates;

3. Review and advise on proposed changes to the rules and regulations that affect the service provided by the garbage and recycling system; and

4. Review and advise on waste reduction and recycling education programs and campaigns.

B. Assess and report on the impact of decisions that affect all users of the garbage and recycling system including community members, businesses, and other affected groups.

Chapter 8.08 - SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES 8.08.125 – Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee.

There is created a garbage and recycling advisory committee as outlined in Washington County Code Chapter 8.04.060.

8.08.130 Purpose

Attachment B – Clean Version Chapters 8.04 and 8.08

8.08.135 Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee – Duties

A. Review and advise on proposed changes to the rules and regulations that affect the safe and sanitary accumulation, collection, transportation, storage and disposal of wastes and solid wastes; B. Review and advise on appropriate long-range plans associated with the provision of adequate disposal sites and disposal facilities to meet future demands; C. Review and advise on minimum standards for the location and operation of disposal sites including the protection of adjacent or nearby residents; D. Assess and report on the impact of disposal site decisions that affect all users of the garbage and recycling system including community members, businesses, and other affected groups; and E. Perform such other and further acts as may be necessary, proper or desirable to carry out effectively the functions of the advisory committee as prescribed in the advisory committee bylaws or by this chapter. .

(Ord. 83 § 8, 1971) (Ord. No. 728, § 3, 10-20-2009)

Attachment C Bylaws - Revised

WASHINGTON COUNTY GARBAGE AND RECYCLING ADVISORY COMMITTEE BYLAWS

I. PURPOSE:

To provide the Washington County Board of Commissioners (Board) with recommendations on solid waste related decisions from community members and businesses that are consumers or participate in the County’s garbage and recycling system. Washington County Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee membership will ensure diverse representation of lived and learned experiences that will help produce equitable outcomes from decisions that impact all users of the garbage and recycling system.

As provided in Washington County Code Chapters 8.04.060 and 8.08.130, the Washington County Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee (Committee) has been appointed by the Board to assist the Board in achieving the above objectives. The Committee will:

1.1 Review and advise the Board and the Solid Waste & Recycling division on issues and plans relating to waste and solid waste management within the County.

1.2 Assess and report on the impact of decisions that affect all users of the garbage and recycling system including community members, businesses and other affected groups.

1.3 Review and advise on waste reduction and recycling education programs and campaigns.

1.4 Review and advise on proposed changes or additions to the Washington County Code, Solid Waste and Recycling Administrative Rules and other regulations enacted by the Board for the purpose of carrying out the intent of Washington County Code Chapters 8.04 and 8.08.

1.5 Review findings of Solid Waste & Recycling division investigations and make recommendations to the Board regarding applications for Sanitary Service Certificates to collect, store, transport or dispose of waste or solid waste. Also, review and make recommendations for requests to transfer, modify, suspend or revoke existing Sanitary Service Certificates.

1.6 Review and make recommendations to the Board based on Solid Waste & Recycling division findings regarding proposed garbage and recycling rate increases or decreases..

1.7 Review and make recommendations to the Board regarding the provision of adequate disposal sites and disposal facilities to meet future demands. Also, review and make recommendations for minimum standards for the location and operation of disposal sites.

II. MEMBERSHIP:

The Board may appoint a Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee as provided in Washington County Code Chapters 8.04.060 and 8.08.130.

2.1 The Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee membership will seek to represent the whole community. Membership will include representation from community members and community partners from historically marginalized groups with lived experience of racial and or ethnic inequity.

Attachment C Bylaws - Revised

2.2 The Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee shall consist of eleven (11) members representing many dimensions of the community.

2.3 There shall be nine voting members representing the general public. The Committee will be composed of members that represent, but are not limited to, the characteristics below:

Community:

• Racial and ethnic communities • Disability community • Seniors/aging population communities

Sector:

• Housing interests o Single-family o Multi-family o Homeowner Association • Businesses o Chamber of Commerce o Food Waste o Retail • Student • Retirees

Interests:

• Environmental health • Non-profit/government • Master Recyclers

2.4 All members of the Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee representing the general public shall work and/or live in Washington County. Preference for membership will be given to applicants working and/or living in unincorporated Washington County.

2.5 There shall be one non-voting member representing the garbage and recycling collection and disposal industry; with not less than five (5) years of experience in collecting, processing, transporting or storing garbage and recycling within the State of Oregon.

2.6 The member of the Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee representing the industry shall be actively engaged in providing services in or to unincorporated Washington County.

2.7 The Washington County Solid Waste & Recycling division manager shall be a non-voting member of the Committee.

2.8 The Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee members must declare potential conflicts of interest related to issues under consideration. Such members will abstain

Attachment C Bylaws - Revised

from voting on issues related to a conflict of interest, as determined by County Counsel.

2.9 Individual Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee members will exercise the authority of their position only when the Committee is in legal session. No individual member of the Committee has the authority to act in the name of the Committee unless authorized by a specific motion.

2.10 The Washington County Solid Waste & Recycling division staff shall assist the Committee chairperson with coordinating the activities/agendas of the Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee. Staff assigned to the Committee shall maintain recordings, files and other matters.

III. MEMBERSHIP TERM:

3.1 The term of each Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee member shall be four (4) years. Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee members shall be appointed to no more than two (2) successive terms of membership unless otherwise approved by the Board.

3.2 Terms shall be so formed to avoid more than two (2) starting in any 12-month period.

3.3 Any Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee member that has two (2) unannounced absences during the calendar year, without notice or reasonable explanation, may be automatically removed from the Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee.

3.4 Any Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee member that fails to maintain contact with the County or Committee may be removed from the Committee and the position will become vacant.

3.5 Any member may resign from the Committee by submitting their resignation in writing to the Solid Waste & Recycling division manager.

3.6 Upon the resignation, removal, or inability to serve of any Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee member, the Board shall appoint a person to serve the remaining unexpired term. Members who are appointed to fill a partial term will be eligible for two (2) additional four-year terms.

IV. OFFICERS:

4.1 At least once every two (2) years, the Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee shall vote to select one of its members as chair and another member as vice-chair.

4.2 Each officer shall serve for two (2) years or until a successor has been duly elected. An officer’s term may be renewed once for a total of two (2) terms.

4.3 The chair shall be responsible for the general operation of the Committee including the establishment of subcommittees or workgroups and presiding over Committee meetings.

4.4 In the absence of or inability to act as the chair, the vice-chair shall have all the authority of the chair.

Attachment C Bylaws - Revised

V. MEETINGS:

5.1 A Committee meeting calendar with topics noted shall be developed bi-annually and updated as needed.

5.2 The Committee shall meet at least annually.

5.3 Meetings will be typically scheduled on a monthly basis.

5.4 Regular meetings will be held in a location and time that promotes membership and removes barriers to membership.

5.5 A designated meeting will be held annually for the purpose of orientation and ongoing education regarding garbage and recycling matters.

5.6 Meetings shall be held either in-person or remotely through an online platform.

5.7 An optional pre-committee meeting for the Committee’s public members to engage with Solid Waste & Recycling staff on the scheduled topics shall be held, as requested.

5.8 To the extent possible, meetings will follow equity and trauma-informed guidelines that create an accessible and welcoming environment for membership participation.

5.9 Meeting information, including the agenda and staff reports, will be provided to Committee members one week prior to the meeting. Public notice of meetings will be posted at least one week prior to the meeting on the Solid Waste & Recycling division website.

5.10 A simple majority of the voting members shall constitute a quorum (minimum number of members necessary to conduct the business of the Committee). For purposes of determining a quorum and for purposes of voting, attendance via a telecommunication link is acceptable.

