BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS’
March 16, 2011
Harris Hall Main Floor
Commissioner Faye Stewart presided with Commissioners Jay Bozievich, Rob Handy, Sid Leiken and Pete Sorenson present. County Administrator Liane Richardson, County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. FINAL PUBLIC HEARING / ORDER 11-3-16-1/In the Matter of Annexing Territory Within the Boundary of the Blue River Water District to the Upper McKenzie Rural Fire Protection District (RFPD) to Allow the RFPD to Provide Fire Protection Service to the Annexation Territory (File No. F UM 2011 – ANX 1, Blue River). (NBA & PM: 2/23/11)
Stewart asked if there were any ex parte contacts.
There were none.
Assistant County Counsel Andy Clark, recalled they had a hearing on this matter on February 23, 2011 where the Board tentatively approved this annexation. He said today’s hearing is also under statute ORS 198.810, that requires a final hearing to determine whether there have been sufficient number of requests for an election and if so, to order an election. He said there have been no requests for an election. He said the board order will finalize the annexation.
Commissioner Stewart opened the Public Hearing.
Harry Bonini, stated he signed up to answer questions. He had nothing to add to the testimony.
There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Stewart closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 11-3-16-1.
Leiken MOVED, Bozievich SECONDED.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Fred Mallory, Eugene, discussed energy conservation.
3. COMMISSIONERS' RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND/OR OTHER ISSUES AND REMONSTRANCE
Sorenson thanked Mallory. He said there are opportunities for improvement in energy
savings and alternative energy production in the Willamette Valley.
4. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
a. ORDER 11-3-16-2/In the Matter of Reconsidering a Protest and Awarding Contracts to Provide Human Services to Low-Income, Disadvantaged, and Disabled Lane County Residents after Remand.
Karen Gaffney, Health and Human Services, said they are here from the results of a request for proposal process. She indicated the appeal from Centro Latino Americano that was heard by the Board on December 15 was specifically in the category of improved access to services. She said the RFP process is a legal process described in Lane Manual and State Contracting Law. She added that it is a competitive process where decisions are made based on written proposals and predetermined scoring criteria. She recalled there were 12 proposals submitted in this category requesting a total of $677,407 and there was only a total $177,727 available for funding. She added that they couldn’t fund all of the responses. She indicated at the December 15 meeting the Board asked the screening committee to re-review the proposals they had scored to determine if they unfairly applied any of the scoring criteria or used different criteria and if there were any issues. She reported that there are two decisions in front of the Board. She noted the first decision is that the Board needs to make a determination on the appeal itself and then determine the disposition of the contract awards. She indicated the agenda cover memo identifies two options: to deny the appeal and award the contracts as recommended to White Bird, Looking Glass and Shelter Care or to uphold the Centro Latino Americano appeal and direct Health and Humans Services to administer a new competitive process to improve access to services funds. She also identified a third option: they could deny the appeal from Centro Latino and choose to not award the contracts in this category, leaving the decision up to the Human Services Commission about whether or not to administer another competitive process or reallocate those funds in some other way.
Gaffney explained the first decision is whether or not the appeal from Centro Latino Americano establishes that the evaluation committee failed to conduct evaluations of proposals in accordance with criteria or processes listed in the RFP.
Debbie Heeszel, Health and Human Services, reported that they reconvened the screening committee and asked them to re-review their proposals. She indicated it took time to get everyone back together. She noted there was a change in ranking. She indicated that Centro Latino Americano’s proposal moved from fifth to fourth. She added that the screening committee still recommends funding the first three proposals at 84 percent. She indicated the original recommendation for funding did not change as part of this process. She said the committee reviewed the proposals independently, they met as a committee and had a two hour discussion regarding the process and the proposals. She reported that everyone was confident with the scores they gave and was comfortable bringing back to the Board the same recommendation to fund Looking Glass, White Bird and Shelter Care.
Assistant County Counsel Trina Laidlaw explained that they are still in a quasi judicial proceeding. She asked the Board to declare any ex parte contacts.
There were none.
