BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WORK SESSION
February 15, 2005
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners'
Conference Room
APPROVED 3/9/05
Commissioner Anna Morrison presided with
Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Sr., Peter Sorenson and Faye Stewart
present. County Administrator Bill Van
Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer
were also present.
1.
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
None.
2.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
3.
COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
None.
4.
EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
None.
5.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
a. Announcements
None.
b. ORDER 05-2-15-1/In the Matter of Prioritizing Strategic
Objectives and Identifying High Level Outcomes.
Jennifer Inman, Budget Analyst, explained the Board has to determine
what they need to do next She said
they have recommendations from the department managers and the Management Team
on six strategic objectives for the next one to three years on how to implement
goals from the Strategic Plan and recommendations from the Service Stabilization
Task Force. She said they need to make
priority objective decisions. She
recommended picking one to three priority objectives for the next one to three
years from the recommendations that were made, or a combination, or something
new.
Green asked how this would influence the meeting they are having on
February 25.
Inman explained the recommendations for objectives are how they are to
function well and to get the greatest capacity from their efforts. She said on February 25 they would have a
chance to prioritize all of the services they provided directly. She added most of the objectives and
recommendations from the task force don’t refer to direct service to the
community. She said it is a matter of
blending the best and highest functioning service priorities.
Dwyer chose objective numbers 1, 3 and 5. He said they need to ensure continuity of the high quality of
care. He added that they need a public
health building and the need to measure performance and use the results in
their decision making.
Morrison agreed with objective numbers 1, 3 and 5. She commented that objective number 6 was a
low priority for her. She thought when they would be enhancing revenues and
containing costs, they would be advocating it into the community by whatever
means they could to build trust with citizens.
She thought number 2 would fall into numbers 1 and 5. Her order was 1, 5 and 3. She was concerned about the public health
building being built after the voters voted it down. She was concerned about the perceptions it would cause in moving
forward with the law enforcement issue.
Green liked objective numbers 1, 4 and 5. He agreed about the perception of number 3. He thought the need for the public health
building was critical. He thought they
should move forward with the health building whether it was a strategic
objective or not. He thought number 4
was doable with the timelines.
Morrison commented that some of the timelines were aggressive. She
didn’t think they could do it. She
hoped they could re-work this with some realistic timelines. She asked where the money would come from.
Sorenson noted if the organization wanted a public safety district and
was something where time and money would be spent, then it should be on the
list. He said they needed to be clear
that by adopting these objectives, others would be considered less
important. He thought some of the
objectives were internal to County government and didn’t think that helped the
economy and the people. He commented
that there was nothing on the list that the animal task force wanted to
do. He favored delivery of a public
health service building. He didn’t
favor numbers 1 or 2, as they were vague.
He added that number 6 was also vague.
He supported numbers 3 and 5.
Garnick explained that number 1 stated they are recognizing the County
has a structural deficit and a serious financial problem, but don’t have a plan
yet on how to address issues related to enhancing revenues. He added it was a way of trying to control
costs. He stated they need to develop a
plan for costs. He noted they are
continuing to have problems because costs are growing and they have little
opportunity to make changes unless they look at other options.
Morrison supported the activities but had concerns about the timeline. She commented that one of the largest cost
drivers in the County is employee costs of which the majority is out of public
safety.
Green noted they have a Strategic Plan that is being reviewed. He said they asked citizens to come together
to give recommendations. He said the
Board has no plan, but if they make choices about what they want to do, then
the organization will know what the Board wants them to work on.
Stewart commented that if they choose number 1, they would also be
choosing number 2. He said
constituents don’t really know what is taking place in Lane County. He thought they needed to include number
2. He thought number 5 should also be
included but didn’t know if it was a stand-alone objective. He chose numbers 1, 3 and 6.
Sorenson said he would favor number 1 if they were to make a plan on
how to contain costs and enhance revenue independent of a specific objective.
Stewart thought it was important to prioritize the services because
they have a limited amount of funds.
Van Vactor indicated if the Board wanted to have a public safety
district as an option in November 2006, they have to work on it now, as there
are land use hurdles.
Dwyer commented that the Sheriff’s Department doesn’t have an operating
levy anymore. He noted the levy expired
and they couldn’t reauthorize it. He
said the result of the levy lapsing is law enforcement taking a large part of
general fund dollars. He thought the idea
of a law enforcement district was a good one.
He thought there should be a mechanism to fund the Public Information
Officer with a temporary surcharge on indirect.
Morrison wanted options and comparisons on what the costs would be and
how they would be absorbed.
Green said they need a timeline to deal with the barriers of the public
safety district. He thought this was a
plan with something to start with. He
said the value becomes how much the Board prioritizes it and puts the funding
with it.
Sorenson commented the Board wants to have the public safety district
concept moved forward. He said he
didn’t vote against the public safety district, but he was opposed to amending
the Metro Plan to create a public safety district. He wanted to make a financial plan, work on the public health
building and measure the performance.
He said they had to make sure they are clear with the explanations.
Inman recalled the Board wanted objective numbers 5, 3 and 1.
Green commented that if they went with number 1, the rest would follow.
MOTION: that there is consensus to work with
objective numbers 1, 3 and 5 with number 2 becoming part of what they do.
Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.
Inman indicated the Management Team would revise timelines. She noted that each timeline was developed
as if that were the only activity they would be concentrating on.
Dwyer wanted Management Team to analyze what type of a surcharge on
indirect it would cost for the Public Information Officer.
Sorenson requested they have the board order as presented, with
priorities 1, 3, 5 and 2 so it is clear they are pursuing number 2 as one of
their four priorities.
Dwyer accepted that as an amendment to the motion.
Green SECONDED.
VOTE: 5-0.
Morrison announced the Board would have a goal setting session on
February 23 from 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m.
6.
COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Green reported AOC had a legislative meeting yesterday. He reported that next Tuesday is the Lane
County’ legislative dinner.
7.
CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
None.
9.
COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
None.
10.
EMERGENCY BUSINESS
None.
There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison adjourned the meeting at 10:15 a.m.
Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary