BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
February 15, 2005
Commissioners' Conference Room
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
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
3. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
4. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
5. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
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 donít 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 didnít 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 didnít 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 didnít 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 donít 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 donít 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 didnít 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 Sheriffís Department doesnít have an operating levy anymore.† He noted the levy expired and they couldnít 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 didnít 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.
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 Countyí legislative dinner.
7. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
9. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
10. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison adjourned the meeting at 10:15 a.m.