BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
LEADERSHP TEAM MEETING
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Goodson Training Room
Public Works, Delta
Present:† Warren Wong, Lisa Smith, Jim Gangle, Bill Van Vactor, Chuck Forster, Anna Morrison, David Crowell, Alicia Hays, Faye Stewart, Peter Sorenson, Terry Wilson, Chris Todis, David Suchart, Rob Rockstroh, Doug Harcleroad, Tony Black, Russ Berger, Tanya Heaton, Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Sr., Dennis Hijmans, Scott Bartlett and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer.
1. Call Meeting to Order Ė Anna Morrison, Chair.
2. Approval of Minutes: November 9, 2004, Leadership Team Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
Sorenson thought they shouldnít have a motion or a second for the minutes.† He thought they should just say the minutes are approved.† He recalled Gangle specifically stating they wouldnít be voting.† He thought the minutes were fine.
The minutes were approved.
3. Financial Forecast/Mid-Year Correction.
Morrison noted that Dave Garnick was ill.†
Van Vactor reported with the FY 06 estimate, many rates that are statutory are going up. He indicated that everyone anticipated a significant increase in the PERS rates because they have to report the losses from 2001-2002.† He said what added an additional significant increase of a 2.4% rate against payroll was how the markets had done in 2003 and 2004.† He said that means the actuaries think that PERS would start paying interest again on member account balances.† He added they had forecasted they wouldnít do that for three to five years and now they might be doing it after one year.†
With regard to retiree medical, Van Vactor said their original plan with the actuary was if they applied five percent against payroll for about 20 years that would be enough to handle the financial obligations of retiree medical.† He noted they did not anticipate the rise in cost of health care in 06-07, so in 06/07 they are estimating they would have to use six percent of payroll instead five percent.† He noted the rates for health, dental and vision is a 17.5% increase.
Sorenson asked if there was anything they could do with the health and dental costs.
Van Vactor noted other local governments are experimenting with other programs and he will get information on that.
Morrison indicated in the agenda team they had discussed a special session for the Board for education around things that could be reviewed.
With regard to the Fin Plan, Van Vactor said the numbers remain the same as they are waiting for the Supreme Court decision regarding PERS.† He said if they stay the course with the current expenditures and keep the same level of discretionary general fund expenditures (except for modest adjustments), then the general fund is basically balanced for this year.† He added there would be a deficit of $500,000 in 06/07.
Van Vactor recalled when they finished the budget last June, part of the motion was to discuss a mid-year correction in case the financial condition eroded.† He said since the discretionary general fund is relatively balanced for 05/06, he and Garnick didnít recommend any mid-year corrections.† He recommended proceeding with the 04/05 budget as it was implemented.
With regard to revenue reallocation, Morrison asked what the conversation was around the governorís budget proposal and what would happen with 2.5% of net revenue.
Tony Bieda, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, said they anticipated some additional revenue with video lottery to fund state patrol.† He said there was no increase in patrol officers or an increase in funding for state forensics.† He said that buys the legislature additional general fund which they could re-direct other places.
With regard to reallocation, Van Vactor noted in the past they had discussions about reconsidering the transient room tax allocations but in the 2003 legislature they pre-empted that and left windows open for tourism opportunities.† He said there was a way to reduce the allocation to CVALCO and Parks and have 100% discretion of car rental taxes.† He said the allocation could be changed but because of the Parks budget with the likely closure of Fern Ridge Reservoir and the problems they will have, no one wanted the Board to go through that exercise.† He said they do not have any recommendation for car rental or transient room tax other than status quo with current allocations.
With regard to Video Lottery, Van Vactor explained there are some departments that would be taking significant reductions in funding from state, federal or grant sources.† He said the Board had been committed to split the money 50% for county programs and 50% for economic development in the community.† He wanted to know if the Board was committed to that policy.
Smith recommended consideration of a 60/40 split.† She said they receive video lottery money for the Martin Luther King Education Center and there had been no increase for the funding amount.†† She said unless they get an increase, they would have to reduce their program.
Morrison said even if they were to do the split, they would be dealing with the issue of personnel costs.† She suggested bringing personnel costs back in line.
Smith commented they have to bring costs in line now because the problem with costs goes beyond what the allotment is.† She indicated all state funds had been cut and ongoing programs will have to take a reduction.
Dwyer thought they should keep things the way they are with this pot of money.
Smith indicated they now serve three times as many kids as they did when they originally started.† She said it was an issue for them.
Gangle wanted to see the group examine the 50/50 split.† He believed if there could be a way to fund it and make it fit under Lane County Economic Development, they should try to do it.
With regard to Title 3 Funds, Van Vactor didnít recommend any changes.
Rockstroh noted the Supervisory Authority Team meets next week.† He indicated the only agreement they have so far is that the rollover will be put into next yearís budget.† He explained there was going to be an approximate 5% cutback in the Department of Corrections.† He said they want to review the formula.† He didnít know if it would be to Lane Countyís advantage or disadvantage.
Morrison asked what the discussion was going to be in Salem about the split change.
Bieda indicated on a statewide basis, if the governorís budget is the one the legislature adopts, Community Corrections would be defunded by at least $9 million and as much as $18 million, depending on the formula.† He noted that would be $2 million less for Lane County in the next biennium.†† He added that would trigger the opt-out clause.† He noted they had faced the opt-out in the last two years of the special session and in every case either the Emergency Board or the legislature restored funding back to the baseline.† He thought the worst-case scenario would be $2 million down or the best scenario would be the current funding for the biennium.
Burger explained the governorís proposed budget on Community Corrections states it adopts AOC, OSSA and OACCDís recommendation for new formula capitated rate.† He noted under the old formula, full funding is assumed to be $183 million and under the new formula it would be about $9 million more.† He said the governorís budget proposes funding at $174.1 million.† He said it would be a reduction from the current operating level of 5% and $18 million below what would be full funding under the new formula of $192.6 million.
4. FY† 05-06 Budget Direction.
Van Vactor recommended budget direction number one, the status quo budget for the general fund.† He said they are also recommending another full-day Leadership Team meeting on February 25 after they have the information sheets and detailed information set out so they could have a joint prioritization process.† He said within the resources they have, they could change the priorities.† He commented they are not automatically stating at this point in time that it would be the same services as last year.† He said it is a base to begin the discussion and to set the priorities on February 25.
For direction number two, Van Vactor said that each department will be given a proportional share of the revenue increase in the Fin Plan as well as any other revenue that might be redirected for general fund purposes.† He added that any cost increases or revenue losses as a result of increased net general fund use in excess of the target allocation needs to be budgeted as a reduction package.
Morrison wanted a list of grants that they are in the process of applying for.† She wanted to know about grant losses and potential grants to be received.
Dwyer also wanted to know when they expect the grants to be awarded.
Van Vactor noted departments in divisions that are entirely self-funding (Children and Families, Land Management, Justice Courts) must live within their existing revenues.† He added that budgets could be adjusted for known or anticipated inflationary and merit pay increases.
He said that no COLA would be budgeted within the department budgets except for 626 and Admin Pro because they have executed collective bargaining agreements.† He added that any other increases granted would need to come out of reserves.
Van Vactor explained that no general fund add packages will be entertained that add services or increased service levels unless totally self funded.† He said when they go to the service information sheets, they might have to move things around, but overall it is a status quo budget and they will not be taking add packages.
Sorenson suggested they should let people submit add packages even if the situation looks grim at the Budget Committee level.† He said at the community and department level, people could come up with creative ideas that could be submitted. He wanted to let people submit add packages from the community and the department, with the clear message that they probably wouldnít approve many add packages.
Rockstroh didnít want to invite people in.† He suggested that there be clear and defined criteria.† He said they have to be precise and use that standard for in-house and external add packages.
Smith commented whatever they decide to do with the add packages, she said when there are add packages from the community that they have clear criteria and applicability to the Lane County Strategic Plan.
Van Vactor explained that all direct general fund services will be prioritized by service categories, public safety, general services and support services.† He said using the priority listing would be the basis for the proposed budget.
Gangle said they were going to focus on general fund areas where decisions could be made and the Board and Budget Committee should have a vehicle to do that review.† He noted they were putting the service sheets out to strike a balance with work for departments and to get a summary level of information so the budget committee could have the understanding of the program.
5. Review of Budget Calendar.
Morrison noted they are in the packet.† (Copy in file.)† She said there would be less actual budget meetings, as a lot of the work will be pre-budget dialogue.
Van Vactor indicated in the feedback that Garnick received, there was concern about additional time for deliberation.† He noted there were two full nights set aside for deliberations if the Budget Committee wanted to take that time.
6. Proposed† High Level Outcomes.
Gangle asked what has Lane County accomplished.† He said as part of the Strategic Plan they adopted in March 2001, the departments began creating and developing performance measurers.† He added that County departments have been developing performance measures at the program level.† He indicated that each performance measure has a specific purpose, an output, measures efficiency, service quality, and indicates an outcome.† He noted that those developed so far were at the bottom level.† He said they want to get to the question about what Lane County has accomplished.† He said their subcommittee put together a proposal around the current Strategic Plan and they focused on the mission and goals they had identified.