Marcella Mendoza, Director, Centro Latino Americano, recalled in December the Board received letters from the Oregon Commission of Spanish Affairs and the Oregon Commission on Black Affairs supporting their appeal process. She added there were numerous letters and e-mails from volunteers and supporters. She said after the second review, the screening committee made the same recommendation for funding,. She noted that Centro’s proposal was next in line. She would have preferred that the Human Services Commission used a different committee to review the proposals with fresh eyes. She said Centro applied to help serve the Spanish speaking population under the increased access to service priority. She said this is the only priority area requesting proposals to do what they already do for the Human Services Network. She noted nothing else mentioned services for a culturally specific population. She said the core of their argument remains that none of the other proposals address the two mandatory outcomes requiring access to the Spanish speaking population. She said the other proposers listed other outcomes. Their proposal includes increased access to mainstream non-wage income and non-cash benefits. She asked who would provide linguistically appropriate and culturally specific service for the Spanish speaking population in the same way and with the same intensity as they do. She noted that according to the 2010 Census, there are over 26,000 Latinos in Lane County. She said in 2010 Centro had over 12,000 contacts with Latino clients from all over the county. She indicated that they opened a satellite office in Springfield. She added they are going to add another satellite office in the city of Creswell. She said this was the value added of contracting with a community based organization that offers wrap around services in a cultural specific and linguistically appropriate manner. She noted one-third of all Latinos are low income, disadvantaged and disabled and that is why the Health and Human Service Department helped the Lane County Latinos in 2010. She commented that if they deny Centro Latino Americano’s appeal and award contracts as indicated in Attachment 1, then starting on July 1, the County’s data base will lose all the clients they serve at Centro because they won’t be contributing due to loss of funding. She asked who would do Centro’s work for the Human Services Commission.
Juan Carlos Valle, Eugene, said he is the Board President of Centro Latino Americano. He said Centro Latino Americano has been around since 1972. He said the agency needs their leadership, investment and continued support. He didn’t know why the HSC staff remanded this decision to the same committee in question.
Susan Ban, Shelter Care, said they request the Board moves forward with the recommendation of the funding for Soar. She said they do the annual one night counting of homeless every year and over 1,000 people viewed themselves as being chronically homeless, meaning they are on the streets for an extended period of time. She said with Soar, they help attach to benefits. She indicated that it is a national evidence based practice because it is effective for moving people out of chronic homelessness into houses. She noted that nationally Soar has a record of getting benefits 71 percent the first time through.
Craig Opperman, Looking Glass, endorsed what had been said. He supports the services Susan Ban described. He commented that there are a lot of needs in the community He thought this was a competitive process set up, fully vetted over and over again by staff and legal counsel. He indicated that everyone followed the rules and made a good proposal. He thought all the proposals had merit, but in this situation, there was an objective independent body judging the needs versus the resources and how to make the difficult decisions. He said the reviewing committee had a hard task and he endorsed what they decided. He thought the committee handled their task very well. He commented that Looking Glass (even with the funds they get) is still facing a minimum of a 30 percent cut in their services. He was concerned about the dire consequences for runaway and homeless youth.
Stewart asked if they went for Option 3, if the funds would go back to the Human Services Commission or would they put together another RFP.
Steve Manela, Human Services Commission, said currently with what has been allocated through the RFP process, they are $202,000 over obligated already based upon their base budget projections. He added that they are also looking at the potential that they could lose additional federal funding from some of their block grant sources. He said what will happen after they finish out the procurement process is they will go back and look at how they are going to make decisions about how they reduce what they have already approved. He said all of the services they fund are being reduced and many programs were not funded.
Laidlaw said they have to come up for written reasons for the Board’s decision.
Handy noted there are three criteria discussed in the memo that reflects on the scoring.
Laidlaw explained there are three grounds for the protest that were listed in Centro’s protest. She noted one was different criteria was used to evaluate different proposals. She indicated the second was the evaluation committee unfairly applied the evaluation criteria to a proposal. She said the third is that all higher ranked proposals are non responsive. She added within those grounds, Centro Latino Americano then specifically identified specific criteria in the RFP to fit within each of those grounds. She noted with the first category, Centro Latino Americano stated the evaluation committee unfairly applied the evaluation criteria to a proposal. She said there are five criteria listed and what the department has done in responding is that because they didn’t get a score of 100 percent on various criteria, that the criteria may have been unfairly applied. She said the types of analysis made were to look at the particular reviewer who was being complained about and did that reviewer give a typically low score across the board to other proposals so their score for the Centro Latino proposal was not out of the ordinary. She said the points were so close and Centro Latino said deducting points from them was a stretch. She said they laid out how the scores fit with the rest of the proposals that were being scored. She asked if the scores were in a reasonable range that an evaluator could give. She stated it is not the Board’s job to pick a different score, but to look if it was within a reasonable range. She stated that was how the first category went.