5.11 The Committee shall conform to the procedures outlined by the open meetings law of the State of Oregon. [ORS 192.610-695]

5.12 The Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee may establish panels, study groups or subcommittees to conduct research and advise the membership.

VI. RULES OF ORDER:

6.1 Generally, the Committee shall adhere to the following rules as they relate to meeting procedure:

6.1.1 Committee, Staff and Public Interaction:

• The role of the Chair is to keep the Committee on task and on time. • Everyone on the Committee participates. • Unless a Public attendee is recognized by the Chair, only the Committee members and Staff may participate in discussion. If a Public attendee is

Attachment C Bylaws - Revised

recognized and asked to comment or to clarify a point, the response will relate only to the request made by the Committee and may be subject to a time limit. • A designated part of each agenda will be established to allow members of the audience an opportunity to speak to the Committee (Public Comment period). • Any new business that results from Committee discussion, or is suggested during the Public Comment period, should be placed on the next meeting agenda. The Committee may ask Solid Waste & Recycling division staff to examine the issue and report at a future meeting. • Agenda items are identified and placed on the agenda by the Chair and the Solid Waste & Recycling division manager, in advance of the meeting. • All documents related to agenda items will be made available to the Committee prior to its meetings and will be posted on the Solid Waste & Recycling division website one week prior to the Committee meeting. • Notice of a member’s inability to attend meetings should be provided to the Chair and Solid Waste & Recycling division manager in advance of scheduled meeting dates. • Meetings will start on time. Members are expected to be on time.

6.1.2 Internal Committee Communication and Interaction:

• Allow a single Committee member to talk at a time; don’t engage in side discussions. • Focus on tasks and discourage distractions. • Encourage all ideas. • Strive for facts and understanding of other points of view. • Encourage thoughtful disagreement. • Provide and value constructive feedback. Avoid being defensive. • Emphasize open and honest communication. • De-personalize discussion of issues. • Listen, be non-judgmental and keep an open mind. • Emphasize balanced participation of all Committee members. • Respect the Committee’s time and meeting timetables. Be brief and focus on facts. • Foster and strengthen diversity, equity and inclusion in decision making on matters related to solid waste and recycling in Washington County.

VII. GARBAGE AND RECYCLING ADVISORY COMMITTEE RELATIONSHIP TO THE BOARD AND STAFF:

7.1 Relationship to the Board of Commissioners:

7.1.1 Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee members will be appointed by the Board.

7.1.2 The Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee will submit recommendations to the Board on subject matters related to sanitary service certificates for collection, storage, transport or disposal of garbage and recycling, including exemptions, applications, amendments, and suspensions, modifications and revocations.

7.1.3 The Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee will submit recommendations to

Attachment C Bylaws - Revised

the Board on subject matters regarding the provision of adequate disposal facilities.

7.1.4 The Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee will review and advise on increases or decreases in collection rates established for certificate holders.

7.1.5 The Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee will review and advise on proposed changes or additions to the rules and regulations enacted by the Board for the purpose of carrying out the intent of Washington County Code Chapters 8.04 and 8.08.

7.1.6 The Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee will review and advise on waste reduction and recycling education programs and campaigns.

7.1.7 The Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee will assess and report on the impact of decisions that affect all users of the garbage and recycling system including community members, businesses, and other affected groups.

7.2 Relationship to Staff:

7.2.1 The Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee will work in cooperation with Solid Waste & Recycling division staff.

7.2.2 The Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee will not be involved in the Department of Health and Human Services or Solid Waste & Recycling division administration or operations.

VIII. AMENDMENTS:

A recommendation to repeal or amend the bylaws of the Garbage and Recycling Advisory Committee may be proposed through a majority vote of all members of the Committee present, provided that it has been made available to each member at least twenty (20) days prior to the meeting at which a vote is taken. Any proposed bylaw amendment must be approved by the Board before final adoption and enactment.

WORK SESSION Item #8 WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Session Date: January 5, 2021 Length of Time Requested: 30 minutes REVIEW 18-MONTH ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICES Title of Topic: FRANCHISEE: METRO WEST AMBULANCE Department: Health and Human Services Presented by: Tricia Mortell, Public Health Manager Name(s) & Title(s) Adrienne Donner, EMS Program Supervisor

LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS OR PRESENTATIONS: · PowerPoint · Document: 18-Month Periodic Assessment of the Washington County Emergency Ambulance Service (January 1, 2019-June 30, 2020)

PURPOSE & DESIRED OUTCOME: Review and discuss the results of the 18-month performance assessment of the emergency ambulance services franchisee, Metro West Ambulance, and extension of current contract.

POLICY QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER: Contract review and extension.

SUMMARY OF TOPIC: In August 2020, the Washington County Emergency Medical Services Office (WCEO) began the process of an 18-month assessment of the Emergency Ambulance Services Franchisee, Metro West Ambulance, for the January 2019-June 2020 period. WCEO’s primary responsibility, per code 8.32.180, is to administer, monitor and enforce ambulance franchise contracts and to ensure that the residents of Washington County receive safe and high quality services when they call 911.

The WCEO sits organizationally within the Public Health Division and is required by County Code 8.32 and EMS Administrative Rules to provide oversight to the contract for ambulance services and is the primary investigator that conducts the 18-month audit.

This 18-month assessment, presented for the board’s review, is a summary of the auditing process conducted by the WCEO. As part of the audit process, the WCEO reviewed a large volume and variety of data, to ensure full compliance with our franchise agreement. Details of the types of data examined are found in the report and include information from computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems, patient charts, recorded radio/telephone audio files, raw data, human resources data, personnel files and any other data necessary to assess MWA performance.

The WCEO expects the ambulance franchisee to meet or exceed each of the standards. If performance meets or exceeds standards upon completion of an 18-month assessment, an additional 18-month period will be added to the contract. For assessment period of January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020, our current ambulance franchisee MWA met 25 of the 25 established criteria.

Emergency Medical Services Update

Tricia Mortell, Public Health Division Manager Adrienne Donner, EMS Program Supervisor

BOC Work Session January 5, 2021 Customer Expectations • Residents and visitors of Washington County should feel confident that when they call 9-1-1 they will receive: • Safe, timely and appropriate care by an integrated, well-trained and well- equipped care team

2 Board Role and Expectations

• Outlined in EMS Code 8.32 • Authorized to regulate emergency ambulance and nonemergency ambulance/wheelchair transport • Protection of the health, safety and welfare of individuals requires these services to be regulated to promote efficient, effective and safe transportation • Desires an EMS system that takes an active role in emergency medical prevention and a comprehensive approach to emergency public health care, assessment and cost containment

3 Comprehensive Approach

• Formation of EMS Alliance • Systemwide focus on metrics ꟷ cardiac arrest survival • Systemwide focus on collaboration and coordination between all partners in the first responder system

4 Benefits to Customers High quality and consistent response across the county • Agencies train/respond together • Agencies review tough calls together (Quality improvement efforts inform shared training) Pre-hospital cardiac arrest survival rates: • 17.3% in Washington county • 10.6 % nationally

5 From the “Customer”

Patient EMS Partner • Had a deep cut with extensive blood loss. Lost consciousness while on with 911 • Fire entered through a window, assessed, stopped bleeding • MWA continued assessment and treatment for specific conditions and transported to ED • Patient called MWA to express gratitude to the medics who helped save her life insisting on talking to them directly to say thanks.

6 Emergency Transport Assessment and Oversight

• Conducted on ongoing basis • Grounded in recognized EMS standards and Washington County expectations • Requires periodic (18 month) full contract review process

7 EMS Office Role January 2019 – June 2020 Assessment Period • Monthly activities by Washington County EMS Office (WCEO) • Analyzes 8 metrics Metro West must meet (part of the 18-month assessment) • Meets with EMS providers to discuss difficult calls and work to continuously improve the system • Annual activities by WCEO • Coordinates trainers from all agencies to jointly conduct annual training for all EMS providers • Organizes the Online Medical Control (OLMC) contract to provide consistent physician guidance for any field provider that needs it. • Licenses all emergency transport vehicles. • Inspects all new and a percent of existing vehicles.

• Fall 2020, 18-month emergency ambulance contract process began 8 9 Performance Matters Washington County's emergency ambulance provider, Metro West Ambulance, is measured against more than 40 different standards across three functional areas: • Operations • Communications • Clinical

10 Performance Matters • In addition to the time-based metrices that are reported monthly, other standards include: • Active participation in industry committees and professional societies • Maintaining effective communications with WCCCA • Providing continuing medical education to a diverse field provider population

11 Monthly Assessed Metrics (1-5 of 8)

Response Time (5 metrics) 30 min

Monthly

Ability to respond to each call within 8, 11 or 30 minutes by zone (88%) and overall (90%). Central Zone* 11 min 8 min North Zone South Zone West Zone Hillsboro * Hard to see, area around Forest Grove the “8 min” label

12 Monthly Assessed Metrics (6-8 of 8) Unit Hour Dispatch Within < 1% Response by Utilization 60 Seconds Other Agencies

UHU is a standardized, shorthand way of measuring This metric was reconfigured to MWA is allowed to “turn over” workload, or efficiencies, in the an average time to dispatch of less than 1% of all calls in a system. A high UHU can be an less than 60 seconds to account month for transport by another indicator of an overburdened for growth in call volume. agency. system.

For each month in this review The requirement for this Monthly Range: 3-18 calls period, MWA did not exceed criterion has met or exceeded the UHU cap of 0.4500. the standard. Monthly Average: 10.11 calls 18-month average: 0.3696 18-month average: 25.81 sec 18-month average: 0.32%

13 Non-Time Based Metrics

Operations Communications Clinical

Participate in county, Maintain a functional CAD- Assist the County in regional and state to-CAD bridge with receipt providing training to fire committees/associations. verification. service personnel

MWA has active WMA is a key figure in the Through collaboration in discussion, development, and participation on the delivery of Multi-Agency following committees: the WCEMS Alliance Training in which all fire and American Ambulance Dispatch working group, EMS agencies train together Association, ED/EMS bidirectional CAD-to-CAD on updated protocols, low Collaboration Committee, information exchange will frequency/high acuity skills, among others. be implemented by spring. and new equipment or procedures.

14 General Responsibilities

In addition to the 25 criteria reviewed, there are 16 general responsibilities that are observed, including: • Maintaining neat and professional appearances and professional relationships • Establishing mutual aid agreements • Coordinating and conducting timely and relevant continuing medical education

15 Staff Recommendation

MWA met or exceeded standards set forth in the 18-Month Periodic Assessment and an additional 18-month period should be added to the contract. • MWA met all metrics in this assessment audit. • MWA was not leveled any penalties or liquidated damages during this assessment period. • MWA continues to work in partnership with the EMS Alliance to further develop and implement continuous quality system improvements. 16 Questions or comments?

Washington County Emergency Ambulance Service Franchise Agreement 18 Month Periodic Assessment Period #: 7 January 1, 2019 thru June 30, 2020

This eighteen-month audit report is a summary of the auditing process conducted by the Washington County Emergency Medical Services (WCEMS) Program. The requirements listed below are directly based on the requirements of the Franchise Agreement for Ambulance Services, a contract between Washington County and Metro West Ambulance (MWA). Throughout the audit process, WCEMS reviewed a large volume and variety of data, to ensure full compliance with our franchise agreement. Details of the types of data examined are listed below but in general they include information from computer aided dispatch (CAD) systems, patient charts, recorded radio/telephone audio files, raw data, human resources data, personnel files, fleet maintenance records, and any other data that was necessary to assess MWA performance.

The WCEMS sits organizationally within the Public Health Division and is required by County Code 8.32 and EMS Administrative Rules to provide oversight to the contract for ambulance services and is the primary investigator that conducts this audit. MWA is assessed as having met or not met each criterion. The franchise agreement specifies the terms of default of the contract.

*NOTE: Requirements 1-8 below are based on the monthly review of call response time requirements. There are several requirements that MWA is held to for every emergency call they receive. For example: they must dispatch an ambulance within 60 seconds; take no more than 8, 11, or 30 minutes to arrive at an emergency call; turn over no more than 1% of emergency calls. The individual monthly reports are available for review on the WCEMS website and the criteria of "meets standard" are based on those monthly reports.

Criterion: Meets Standard:

Yes No 1 Requirement: 90% Overall County Response Time X

Reference: Washington County EMS Administrative Rule 500-500(c)

Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standard.

The eighteen-month overall response time average was: 91.25%.

Each month, an analysis was performed of MWAs ability to respond to each call within 8, 11, or 30 minutes as set forth by the parameters of the franchise agreement. Summary and assessment reports are reported publicly by WCEMS each month.

2 Requirement: 88% in North Equity Zone Response Time X Reference: Washington County EMS Administrative Rule 500-500(c)

Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standards. The eighteen-month North Equity Zone response time average was: 91.06%

Each month an analysis was performed of MWA ability to respond to each call within 8, 11, or 30 minutes as set forth by the parameters of the franchise agreement. Summary and assessment reports are reported publicly by WCEMS each month.

3 Requirement: 88% in Central Equity Zone Response Time X

Reference: Washington County EMS Administrative Rule 500-500(c) Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standard. The eighteen-month Central Equity Zone response time average was: 93.15%

4 Requirement: 88% in South Equity Zone Response Time X Reference: Washington County EMS Administrative Rule 500-500(c) Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standard. The eighteen-month South Equity Zone response time average was: 90.98%

5 Requirement: 88% in West Equity Zone Response Time X Reference: Washington County EMS Administrative Rule 500-500(c) Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standard. The eighteen-month West Equity Zone response time average was: 90.23%

6 Requirement: Monthly Unit Hour Utilization Rate at 0.4500 or less X Reference: Washington County Franchise Agreement Section V., A., 3. Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standards with recommendations noted below. For each month in this review period, MWA did not exceed the UHU cap of 0.4500. The eighteen- month UHU average was: 0.3696.

Each month MWA provides a calculated ratio regarding unit hour utilization (UHU). UHU can be used as a proxy for system efficiency. In this instance, UHU is calculated by dividing the number of transports by the total number of unit hours in a twenty-four-hour period. As reported, this calculation does not account for emergency calls that do not result in a transport. These data are included in the monthly summary and assessment reports that are reported publicly by WCEMS.

Recommendation: Rather than reporting UHU as the calculated ratio, please report separated by daily transport, actual unit hours, and calculated ratio. 7 Requirement: Ambulance Dispatched within 60 Seconds of Receipt X Reference: Washington County EMS Administrative Rule 500-500(B)

Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standard. The eighteen-month dispatch time average was: 25.81 sec.

MWA is required to dispatch an ambulance to an emergency call within 60 seconds. Dispatch time was monitored monthly over the eighteen-month assessment period. At no time did the eighteen- month rolling average exceed 60 seconds and at no time did a single month exceed 150% of the eighteen-month rolling average.

8 Requirement: No more than 1% of Responses Handled by Another Agency X

Reference: Washington County Franchise Agreement: Penalty Schedule, Appendix A

Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standard.

Each month an analysis was completed to determine the number of emergency calls that MWA turns over to another agency. MWA can turn over no more than 1% of all calls to another agency. During the eighteen months of response call data we find the following: the range of turn overs every month was between 3-18; the average number of turn overs was 10.11, and the most frequent number of calls turned over to another agency was 10. The eighteen-month average turnover percentage was 0.32%.

9 Requirement: Meet Equipment Standards set forth in Administrative Rule X

Reference: Washington County EMS Administrative Rule 400-300

and Oregon Administrative Rule 333-255

Comments: The requirements for this criterion have met or exceeded the standards with recommendations noted below:

During the eighteen-month assessment period a total of nineteen (19) ambulances were inspected by WCEMS or an outside licensing agency such as the Oregon Health Authority EMS & Trauma Section (OHA-EMS); all ambulances meet or exceed equipment standards.

Recommendation: During a review of inventory sheets, it was noted that “flex cuffs” were still listed as stocked equipment. These devices are considered “hard restraints” and not a standard of care. Numerous professional bodies, to include the National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) have position statements in opposition of their use. Please remove them from stock and replace with a more appropriate device.

100 Requirement: Maintain State Licensure of All Franchise Ambulances X

Reference: Oregon Administrative Rule 333-250 Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standard with recommendations noted below:

WCEMS inspected both the agency and ambulance vehicle licenses issued by the OHA-EMS. MWA has appropriately maintained agency and vehicle licenses as stated in OAR.

Recommendation: In reviewing vehicle records, some inconsistencies were noted between MWA records and those of WCEMS. Some

inconsistencies were regarding VIN numbers. Please reconcile VIN numbers between MWA and WCEMS records.

11 Requirement: Maintain County Licensure of All Franchise Ambulances X

Reference: Washington County EMS Administrative Rule 100-100 Comments: The requirement for this criterion has been or exceeded the standard with recommendations noted below:

WCEMS inspected both the agency and ambulance vehicle licenses issued by the WCEMS Program. MWA has appropriately maintained agency and vehicle licenses as stated in Washington County Code and AR.

Recommendation: In reviewing vehicle records, some inconsistencies were noted between MWA records and those of WCEMS. Some inconsistencies were regarding license numbers and mileage. For example: Ambulance 280 (Lic. 1415) is listed as “code2 only” on submitted documentation, however, WCEMS records reflect that it is a frontline vehicle. Ambulance 280 (Lic. 1415) has a recorded mileage >250,000. Additionally, ambulance 276 (Lic 1143) is not listed on submitted documents, however, WCEMS records reflect that it is a frontline vehicle with a mileage >250,000. Please correct all documentation inconsistencies.

12 Requirement: Staff Ambulances According to Administrative Rule X

Reference: Washington County EMS Administrative Rule 400-270 Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standard.

A random sampling of staffing records (n=9) along with the current master shift staffing schedule were examined from this eighteen- month period. WCEMS reviewed daily staffing to assess that the requirement of at least one senior paramedic was staffed for each ambulance shift on the days reviewed. In addition to these, all charts reviewed during monthly and/or quarterly quality improvement activities were also examined for proper staffing. 13 Requirement: Meet Employee Training Standard set forth in Administrative Rule X

Reference: Oregon Administrative Rule 333-250-0043-1;

Renamed 333-250-0280

Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standard.

The personnel files of every new employee (n=59) that staffs an emergency ambulance was inspected and found to be in full compliance with Oregon Administrative Rule and the franchise agreement. 14 Requirement: Completion of Coursework and Ride-A-Long Components of New Employee Orientation Program Prior to Staffing an Ambulance X

Reference: Franchise Agreement Section V., B., 5 Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standards.

WCEMS evaluated MWA New Employee Orientation training program (NEO) and finds that each new employee (n=59) received this training prior to staffing an ambulance.

Recommendation: During review of documents, it was noted that the training document examples are not all filled out the same. Some are missing Field Training Officer name for 1st/2nd mo, ride-a-long shift info, etc. Please assure complete and accurate documentation of all training requirements and activities. 15 Requirement: Completion of 2 Month (minimum) Field Training Officer (FTO) Assessment Prior to Staffing an Ambulance as a Junior Paramedic X Outside the FTEP Program

Reference: Franchise Agreement Section V., B., 5 Comments: The requirement for this criteri0n has met or exceeded the standard.

WCEMS evaluated the Field Training and Evaluation (FTEP) Program and finds that each person (n=59) received this training prior to staffing an ambulance. 16 Requirement: Provide Patient Information to Receiving Facilities as set forth in Administrative Rule X

Reference: Oregon Administrative Rule 333-250-0044;

Renamed 333-250-0310

Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standard.

A random selection of incidents (n=478) were selected for the audit period to assess that a patient chart existed for the incident, if that chart was successfully sent to the receiving facility within 12 hours of the incident, and if that chart was received by the receiving facility. WCEMS inspected the MWA CAD, charting programs, fax reports and hospital records to ensure compliance. WCEMS also exercised monthly monitoring of the same requirements using patient charts from quality improvement activities and calls requested for exemptions from monthly response compliance reports.

17 Requirement: Actively Monitor the Triage (over and under) of Requests for Service for Appropriate and Timely Transfer to 911 X

Reference: Franchise Agreement Section V., E. Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standard.

During quarterly quality improvement activities, calls were reviewed for under triage. During the eighteen-month period there were 8 calls that were triaged as a code 1 response (normal driving, no lights or sirens), however, a patient was transported to a receiving hospital code 3 (with lights and sirens). All calls were triaged under the “sick person” triage card. WCEMS analyzed these incidents to ensure that the MWA-Call Center adhered to the appropriate triage and dispatch processes. WCEMS assessed dispatch QI forms and patient care reports for each of these calls and compared them to current acceptable standards. All 8 calls matched acceptable standards: • three of the eight calls reviewed, transport to hospital was initiated in a code 1 priority, however, due to deterioration of the patient’s condition, their transport priority was upgraded to code 3. • four calls were transported as a sepsis alert. One of which, transport was initiated code 1 and upgraded en route and • one as a stroke alert (4645). As part of the QI process, the presence of stroke symptoms noted by the caller was

identified by the reviewer and appropriate feedback was given to the call taker.

These calls were reviewed, to include audio recordings, during internal QI committee meetings. Due to staffing changes, current WCEMS personnel were not able to inspect audio files in the earlier portions of this review period.

Recommendation: 1) Continue to monitor the audio file recording system and assess for issues. 2) Continue to monitor monthly the success of the Transport Only card triage process and review standards with dispatch employees as often as necessary. 3) Continue to work with the local PSAP for positive system changes. 4) Review calls that exceed threshold for wait times and continue reporting call wait times at quarterly quality improvement meetings. Also, determine a threshold for wait times and those calls that should be added to trend files and reviewed for system improvements.

18 Requirement: Maintain Functional CAD to CAD Bridge with Receipt Verification X

Reference: Franchise Agreement Section V., E. Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standard.

During the previous eighteen-month assessment period the regional 911-PSAP agencies, including the Washington County 911-PSAP upgraded their computer aided dispatch (CAD) systems. This upgrade occurred at the end of March 2018 Due to 3rd party vendor service agreements all 911-PSAPs were scheduled to be upgraded prior to secondary Communication Center CADs such as MWA. This left the CAD-to-CAD bridge unavoidably non-existent between the 911-PSAP and MWA for approximately 90 days. For the first two days of the transition to the new CAD system, MWA dispatchers were present within the 911-PSAP to assist monitoring of MWA resources. Because the transition was seamless, and no issues were found, after two days it was deemed that MWA assistance was no longer needed. While the bridge was down, MWA manually entered call data into their CAD during the transition period. Also of note: though a CAD-to- CAD interfaces exists, it is not bi-directional, meaning MWA CAD can receive data from the 911-PSAP but the 911- PSAP cannot receive data from the MWA CAD. This is beyond the control of MWA as they are awaiting the build-out of these systems by a third-party vendor. Through the work and collaboration of the Washington County EMS Alliance and subsequent dispatch working group, CAD-to-CAD information exchange was determined to be possible with programming changes facilitated by the third-party vendor. This work is ongoing, and a work order has been agreed upon. Recommendation: Continue with collaborative efforts on identified priorities within the WCEMS Alliance and dispatch working group.

19 Requirement: Completion of Emergency Medical Dispatch Training for Dispatch Personnel Within Six (6) Months of Hire X

Reference: Franchise Agreement Section V., E. Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standard.

WCEMS inspected training certificates for all dispatchers and supervisors (n=26) working within the Communication Center for adherence to standards. 20 Requirement: Failure to Respond/Failure to Dispatch an Ambulance as set forth in Administrative Rule X

Reference: Washington County EMS Administrative Rule 500-400, Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standard.

During the eighteen-month assessment period there were no reported incidents in which MWA failed to respond, aka failure to dispatch of an ambulance to a code 3 call within ten minutes. 21 Requirement: Record and Retain All Dispatch Related Telephone and Radio Communications as set forth in the Franchise Agreement X

Reference: Franchise Agreement Section V., E.

Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standard

Approximately 40 individual incidents were reviewed to determine if audio files existed for those calls coming into the Communication Center and if telephone and/or radio communications were established with field crews.

22 Requirement: Maintain Adequate and Appropriate Records of Responses, Patient Care and Maintenance for the Retention Period X set forth in the Administrative Rules Reference: Washington County EMS Administrative Rule 400-700 and Oregon Administrative Rule 333-250

Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standard.

WCEMS reviewed the preventive maintenance records for all ambulances (n=24), patient gurneys (n=39) and cardiac monitors (n=44) that are used in the emergency ambulance fleet in addition to the records and files mentioned in above criteria.

23 Requirement: Submit Quarterly Staff Retention Reports as Mutually X Agreed Upon

Reference: Franchise Agreement Section III., E. Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standard.

WCEMS reviewed MWA quarterly staff retention reports for each of the six quarters of the eighteen-month assessment period.

Recommendation: Work with local agencies and Human Resources to create opportunities for employee engagement along with diversity and equity plans. Given the national focus of harm reduction, a formal peer support program and network with training in Critical Incident Stress Management debriefing should be established.

24 Requirement: MWA shall use a system status management (SSM) plan to strategically manage and deploy ambulance resource in Washington County. A current copy of the SSM shall be made available to X Washington County EMS Office

Reference: Franchise Agreement Section V., C. Comments: The requirement for this criterion has met or exceeded the standard.

Updated posting plans were submitted for review and compared to those updates that were requested real-time.

25 Requirement: Provide Data or Reports as Requested by Due Date Stated in the Request X

Reference: Franchise Agreement Section III., E. Comments: The requirements for this criterion have met or exceeded the standards.

MWA has been consistent in providing information and data as requested by the County. To name a few: weekly reporting of naloxone usage by MWA field personnel which directly impacts addiction and treatment programs within the region; daily reports of cardiac arrest calls that are used to inform the EMS system on how to improve patient care. WCEMS also assessed MWA responsiveness to Emergency Call Back drills during planned and unplanned events.

Recommendation: Participate in more large scale disaster/MCI drills beyond emergency call back drills. MWA supervisory staff and/or field providers should seek opportunities to participate in these drills as members of the Incident Command Structure as they would in real world scenarios.

General Responsibilities

GR Requirement: Establish and maintain appropriate and effective professional working relationships with all public health, public safety, and X emergency management provider organizations and personnel. Reference: Franchise Agreement Section I.C.1

MWA continues to maintain appropriate and effective relationships with public health and EMS stakeholders. MWA is an affiliate member of the Washington County EMS Alliance and very active in all workgroups in which they participate. They have taken on considerable responsibility within the Alliance dispatch workgroup along with the governing documents revision workgroup. Along with key participation with the Alliance, MWA collaborates with local agencies in training and continuing education efforts.

GR Requirement: Ensure courteous and professional conduct of all Metro West Ambulance personnel related to this agreement at all times. X

Reference: Franchise Agreement Section I.C.3

At no time has MWA exhibited any conduct that would be considered contrary to this general requirement.

GR Requirement: Maintain neat, clean, and professional appearance of personnel, equipment, and facilities. X

Reference: Franchise Agreement Section I.C.4

At no time has MWA exhibited any conduct that would be considered contrary to this general requirement

GR Requirement: Establish mutual aid agreements with neighboring ambulance services, subject to County approval as provided for in V.C.6. X

Reference: Franchise Agreement Section I.C.7

Mutual aid agreements have been established and are on file with WCEMS.

GR Requirement: Provided and maintain contact mechanisms which are redundant and timely for key personnel which shall include at a minimum X email and cellular access. Key personnel are as defined in Section V.J.5 of the Franchise Agreement. Reference: Franchise Agreement Section I.C.9

At the request of WCEMS, MWA has provided an updated key personnel list.

GR Requirement: Actively participate in county, regional, and state committees and professional associations. X

Reference: Franchise Agreement Section I.C.10

MWA remains active in the local, state, and even national EMS community. Among other committees, MWA has representation on the following committees: American Ambulance Association, Columbia County 9-1-1 Communication District Board, ED Manager/EMS Leadership Collaborative Meeting, Joint ED Managers/MACAC Meeting, Kaiser Permanente Stroke Committee, PCC EMS Advisory Board, Washington County Training Association.

GR Requirement: Participate in industry events such as conferences, health fairs, and research. X

Reference: Franchise Agreement Section I.C.11

MWA is an active participant in industry events and EMS research. Examples include: Washington SKID Program, March of Dimes: March for Babies, Pre-hospital Airway Control Trial, Providence Festival of Trees, Genentech Preparedness Fair, Hillsboro 4th of July Parade.

GR Requirement: Metro West Ambulance agrees to replace disposable supplies used by fire responders as required by Administrative Rule 400-300. X

Reference: Franchise Agreement Section I.C.14

GR Requirement: Provide special training and support to Metro West Ambulance’s personnel found in need of special assistance in specific skills or X knowledge areas and provide additional clinical leadership by maintaining knowledge of developments in equipment and

procedures throughout the industry and regularly reporting such developments to the County for possible adoption.

Reference: Franchise Agreement Section I.C.12

MWA demonstrates adherence to this general responsibility. Special training programs include: Ambulance EMT Boot Camp, a staff readiness program that orients EMTs to “life on the ambulance” with focus on skills and equipment, protocols, and key EMS personnel (i.e. EMS Medical Director). Additionally, individual clinical coaching has been demonstrated and documentation of coaching sessions submitted. Other areas of special training relate to clinical updates, roll out of new or revised protocols, training on new equipment, and facilitated discussions on social issues to include social unrest, inequity, and its impact on EMS.

GR Requirement: Assist the County in providing in-service training to fire service personnel as provided for in V.K X

Reference: Franchise Agreement Section I.C.13

WCEMS supports Multi-Agency Training approach in which all fire and EMS agencies in Washington County train together on updated protocols, low frequency/high acuity skills, new equipment or procedures, etc. MWA remains a key figure in the discussion, development, and delivery of this in-service training.

"It is the expectation that Metro West Ambulance will meet or exceed each of the standards set forth in the Eighteen- Month Periodic Assessment on an ongoing basis. It is, however, acknowledged by the County that, on occasion, there may be incidental lapses in compliance of a standard within the eighteen-month period under consideration. A single isolated lapse of a standard does not mandate a failure to meet the standard for that period... Single standard lapses which remain unaddressed or unresolved for greater than 45 days, or any combination of three lapses in a given period are grounds for denying an additional 18 Month Period." Excerpt from Section II.A., Term of Agreement and Renewal Provisions. Meets Standard: Yes Yes

Final 18 Month Assessment X

Assessment Led by: Date

Tim Case, Sr. Program Coordinator, WCEMS

Assessment Approved by: Date Adrienne Donner, Program Supervisor, WCEMS

WORK SESSION Item #9 WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Session Date: January 5, 2021 Length of Time Requested: 30 minutes Title of Topic: CONCILATION & LAW LIBRARY FINANCIAL UPDATE Department: County Administrative Office Presented by: Erin Calvert, Deputy County Administrator, County Administrative Office Name(s) & Title(s)

LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS OR PRESENTATIONS: · PowerPoint presentation · Conciliation Services Historical Summary, written by Cindy Carr, Conciliation Services Supervisor · Law Library History & Budget Summary, written by Lee Van Duzer, Law Librarian

PURPOSE & DESIRED OUTCOME: The purpose is to review with the Board of County Commissioners the history of funding for both the Conciliation and Law Library Programs from the State (Oregon Judicial Department), as well as the funding strategy put in place by the Board in 2012 which allocates 60% of the total to Conciliation Services and 40% to the Law Library.

POLICY QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER: Does the Board of County Commissioners want to continue with the current funding distribution formula which was approved by the Board in 2012 or return to state appropriations respective to Conciliation and the Law Library?

SUMMARY OF TOPIC: Over the last decade, Conciliation Services and Law Library Programs have been funded by legislative appropriations that pass through the Oregon Judicial Department. Prior to 2011, both programs were funded by court filing fees and had much more “local control” in establishing fees that would ensure funding kept pace with inflation costs. Legislative allocations have not increased in twelve years despite the rising costs to operate both programs to provide a consistent service level to a growing community. Each year, the gap between the cost of providing services and the funding provided has widened.

In 2012, the County Administrative Office, the Supervisor of Conciliation Services, the Juvenile Department Director and the Law Librarian asked the Board of County Commissioners to consider a funding formula that would help to preserve the Conciliation Services Program. The Legislature had just passed Senate Bill 1579, which deferred how State funding for Conciliation and the Law Library is allocated to the Board of County Commissioners. This was later codified as ORS 9.829:

· In consult with presiding judge of circuit court, allocation could include up to one-half of moneys distributed by the State for purposes of operating law libraries or providing law library services, for the purpose of providing conciliation and mediation services in circuit courts SUMMARY OF TOPIC: In consultation with the Presiding Judge, the Board was asked to approve the distribution of State funding as 60% of the total allocation going to Conciliation Services and 40% of the total to the Law Library. At the time, this recommendation was made to maintain current service levels and reinstate other services by Conciliation and would also result in a slow draw-down of the Law Library’s fund balance. The plan was to return to the Board of County Commissioners for review at a time when funding for the Law Library became an issue.

In fiscal year 2020-21, with stagnant levels of state appropriations to both programs that have experienced significant increases in the costs of operations and service delivery, it seems timely to update your Board. The 25% reduction in State funds to the Law Library for this current fiscal year had a disproportionate impact to Conciliation Services due to the current funding formula. Not only did Conciliation end up with less funding that the State appropriated, the funding ended up flowing in the opposite direction from Conciliation to the Law Library. While it is important to note the significant reduction of funds to the Law Library, use of the fund balance will allow the Law Library to continue at the current service level. The current funding formula impacts Conciliation Services by reducing the amount of the State allocation despite no intentional Legislative reduction to Conciliation Services. Conciliation Services currently operates with 4.0 FTE which represents a historic low and is equivalent to fiscal year 2014. This has had an impact on service delivery in a time when case complexity has increased. Since 2012 through fiscal year 2019-20, over $400,000 of Law Library funds have helped to cover Conciliation. This represents nearly one year of the Law Library’s operating expenses.

Projections for both programs will be reviewed in work session and will include both funding formulas (current and state appropriations) and the fiscal year when each program’s current service delivery model will not be able to be sustained.

Conciliation Services & Law Library Financial Update

County Administrative Office, January 5, 2021 Conciliation Services & Law Library www.co.washington.or.us Presentation agenda:

Purpose: • To discuss the current funding formula for Conciliation Services & the Law Library Review: • Historical & current funding formula & Board approval in 2012 • Fund projections for Conciliation Services • Fund projections for the Law Library • Next Steps • Questions

www.co.washington.or.us | County Administrative Office 2 How did we get here?

Prior to 2011 and the passing of House Bill 2710

• Both programs funded by court filing fees • Counties could adopt orders to raise fees, ensured funding kept pace with inflation • Conciliation distribution was funded by county add-on fees for domestic relations cases • Thirty-six counties; lack of consistent process; Legislature passed HB 2710 • Each county received portion of the funding allocated by legislature based on percentage of the 2009-2011 filing fee revenue generated. • Funding has held steady despite increased costs to operate both programs

www.co.washington.or.us | County Administrative Office 3 How did we get here?

Senate Bill 1579 passes in early 2012 • Oregon Legislature defers state funding allocations to Conciliation and Law Library Services to the Board; later codified in ORS 9.829: • In consult with presiding judge of circuit court, allocation could include up to one-half of moneys distributed by the State for purposes of operating law libraries or providing law library services, for the purpose of providing conciliation and mediation services in circuit courts • CAO in partnership with Presiding Judge, Conciliation & Law Librarian ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve state funding formula to include 60% total allocation to Conciliation & 40% to Law Library • Passed on consent agenda April 3, 2012 www.co.washington.or.us | County Administrative Office 4 Funding formula:

• Why this formula made sense at the time: • Law Library fund balance in 2012 • Continued state reductions to Conciliation Services; impact in 2012 was a 33% staff reduction & 50% reduction in some contracted services • Current use of formula & impact: FY20-21 with FY19-20 cuts Compare green with green; yellow with yellow. Base County Allocation Appropriation Reduction Reduced Conciliation $490,486 $490,486 $490,486 Law Library $385,933 $385,933 $96,715 $289,218 Combined $876,419.00 $779,704

Conciliation 60% $525,851.40 $467,823 Law Library 40% $350,567.60 $311,882 www.co.washington.or.us | County Administrative Office 5 Funding formula:

• The 2012 consent agenda; promise to return if funding became an issue • The State continues to keep funding amounts steady, despite increases in number of cases filed and cost of operating programs • Changing the funding formula & returning to state appropriations • Doesn’t necessarily “help” either program in sustaining current service levels • Does decrease the impact of state Law Library reductions to Conciliation and preserves Law Library fund balance to cover reductions in state funding • The return to state appropriations is supported by the Presiding Judge

www.co.washington.or.us | County Administrative Office 6 Conciliation: 60/40 Revenue split

www.co.washington.or.us | County Administrative Office 7 Conciliation: State Distribution

www.co.washington.or.us | County Administrative Office 8 Law Library: 60/40 Revenue split

www.co.washington.or.us | County Administrative Office 9 Law Library: State Distribution

www.co.washington.or.us | County Administrative Office 10 Next steps & questions:

Next steps: • Continue providing Legislative updates on state funding relative to Conciliation Services & Law Library • If Board wishes to change funding formula, staff can bring a consent or action item forward • Incorporate a financial & service level impact report for the Board for FY 2021-22 for both Conciliation Services and the Law Library

Questions?

www.co.washington.or.us | County Administrative Office 11

Conciliation Services 222 N. 1st Ave. MS 47 Hillsboro, OR 97124 Phone: 503-846-3428 Fax: 503-846-3753

