LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING

January 22, 2002

10:00 a.m.

Bob Straub Room

APPROVED 12/4/02

 

Present:  Christine Rogers, Jim Gangle, Anna Morrison, Bobby Green, Sr., Jan Clements, Bill Dwyer, Cindy Weeldreyer, Gary Ingram, David Suchart, Bill Van Vactor, Chuck Forster, Rob Rockstroh, Lisa Smith, Dave Garnick, Mike Gleason, Ollie Snowden, Peter Sorenson, Tanya Heaton, John Sales, Greta Utecht, Rick Schulz, Jeff Towery, Margaret Wilkenfeld, Melinda Kletzok and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer.

 

1.   Call Meeting to Order

 

2.  Approval of Minutes

 

January 8, 2002, Leadership Team, 9:00 a.m.

 

MOTION:  to approve the minutes of January 8, 2002.

 

Weeldreyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

VOTE: Unanimous.

 

3. Confirmation of prior Leadership Team Direction

 

a.  Indirect

 

Garnick stated for depreciation they were recommending using the current indirect charges as they had been given out with minor adjustments, without adding any new buildings for next year.  He said in the interim while the increases were being delayed, they would have an interim study group to refine what should be changed.  He noted that once depreciation is done, a fee could no longer be charged for recovering the costs.  He stated for the new facilities coming up, there would be a 50-year depreciation schedule.  He said they were discussing a building usage fee but if they go that way they could charge the fee indefinitely.  He said the recommendation was for the interim group to perform a study and report back to Finance and Audit.

 

Van Vactor asked what the money would be held for.  He asked if funds are created to replace the building or if it was only to handle routine or regular maintenance. 

 

Green suggested looking at strategies to do routine capital maintenance.  He added there should be a separate fund for new buildings.  He wanted to make sure indications were clear what the money was going for.

 

Morrison suggested the interim group addressing that strategy, with the report going to Finance and Audit for review. 

 

Garnick noted in order to have the money to have maintenance and repair, they needed to know what depreciation would be to cover the cost.

 

Sorenson  thought a 50-year depreciation was a bad idea, as it was beyond the useful life. He thought engineers should determine what the life of the building should be.  He said the maintenance or building fund should be considered within the context of the budget.

 

Dwyer concurred with Sorenson.  He thought if Lane County had a contingency fund for buildings the County would be in better shape.  He suggested going to the taxpayers to replace the buildings.  He thought it would be prudent to have a maintenance fund as well as a building replacement fund.  He didn’t think Lane County would be able to save enough money to replace any buildings.

 

Gleason recommended charging rent for utilities and maintenance.  He said the prices should be different for rent, with a comparison to the private side.

 

Dwyer stated there would be an interim committee that would study, define and make recommendations for maintenance charges.  He noted it would then go to Finance and Audit.

 

Garnick reported that part of what was used to fund the management analyst was the reallocation of some of the current funds.  He said they adjusted that out and it had been taken care of.  He added with the Sheriff Office, some costs had been recalculated and there were no further questions from the departments.  He said they would be submitting the new indirects with budget instructions next week.

 

b.  Information Services

 

Garnick stated they formed an interim group of the larger departments and discussed the process of using the actual cost of last year when Information Services’ budget is increased for next year, and calculating the percentage.  He said it was a more equitable way of allocating the costs.

 

Ingram said the concept was to use the actuals from the prior year to figure out the budget allocation to the departments.  He added they will look at the actuals at the end of this year to see how they compare and use those percentages for allocating the next budget year. 

 

c.  Video Lottery

 

Garnick recalled when he gave an update on the financial forecast, he had included costs to cover some of the programs that would be falling off of the video lottery funding.  He discussed the list of video projects. (Copy in file).

 

Garnick noted they were $30,000 short in the fund and depending upon dues and strategic investments, they may or may not have it covered.  He said the intent was to save the programs that currently receive dollars under the general allocation. He said a process needs to go through so they wouldn’t have to compete with other people to get funding.

 

Van Vactor noted that video lottery dollars were not eligible for education, only economic development.  He added it needs to be expressed with the workforce development.  He said the dues for Metro Partnership are $61,000 and the balance is in the strategic investment.  He said if they are not in balance with all of the video lottery programs, then he suggested asking the departments to zero that out of their budget and put it back as an add package.