Laidlaw explained that the second category is that different criteria were used to evaluate different proposals. She said what the analysis shows is siting to the scores that were criticized by Centro Latino Americano. She stated the scorers applied the same criteria to that proposal as they were to the other proposals. She stated they got a lower score because of the substance of the response that was given. She raised the risk in rating the criteria on the access to service, as it was more limited.
Leiken asked who determines the process itself.
Laidlaw responded that local rules are adopted as a result of state law and they have rules on gathering an evaluation committee together. She stated the department handles the process in designing the RFP and what criteria go into it and instructing the evaluation committee and running their process.
Leiken commented that the Latino population has increased in Springfield. He asked if in the future things could be adjusted. He thought the Latino population will continue to grow at a higher rate. He understands that this had to do with the criteria that was presented and rescoring it.
Gaffney said that topic is being discussed in the Human Services Commission and looking at gaps. She said they first have to settle this legal process and then they can take the next steps when this is finished.
Handy had concerns with the F1 element of access. He said the scoring criteria attempted to address cultural lingual access and delivery of services. He said they must do more to address outcome disparities. He said services need to be distributed equally to all populations.
MOTION: to uphold Centro Latino Americano’s appeal and direct Health and Human Services staff to administer a new competitive process for these funds.
Handy MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
Handy wanted to start over with criteria he wanted them to look at with a new process. He wanted to ask the agencies to give them proposals for lower amounts that could be funded and they put a cap on how much it can be applied for. He said currently the awards can be 84 percent of a proposed request and he would like to see it a variable percentage so they can work with the providers and negotiate a scope of work. He said the goal is to increase the number of providers who can be eligible for partial funding in the area of improved access to services. He wanted to be innovative with how they distribute the resources. He thought deducting points for targeted programs is something they should revisit in the criteria. He thought it was impacting a lot of programs.
With regard to Handy’s question about non-responsiveness, Laidlaw said there is an answer about the criteria in the department’s packet. She said that Centro Latino argues that the other proposers did not pick the two mandatory measures related to Spanish speaking people. She noted what the RFP included was a series of mandatory measures. She added two measures were needed to be chosen. She said Centro picked those two and the other proposers chose two other mandatory measures. She indicated the argument about the other proposer being non-responsive is not a good one.
Manela said the criteria for review in the RFP and the policies on the minimum and maximum amounts that proposers could make were universal throughout the RFP. He added the five other selection committees where decisions were made in the affirmative used the same criteria for selection of those other proposals. He said there was a cap of requesting no more than $175,000 and they couldn’t go below $25,000 for a proposal. He commented that the fair way to do this is to treat everyone the same within the process.
Bozievich didn’t agree with the motion. He said original the Human Services Commission who initiated this process came up with a process to distribute funds on an outcome scoring method. He said a lot of work came up with the scoring and RFP criteria. He said they are being asked to rule on an appeal of that process. He said the motion says they need to go back to tell the Human Services Commission that they had a flawed set of policies they drafted from. He said they are there to determine if the process that was utilized was fair and if it was done in accordance with the process. He said it was remanded back and the committee looked at specific criteria items. He believed that staff has demonstrated that their appeal doesn’t merit overturning the award. He will be a no on the motion.
Handy asked if they needed more information in the area of F1.
Laidlaw said the criteria says: “Describe efforts and methods that will be used to ensure that your program is accessible and identify the gaps and what kinds of improvements can you make to fill those gaps and are there barriers to language and cultural barriers and how are you going to meet those.” She said the premise of the question is that the proposer will be able to take steps and take actions to mitigate those and make improvements. She noted when a reviewer says they want to deduct points because the agency only serves a limited target group and that is the basis for not being accessible under this, then they are left to ask the question what is the agency supposed to do as far as efforts, methods and improvements other than to change their program. She added this question suggests that what the committee is really looking for is broad based services that are accessible to a broad population base. She said if that is not occurring and there is a proposer that has a smaller target group, then that is a reason to deduct points. She said in their logic model they included both the Spanish speaking measurements for their services and another set of measurements that were broader than that.
