Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
6 <br /> 1 Rod Visser noted that is hard to think in the "here and now" of all the implications of <br /> 2 each of the ideas generated. He asked the Board to consider if it is okay for the <br /> 3 Manager and staff to come back and notify you if they become aware of circumstances <br /> 4 that make a goal Commissioners may identify now either inadvisable or less advisable <br /> 5 or conflicting with the previously established 14 goals. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Commissioner Gordon said she thinks she has answered her own question - they are <br /> 8 identifying emphases for next year. If conflicts with general goals are identified, they will <br /> 9 deal with that during the budget process. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Discussion ensued about how to go about identifying consensus budget goals based on <br /> 12 the list just generated by Commissioners. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 Commissioner Dorosin suggested they prioritize from among the identified goals. <br /> 15 <br /> 16 During a scheduled 15 minute break in the agenda, the Clerk compiled electronically the <br /> 17 ideas generated on the flip charts and provided a printed copy of the list of potential <br /> 18 budget goals to all Board members. <br /> 19 The Board settled on the idea that each Commissioner vote for their 5 top priorities and <br /> 20 leave the other ideas unmarked on their sheet. Not voting for a particular idea does not <br /> 21 mean they disagree with the goal just that it is not among their highest priorities. Staff <br /> 22 will tally up the individual Commissioner votes and report that information back during <br /> 23 the afternoon session. If time can be carved out of the remainder of the agenda, the <br /> 24 Board would like to discuss the priority goals, but Michael Talbert indicated even just <br /> 25 having the rankings of priority goals would be valuable to him and to staff. <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Michael Talbert reiterated that the County has three multi-year strategic plans in place <br /> 28 already approved by the Board — Library, Information Technology, and Emergency <br /> 29 Services. Staff will continue to implement those plans unless the Board tells them to <br /> 30 stop. He suggested the Commissioners consider that in making their rankings. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Commissioner Price wondered if that means that her idea about state of the art IT <br /> 33 needs to be considered. <br /> 34 <br /> 35 Michael Talbert said that as far as the strategic plan, no, but to Commissioner Gordon's <br /> 36 point about simplifying the agenda download process, he suggests that being a work <br /> 37 session topic between now and the budget wrap-up. They are doing the process <br /> 38 differently now than in 2012 and that has implications for people that do it online versus <br /> 39 those that receive paper. There may or may not be budgetary impacts, for example if <br /> 40 specific software would need to be purchased, and there would be timing impacts. <br /> 41 Those are important discussions to have. <br /> 42 <br /> 43 <br /> 44 C. Capital Investment Plan - Fiscal 2014/2015 Changes -Additions <br /> 45 & Deletions 2014/2015 (Paul Laughton & Michael Talbert & Rod <br /> 46 Visser) <br /> 47 <br /> 48 Rod Visser explained that the objective for the next segment of the retreat agenda is <br /> 49 that the Board obtains a full understanding of projects included in the Capital Investment <br /> 50 Plan for Fiscal 2014/2015, the financial impact for Fiscal 2014/2015, and provide <br /> 51 direction on any changes to the Capital Investment Plan for Fiscal 2014/2015. <br /> 52 <br /> 53 Paul Laughton (Finance and Administrative Services) provided a detailed review and <br /> 54 answered Commissioners' questions about the CIP information included at Attachment <br /> 55 1 b, pages 9-12 of the retreat agenda packet. He said the Board only approves the first <br />