Conciliation Services Historical Summary Introduction

Conciliation Services seeks to mitigate the negative impact of family transition and parental conflict on children. Washington County began to provide services to assist people considering the dissolution of their marriage in 1975. In 1984 the legislature authorized the Court to provide mediation services to assist couples in reaching agreement about custody and parenting time prior to a court hearing. The goal was to empower parents to make decisions regarding custody and parenting time based on the best interest of the child and to reduce the burden on an overtaxed court system. ORS 36.100 states that whenever two or more people cannot settle a dispute directly between themselves, it is preferable that they be encouraged and assisted to resolve their dispute with a mediator rather than the dispute remaining unresolved or resulting in litigation. In domestic relations, disputes over issues of custody and parenting time directly affect the health and safety of parents and children, and any opportunity for parties to reach a more collaborative, less contentious agreement should be encouraged. ORS 107.755 requires that in every case with custody or parenting time in dispute, the parties shall be referred to mediation orientation, and the orientation session should be designed to inform the parties of what mediation is, the mediation options available to them, and the advantages and disadvantages of each method of dispute resolution. Further, each judicial district shall provide mediation in any case in which custody, parenting time, and visitation are in dispute. In addition to mediation and mediation orientation the law provides that each jurisdiction may decide to provide other related services to assist families according to the needs of their communities. Examples of services provided include parent education, family law basics classes, high conflict curriculum, custody evaluations, and post judgment mediation services. In Washington County decisions regarding services are made in consultation with the Conciliation Services Advisory Board. The Board is composed of the Domestic Relations Bench, several local Family Law attorneys, staff from the Family Law Facilitators office, the Family Law Education provider and Washington County staff. Currently Washington County provides court-connected custody and parenting time mediation, Mediation Orientation, voluntary mediation, court ordered and voluntary counseling and a high conflict class to both court ordered and voluntary participants. Services are provided in languages other than English through our fulltime bilingual staff or an interpreter as needed.

Juvenile Department – Conciliation Services 222 N First Avenue, MS 47 · Hillsboro, OR 97124-3000 phone: (503) 846-3428 · fax: (503) 846-3753 · www.co.washington.or.us

Integrity ∙ Excellence ∙ Teamwork

Conciliation Services staff routinely provide services to volatile and marginalized citizens. Parents may have experienced domestic violence or be struggling with major mental illness, addiction or homelessness. Clients may be involved with adult corrections, child protective services or be medically challenged. These vulnerabilities leave them ill-equipped to deal productively with the strain of Domestic Relations Court and co-parent conflict which may be extreme. The negative impact likely experienced by their children may be exacerbated if they are denied or delayed specialized services from Conciliation. Many jurisdictions and most private mediators find themselves inadequately equipped to provide services in situations such as those listed above. In Washington County mediators have been clinically trained and have years of experience providing mental health and other social services to children, families and couples prior to receiving Family Law mediation and court process training. These experiences inform our approach as we help parents overcome challenges and provide for the safety and wellbeing of their children. This history of quality service to a challenging clientele has earned the respect of the Washington County Domestic Relations Bench. Judges regularly sign orders for services despite Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) orders, Civil and Criminal No Contact orders and other safety concerns. Protocols exist to address each of these situations. Washington County Conciliation Services provides an annual average of over 400 hundred staff hours exceeding 2000 client contact hours of Mediation Orientation, 1200 hours of mediation, 65-80 hours of counseling and 25 hours of high conflict skill building. Court ordered mediations result in agreement at a rate of approximately 55%. This rate increases to 70% or greater for return and voluntary mediations. In addition, staff spend numerous hours each week consulting with clients (and attorneys), brainstorming options, prescreening safety concerns and constructing parenting plans. The positive impact this has had on the lives of children and the court time saved are presumed significant. History of Oregon Conciliation and Mediation Funding

In Oregon there exists a recognition that mediation works. Mediation helps parents focus on the best interest of their children to develop and maintain a parenting plan without court intervention. Resolving most custody disputes through mediation makes it possible for the court to devote increased attention to those cases that need judicial intervention. Mediation provides a lower cost, quicker and less adversarial way to resolve a court case. Continued conflict can be damaging to a child’s development. Court litigation can exacerbate conflict while mediation helps parents learn how to negotiate parenting time arrangements in a way that reduces conflict. Mediation is an alternative that allows parties to share perspectives without a lawyer (or related evidentiary objections) and work together on a resolution in a more productive and healing way. Research also shows that parties are more likely to comply with mediated agreements than court-imposed judgments.

Juvenile Department – Conciliation Services 222 N First Avenue, MS 47 · Hillsboro, OR 97124-3000 phone: (503) 846-3428 · fax: (503) 846-3753 · www.co.washington.or.us

Integrity ∙ Excellence ∙ Teamwork

Since 2007 the complexity of cases and the number of unrepresented litigants coming before the court across the state has increased. With court resources stretched thin, any model that can reduce conflict and reduce court time needs to be supported. However, the allocation of funds for mediation/conciliation services has remained unchanged since 2007 while the costs of these programs have not remained stagnant. Each biennium courts and county mediation programs are forced to try and make up the difference through other funding streams (like law library funds or other county funds), or to reduce the mediation services they provide. In the 2007-2009 biennium the statewide mediation/conciliation funding of $7,380,544 was provided by county add-on fees for domestic relations cases. The following biennium, 2009- 2011, the mediation/conciliation distribution of $7,657,905 was funded by county add-on fees for domestic relations cases and the HB 2287 surcharges. Beginning in the 2011-2013 biennium, mediation/conciliation funds were no longer funded by county add-on fees. Instead the funding was based on each county’s percentage of the 2009-2011 mediation/conciliation revenue generated by the circuit courts. State funding levels since 2007: 2007-2009: $7,380,544 2009-2011: $7,657,905 2011-2013: $7,141,198 2013-2015: $7,104,198 2015-2017: $7,428,755 2017-2019: $7,135,356 For the past twelve years, courts and county mediation programs have attempted to provide the same level of mediation services on funding that has remained stagnant. When county fees were used to pay for mediation/conciliation funds, counties could adopt orders that would raise the fees to ensure that funding kept pace with inflation costs. However, legislative allocations have not been increased to keep pace with inflation. With the rising costs to the courts and programs for providing these services, each year the gap between what court-connected domestic relations services cost and the funding for those costs has widened.

Historical Funding of Washington County Conciliation Services

Information provided by the Juvenile Department accounting office indicate during fiscal years July 2000- June 2004 Conciliation was funded by court fees distributed through the county general fund in the amount of approximately $300,000 per year. Beginning in July 2004 Conciliation continued to be funded by Domestic Relations filing fees. However, monies were no longer funneled through the county general fund. Instead a portion of each Domestic Relations court fee was earmarked for Conciliation, collected and dispersed as a “Special

Juvenile Department – Conciliation Services 222 N First Avenue, MS 47 · Hillsboro, OR 97124-3000 phone: (503) 846-3428 · fax: (503) 846-3753 · www.co.washington.or.us

Integrity ∙ Excellence ∙ Teamwork

Fund.” These fees, termed “add on fees” were set according to funding needs and controlled by the Washington County Board of Commissioners.

Upon the beginning of the Special Funds designation Conciliation received an increase in funds of approximately $100,000 for a total of approximately $400,000. Conciliation funding amounts varied between the years 2004-2011, however generally showed an upward trend to approximately $550,000 per year. This is consistent with gradually increasing numbers of Domestic Relations filings and occasional fee adjustments due to the increase cost of service delivery.

As mentioned in the above section 2009-2011 biennium saw statewide mediation/conciliation funded by county add-on fees for domestic relations cases and the HB 2287 surcharges. Beginning in the 2011-2013 biennium, as a result of HB 2710 mediation/conciliation funds were no longer funded by county add-on fees. Instead each county received a portion of the funding allocated by the legislature based upon the percentage of the 2009-2011 mediation/conciliation revenue each court jurisdiction had generated. Since this change the funding level has held steady. Sadly, this was predicted as HB 2710 was strongly opposed by the Oregon Family Court Services Community who advocated to maintain local control of these funds.