Smith described her departmentís outcomes.† (Copy in file.)
Gangle asked what high level strategic objectives the Leadership Team wants.† He explained that longer-term outcomes are the ultimate program desires to achieve for its participants.† He said it represents meaningful changes.† He said on page 4, the small group of the Leadership Team made a proposal to the department directors.† He said their focus was on the mission and Lane County goals.† He said they proposed using a survey to ask citizens if we are meeting our mission.† He noted that each of the Lane County goals have been identified and they drafted some high level outcomes.† He said they wanted to focus on how the Board or public sees Lane County.
With regard to page 6, Gangle noted it is a copy of the task force recommendation.† He said they focused on the Service Stabilization Task Force Report and seven of the goals.†† He said they could gather information from the public and they could look at the existing committee structure.† He said another thing to review would be the Oregon benchmarks and what is identified with them.† He said the recommendation from the department directors was to focus on the Strategic Plan, looking at their goals and missions and making a proposal of focused, limited, high-level outcomes.
Green supported the recommendation.† He liked the idea of seeing if they are doing the right thing based on best management practices in the social service arena.†† He wanted to see what the impact really was.† He noted that AOC was trying to get to budgeting for outcomes.† He said it allows them to be more accountable and to live within their means for allocating funding.† He asked if they should engage the citizens first about what it is they are doing.
Gangle said they proposed looking at a broader survey for the citizens.
Morrison commented there had been a lot of public outreach in the past two to three years, but people arenít aware of the message Lane County is trying to convey.† She had concerns regarding outreach.
Green thought the outreach should start internally.† He thought this was a way of the Board giving direction.† He added if they canít convince the employees in the organization that this is how they should go, he didnít know how they would be able to convince the general public.
Dwyer thought they should survey people who are reserving services at the department level.
Morrison stated that Land Management has a questionnaire, but noted the percentage of people filling out the form is low.† She said they get an overall review of them on a regular basis. She thought for the February 25 meeting that they should have all departments give them a summary on the type of outreach they have with customers regarding satisfaction.
With regard to insuring basic social support, Sorenson asked if food or hunger were inadvertently left out with their involvement in the WIC program.
Smith responded health care measures are something they would be developing that would include a number of those factors.†
Sorenson asked how difficult it would be to include contribution -- to the county level --data of the Oregon Benchmarks.
Van Vactor recalled two Management Teams ago Serafina Clarke, Children and Families, gave a crossover analysis of the Oregon Benchmarks and County Benchmarks and prepared a chart.
Sorenson recalled he had held a meeting with the Oregon Progress Board to ask for county level data for Lane County.† He thought it was a way to bring Lane County government into a problem solving relationship.
Van Vactor explained they were trying to match out of the strategic objectives and outcomes with the goals they have in the plan.† He added they didnít necessarily match one-for-one with state benchmarks.
Morrison requested getting a copy of the information that Clarke provided for the February 25 meeting.† She noted there was information from AOC that was presented by the Oregon Progress Board regarding benchmarks because there were specific awards that were given out for those counties who had achieved.† She recalled Lane County was in the middle.
Jennifer Inman, Budget Analyst, thought they could compare where they think Lane County is with meeting performance measures with the Oregon Benchmarks because of the similarities and differences instead of weaving them together.† She said in that case the state would be setting the countyís direction.† She suggested using it as a comparison.
Green asked if this list could be expanded.
Gangle explained the list is a draft and they will put together a proposed list of outcomes.
Green said since they agreed to a general purpose government, he hoped they would look at the model and system of general purpose government and what it takes for funding.† He commented they could only do what they can with the money they have received.† He hoped they could discuss a process and outreach, describing what they do in a system format.
Stewart thought everyone was working hard to provide service on a limited budget.† His biggest concern was connecting with the public.† He said they need to promote the County and sell it to the public.
Dwyer commented that marketing is part of the cost of doing business.† He thought it had value.† He said that public information had not been a priority in the past.
Smith suggested having a common message for the public.† She said the public is interested in family wage jobs and public education.† She said they could put someone at a mall with a laptop and people would respond.† She thought these were some of the things that citizens care about.† She said they have to get the message out about what everyone is doing.† She stated it makes a stronger Lane County government.
Sorenson thought hunger should be a goal.† He didnít want the state benchmarks to drive what Lane County does but he wanted to know how Lane County was doing in comparison to a particular benchmark.
Morrison asked if all of the department heads were in agreement with what was in front of them.
Green supported the direction they were going.†† He thought they should approach the process like there was no additional funding from the state or federal government.† He added then whatever comes after they propose that type of budget they could do within the scope of the mission as a general-purpose government.† He thought if they needed to go to the public for support or revenue, they have a documented effort to show how they tried to live within their means.†† He commented the rural area support for Lane County is thin.† He said they are not connected with rural Lane County.† He said people who live in rural areas donít want to pay taxes but they want the services.†† He asked what they could do about that.
Melinda Kletzok, Public Information Service, said they should look at the community needs and wants and what they need five years from now.† She said they also need to know how they are meeting the need on the departmental level. †She said they need to know what the public and employees think of Lane County.† She said they should communicate that information as well as having a response and what they are doing differently as they move forward.† She said everyone needed to work together, not just a department.† She commented the problem with Lane County is they have a geographical name, and people donít care about the difference between the county and city. She said they have to package something that looks different.†† She stated it couldnít be done with news releases.
Gangle noted there was a reference to Gasby 34 that shouldnít be in the report.
Morrison commented that in the time she had been on the Board, the additional capacity they have added about evaluating their financial situation had improved.† She didnít think the public understood or really cared about that.† She said it is important so they know where they can go and what they can do.
Burger thought they should set up a marketing strategy and have monthly meetings with strategies for marketing Lane County.† He thought they needed to get away from terminology and things the public doesnít understand.
Green supported what Kletzok said about packaging.† He said they should talk about seizing the day.† He commented Lane County is in prime position to be the top government.† He agreed with how Springfield approaches its government.† He said they make priorities, set the tone and go forward.† He said people only think about Lane County when it comes to taxes and services.† He said they need to be the leader in the area as they are the closest government to the people.
Alex Gardner, Assistant District Attorney, thought marketing was a good thing, but that polling could go against them. He said the community has a good memory that when they are asked for input, the County does the opposite.† He thought it would be best not to poll the public.
Cheryl Dyer, AFSCME, commented that marketing to the rural community is hard and they need to get to the rural areas with any information they want to relay.
Green advocated for the system approach so people donít get into the system in the first place.† He said by looking at the system, they could look to see where they could make the difference.
Dwyer didnít want to use the word "recidivism" but rather "repeat offender."
Van Vactor said the Management Team needed to know the goals and outcomes are matched with what the Board wants and what the Stabilization Task Force recommended.† He thought they should have a work session.
Morrison stated she would take that to agenda setting.
7. Proposed Short-Term Strategic Objectives (1-3 years).
Van Vactor indicated the Management Team met to discuss strategic objectives that were designed to be specific work tasks they would work on organizationally over the next one to three years.† He asked the Board if the activities they have listed match what they think the Management Team should be working on.†† He noted they were draft because the Management Team hadnít had time to take the activities and match them to the strategic objectives.† He asked if the six strategic objectives are what the Board agreed with.† He asked for another month to further define them.
Gangle recalled they had a performance counts meeting and 200 people from the County participated.† He said this represented a broad spectrum of ideas that they were able to gather.† He said the department directors met with information from the Strategic Task Force and performance counts and did their own brainstorming and came up with eight strategic objectives, but narrowed down to six.†† He added six were a lot because they are talking about things that could be done by the County from one to three years.† He commented there were too many activities and he suggested focusing on what they want to do.
Morrison said they could add this to the comparison between the Stabilization Task Force and they could add strategic objectives and have a discussion about specific activities.† She agreed it was a lot of work to do within three years.† She added if they have this in a work session, it eliminates the doubt as to whether the Board had taken specific action and come to a decision and give direction.
With regard to number seven of the Fin Plan, Morrison asked if they should address the budget shortfall now.† She asked if it was better to do a gradual reduction or to do it all at one time.
Rockstroh noted they discussed having a rainy day account of ten percent.† He commented that half of the work they do wonít be on the sheets because it is ongoing.† He noted that methamphetamine wouldnít be listed.†
Dwyer stated they need to think about taking control of health care costs.† He said they have a FQHC they could utilize if they could get some of the bargaining units to do a pilot program, that when they pay their insured through Pacific Source, not only do they support the clinic, they reduce the premiums because they could self-insure and they could provide more for the uninsured.† He said they have to see what they could do different in the future.† He thought they should have a brainstorming on how it is they could start to reduce the level of expense and provide employees and citizens with an acceptable level of health care.
8. Next Leadership Team Meeting:† Friday, February 25, 2005, 8:30 Ė 4:30 Goodson Training Room.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 a.m.