Stewart believed that as he read the material, each of the people who participated in the scoring, did a good job. He couldn’t find anything wrong or misinterpreted. He didn’t find a fault the first time, but the majority of the Board remanded it back. He stated that he couldn’t find fault this time either. He believed the criteria that had been met were applied equally and he believed the outcomes are the correct recommendations. He won’t support the motion. He believes this is a motion that would be changing the criteria in midstream. He said they should stand behind the process that took place, recognize where they have faults and in the future try to make some differences. He commented that these are difficult times and this is just the tip of what they are going to be facing in the next two years when Lane County has to cut the budget. He said they all need to work together to find ways to get through this. He supported the recommendation presented by staff.
Leiken commented that changing the criteria in midstream is a mistake. He added that they have people scoring this based on the criteria presented. He said in the future they need to look at what the criteria entails. He noted there were other non-profits who had met the criteria that had been established. He did not support the motion.
VOTE: 2-3 (Bozievich, Leiken, Stewart dissenting). MOTION FAILED.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 11-3-16-2, denying the appeal of Centro Latino Americano and awarding the contracts as indicated in Attachment 1.
Bozievich MOVED, Leiken SECONDED.
Handy said they have outstanding providers that will be getting limited funding. He said they are doing the wrong thing by not upholding the Centro Latino Americano appeal today. He said the motion was to have a new competitive process they could get to.
Sorenson thought providing services in the community is important and having a portion of these funds to go to Centro Latino was not unreasonable given the population they serve. He will be voting no on the motion.
Bozievich stated they are being asked to rule on an appeal of the process. He said it is a technical decision they are making of a contracting process. He stated that this in no way means that he doesn’t appreciate the work Centro Latino Americano does. He said they are a great agency. He said after this award they can start to move on to find the gaps and to fill them, but without making a decision today, that conversation can’t move forward. He stated they have gone through a contracting process and there has been an appeal of the award. They have reviewed the reasons for the appeal and he didn’t believe they technically can stand. He said it does not reflect on Centro Latino Americano.
Stewart believed they focused on the criteria and the criteria have been met. He didn’t believe there was anything for him to uphold the appeal and to make a change.
VOTE: 3-2 (Handy, Sorenson dissenting).
5. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
6. COUNTY COUNSEL
b. FIRST READING / SETTING THE SECOND READING / JOINT PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1274/In the Matter of Co-adopting the Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis and a Diagram Amendment Establishing a Separate Tax-Lot Specific Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) East of I-5, to Implement HB 2007 or Laws Chapter 650 (HB 3337) and ORS 197.295 to 197.314, and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. (Applicant: City of Springfield; File No. PA 09-6018) (PM 2/7/11, 2/22/11) (Joint Public Hearing with Springfield City Council: April 4, 2011, 7:00 p.m., in Springfield)
MOTION: to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Joint Hearing for Ordinance No. PA 1274 for April 4, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.
Leiken MOVED, Bozievich SECONDED.
7. COMMISSIONERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS
Bozievich reported that he made it up to Salem and testified at the joint Ways and Means Committee in favor of continuing the Junction City Mental Hospital project.
Stewart reported that he traveled to Washington D.C. for the United Front effort the first week in March. He thought it was a successful trip even though he was concerned about the atmosphere of the changing of the House leadership and the general climate of concerns of the economy and the money that is available. With regard to Secure Rural Schools, there is an effort to send a letter to the leadership in the House and Senate with as many co-sponsors as possible to show support for Secure Rural Schools and funding it in the budget process. He said they are aiming toward a few hundred signatures on the House side and 30 on the Senate side. He noted the difficulty they are having predicting any reasonable success with the effort is that the rules have been placed on the House on how to pay for items like this, adding this as an appropriation or finding the offset to fund it. He noted Senator Wyden hopes he can have a stand alone bill to attach to a moving bill through the process. He hoped it will stay in and get funded.
8. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
(Commissioners’ Conference Room)
Per ORS 192.660 (2)(h) for the purpose of discussing litigation.
10. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 3:15 p.m.