Distributions for Washington County and the state since the change in funding structure:

Washington County:

2007-09 958,651 Oregon: 2009-11 1,005,232 2011-13 937,338 2011-2013: $7,141,198 2013-15 918,901 2013-2015: $7,104,198 2015-17 1,015,458 2015-2017: $7,428,755 2017-19 974,442 2017-2019: $7,135,356 2019-21 980,972

Impacts of Inadequate Funding on Washington County Service Delivery

In Washington County Conciliation stagnant funding levels have resulted in destabilized staffing, decreased service levels and an increase in cost to consumers. Prior to the 2008 funding cuts staffing needs were projected to be 6.0 FTE. At that time staffing was instead reduced to 4.5. Staffing levels remained constant until once again being reduced to 4.0 FTE in 2014 for approximately a twelve-month duration. In 2015 staffing levels were restored to 4.5 through the employment of variable hour employees. In 2017 a staffing level of 4.75 FTE was established due to safety concerns resulting from increasing numbers of Mediation Orientation attendees.

Juvenile Department – Conciliation Services 222 N First Avenue, MS 47 · Hillsboro, OR 97124-3000 phone: (503) 846-3428 · fax: (503) 846-3753 · www.co.washington.or.us

Integrity ∙ Excellence ∙ Teamwork

With the January 2020 departure of an established staff person the staffing level has returned to the current 4.0 FTE representing a historical low (equal to 2014). Budgetary constraints have not allowed hiring for this position.

Service delivery and cost to consumers have also been impacted. In 2010 fees for custody evaluations were increased from $500 to $1000. In future years fees were established for voluntary mediations and co-parent counseling previously provided at no charge. In addition, court connected mediation services were limited to Mediation Orientation and two (two hours each) mediation sessions. Additional mediation sessions incur a fee.

In 2012 it became clear that staffing levels could no longer accommodate the demand for service delivery. Custody and parenting time evaluation proved to be significantly more labor intensive than other services while serving fewer clients. Further internal researched showed most evaluation cases returned to mediation post evaluation due to filing for a modification with the court. Therefore, a search for a more effective and cost-efficient means to service a greater number of Washington County residence began. The result was the adoption of the New Ways for Families high conflict curriculum.

As funding levels have remained stagnant Conciliation has adjusted service and staffing accordingly. Supplements from the Law Library allocation and conservative spending practices have aided in this process. But this is unsustainable. Need projections show a budget deficit beginning July 2020 which could result in permanent loss of staff and decreased access to service delivery.

Juvenile Department – Conciliation Services 222 N First Avenue, MS 47 · Hillsboro, OR 97124-3000 phone: (503) 846-3428 · fax: (503) 846-3753 · www.co.washington.or.us

Integrity ∙ Excellence ∙ Teamwork

October 7, 2020

Re: Law Library History and Budget Summary

To: Tanya Ange; Erin Calvert

From: Lee Van Duzer

The Washington County Law Library strives to enhance equal access to justice by making sure legal information, resources, and tools are available and accessible to everyone. To meet this goal, we provide research training and legal reference assistance, access to a variety of general and specialized legal information resources and tools, and a comfortable, welcoming, and useable space for everyone engaged with the justice system, including litigants and those facing legal issues, attorneys, court staff, the judiciary, and other governmental organizations. Last fiscal year we served around 5,000 people, roughly 30% attorneys and 70% non-attorneys.

The Washington County Law Library was established in 1926 by order of Judge E.J. Ward and Commissioners F.W. Livermore and J.M. Hiatt. In 2016 on our 90th anniversary the Board of Commissioners reaffirmed that “a great and substantial benefit to the courts, lawyers, litigants, taxpayers, and inhabitants of the county of Washington may be derived from… a law library [near] the courthouse.” ORS 9.815 now requires counties to “[o]perate a free law library at a location that is convenient.”

In 1984 the Washington County Law Library moved from the basement of the courthouse to the Linklater Commons. In 1992 the Law Library moved to its current space; the Law Library was instrumental in funding construction of the Juvenile Services Building, using $350,000 from its capital fund for the down payment. Since then it has paid off the remaining debt service on the space it currently occupies (including the new conference room JUV 258). Board Resolution & Order 93-163 recognized the contribution by the legal community and Law Library funds for the new DeMar Batchelor Memorial Law Library, named for the late partner of Brisbee & Stockton – Larry Brisbee has been a longtime stalwart supporter of the Law Library.

County law libraries were originally part of the county courts and funded by civil filing fees. When the state court system was unified in 1981, the law libraries remained with the counties but retained their revenue source. Up until sometime after 2002 the Presiding Judge still appointed the Law Librarian for Washington County.

Law Library 111 NE Lincoln Street, Suite 250-L, MS 45, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: (503) 846-8880 fax: (503) 846-3515 Law [email protected]

As with Conciliation, in 2011 when the filing fee system was consolidated county law library funding was removed from local control and became a legislative appropriation that passes through the Oregon Judicial Department. For whatever reason, both received the same statewide appropriation (one possible connection is both had been filing fees, but county departments, and ended up passing through OJD). At this time the appropriation language allowed the county to allocate the money for both departments as they chose, later changed to allow law library money to be shared with Conciliation in a rather lopsided arrangement and eventually codified in ORS 9.829

Since 2011 the amount of Washington County Law Library funds diverted to Conciliation has ranged from 9% to 16% (not counting the small diversion of 1.5% when first allowed in FY 2011-12). The deficit between Law Library revenue and expenses has increased since 2011, but could be as high as $146,000 this year, $58,000 over last year’s deficit. This has not impacted Law Library service levels because of the Law Library’s fund balance, wisely built by my predecessors for situation such as this year’s unexpected budget cut. However, the Law Library’s fund balance has been drawn down, and increasingly so; at the end of FY 2019-20 over $400,000 of Law Library funds have gone to Conciliation, almost one year’s worth of Law Library operating expenses.

It was clear before the events of this year that it was time to start discussion with Conciliation and the County Administrative Office about restoring the Law Library to receiving its full state appropriation. While this alone will not prevent the elimination of the Law Library’s fund balance, it will help delay it – possibly until FY 2024-25. It’s also necessary to seek an increase in the state appropriation, for both departments – a long overdue increase. While the pandemic and state budget cuts have made this discussion more difficult, if anything the situation makes them more critical.

Respectfully,

Lee Van Duzer, JD, MLS Law Librarian, Washington County

Law Library 111 NE Lincoln Street, Suite 250-L, MS 45, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: (503) 846-8880 fax: (503) 846-3515 Law [email protected] WORK SESSION Item #10 WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Session Date: January 5, 2021 Length of Time Requested: 45 minutes Title of Topic: REPORT: COMMUNITY INVESTMENT CONVERSATIONS Department: County Administrative Office Presented by: Elizabeth Mazzara Myers, Chief of Staff; Marcus Mundy, Coalition of Name(s) & Title(s) Communities of Color

LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS OR PRESENTATIONS:

PURPOSE & DESIRED OUTCOME: This report will provide an overview of the Community Investment Conversations along with a report on outcomes.

POLICY QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER: N/A

SUMMARY OF TOPIC: In 2019 the Board of Commissioners launched a first-ever series of conversations directly with the community regarding the county’s budget process and priorities. The Community Investment Conversations are the second iteration of this program. The primary goals of the program are to (1) provide some education to the public regarding the county’s budgeting process and (2) to provide the Board of Commissioners an opportunity to better understand the needs of the community. Ultimately this is part of a larger effort on the part of the Board of Commissioners to center community voices in advance of beginning the annual budgeting process.