Agenda - 04-30-2007-e - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr. Whitling asked if BOCC would be bound to the recommendations developed by the work group. Commissioner Gordon said that the Board would consider this group's recommendations seriously, but looked to this group to be advisory. Ms. Hough suggested that the group not review all of the data that had been distributed by County staff in support of the meeting. She suggested that the data be referenced as needed while the group talked. Everyone agreed. Dr. Pedersen asked what the staffs' role would be during the meeting. Mr. Link said that he could share facts anal history. Commissioner Gordon suggested that staffparticipate as resource persons. Through fur(her discussion, the group agreed that staff would provide information to the group, as needed, either in direct response to questions or where ever staff thinks the group would benefit from the input. Staff will not be part of work group decision-making. Mr. Visser clarified that the proposed ground rule stating that "the work group will rely upon data that is readily available..." is needed because County staff is devoting all of its time to development of the County budget, and is therefore without additional time for generating new analysis. In response to the proposed ground rule that work group decisions be made by iman~mous consent, Ms. Bedford suggested that the group communicate ideas to BOGC that had support from almost everyone in the group, and when doing so that the minority opinion be conveyed as well. The group agreed. Mr. Whitling asked how group members could present new information to the group. In response to a question from Michael Kelley, he explained that he has historical data on funding produced by OCS staff that might supplement what County staff has distributed. Commissioner Gordon suggested that group members share any new information at relevant times during the group's discussions. Background Data County staff supplemented the packet of background information with a handout titled, "Impact Fee Legislation and Implementation. " Ms. Bedford called attention to the chart titled, "$1 Per Pupil Equivalent.." She expressed concern that the dollar increments on the chart stop at $2,976, which is not even as high as OCS's requested budget for the coming year. Perhaps the increments should be larger, she suggested, so that there is space to incorporate OCS's requested per pupil amount ($3,542) into the body of the chart. Otherwise, she said, "It puts in the Commissioners' minds not to fund their budget." Second, she said, the chart implies that CHCCS wants all of its per pupil increase to be funded through the chstrict tax, "and that is not what we want represented at all." The 2