 

Weeldreyer stated that the Economic Development Standing Committee met with members of the Metro Partnership and they have developed a bare bones budget.  She added they went back to being a single point of contact working with business to relocate to Lane County and doing interface work with the state economic development department.  She noted they needed $540,000 to run an operation.  She added that was for an intergovernmental agreement between the Cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County, and the private sector.  She added what they are asking Lane County to do (considering Lane County’s annual dues amount of $70,000 to $100,000) is guarantee a three years process to hire a new executive director.  She explained they wanted to make sure they had the money to operate.  She stated what they had proposed was to increase the Metro Partnership annual dues out of the general allocation to $100,000 per year and all of their marketing activity on behalf of the region would be put into a competitive RFP done over three years.  She added if the Metro Partnership did not get their bare bones core mission funded, then they would not exist.

 

Gleason said there is a need for a contact service.  He suggested a possible model  might combine the current county investment with Springfield in economic development and reduce down to servicing the contacts.  He thought CVALCO could do more of the routine work.  He believed without all three partners it would be difficult to bring people to Lane County.  He recommended that the Economic Development Committee examine a redesign of the model.  He stated they were trying to retain an old model that wasn’t working.

 

Weeldreyer noted in discussions with Casey Hogan and John Arnold, that they could be the single point of contact without actively doing recruitment on a nationwide basis to bring companies to Lane County.  She added if they went to $100,000 under the general allocation, it would provide that function of Metro Partnership to continue.  She was concerned about the rural communities that are outside of the metro area that need aggressive marketing. 

 

Morrison commented that the City of Springfield could only give $25,000 for this. She added the City of Eugene had not formally decided that they would do this but David Kelly wanted to promote it, but for a one year time frame.  She said an overall problem with the Metro Partnership is there is little leadership and the dynamic of the economy had not been good.  She  had mixed feelings about going forward.  

 

Clements had concerns because Metro Partnership was defunding certain activities that were critical for public safety.

 

Green recommended that Lane County take control of the Metro Partnership process.  He said they could create a model that suits the needs for Lane County.  He suggested looking at business licenses as a way of bringing in extra revenue for Lane County.

 

Gangle said Lane County wants to promote economic development, but didn’t know the best way to pursue it. 

 

Weeldreyer was not opposed to examining a new model for the Metro Partnership, but she wanted the opportunity for Lane County to take it over. She was concerned about the rural communities involved.  She said industrial and commercial properties should be examined in the rural communities to help them get revitalized.  She suggested that the Economic Development Standing Committee convene one more roundtable group and present a Lane County proposal.

 

Van Vactor stated that video lottery was in a state of development.  He suggested building a base budget as if it was funded for video lottery.  He added they were still going to go through a process for the budget in February and the departments might have to come up with additional reductions.

 

Dwyer was against going forward with the Metro Partnership if there was no multi-year commitment.  He stated the Board would be taking up this matter  at the afternoon Board meeting.

 

Budget Development Parameters

 

Garnick stated Tanya Heaton prepared a matrix with options.  He recommended number 2, limiting growth with the allocation of the actual increases already included in the financial forecast.  He said the initial base would start out at the same dollar amount as the departments currently have, and allow for growth in personnel services for COLAS that were granted and for the merit and health benefit increases.  He stated that anything over and above that would be considered an add package.  He said for material and services, the departments would include their full indirect and IS charges as revised.  He noted the Fin Plan was for 2.4 % inflation.  He said it would allow for 1.8% in all other materials and services categories.  He said the problem they had last year is when expenses went up, some of the other revenues had not kept up.  He said if they don’t want to look at a reduction in the budget then they have to look to other revenues.  He said these were staff recommendations.

 

Green supported the limited growth.

 

MOTION: to move approval of the recommendation for the budget parameters.

 

Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

Clements requested the motion be amended.  He suggested as “opposed to other revenue,” to state:  “Other revenue and/or savings that were unanticipated.”  He said the money could be used for other projects or for consideration of maintenance of status quo services though add packages that they would otherwise be forced to reduce.

 

Green amended his motion to include Clements’ request.  Morrison amended her second.

 

Weeldreyer reiterated they would be adopting a limited growth budget scenario for the financial forecast that allows for other revenues to include departmental savings.

 

Dwyer added it would be for unanticipated county savings.

 

VOTE: Unanimous.

 

Garnick  noted the final budgets from the departments would be due on February 22.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer adjourned the meeting at 11:45 a.m.

 

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary