Laserfiche WebLink
<br />and worst case scenario. Staff discussed the question of impacts on the county-wide picture. This <br />calculation only addresses impact on general fund, which is about 1/3 of the total county budget. <br />~ Total county budget is comprised of 12-13 other funds with their own sources of income that are <br />ruled and governed differently. Mike Hansen summarized discussions with two answers: one is <br />yes, it will cost more, but depa.rtments can manage it. Second as faz a.s service impacts are <br />concerned on tax dollars paid, the general fund is the one to look at. The hit will come from the <br />property tax fund. <br />This ~ercise serves two purposes: the first to answer SPOC's questions and also to answer intemal <br />departments questions and keep them informed of our process. This is a good example of where <br />the generalization doesn't fit the situation when you work the detail. <br />5. North 5ide of Block RFP Develo ment <br />This is an issue that we need to be working. Melvin Mazk has started this process months ago. <br />They will review their information and bring back a draft to staff in 10 days. At that time, we will <br />look at delegating this task to a smaller group to work the issue. <br />6. Other Work Items <br />One item added to this list is the pazking issue and negotiations with the city of Salem. Billy <br />Wasson and John Whittington will handle this one. Dan Petrusich has a consultant that would be <br />available to provide ~pertise on parking if it was felt a pa.rking study in the Sa1em a.rea would lend <br />~ support to our parking issue or to just provide in-house assistance in this area. <br />Ken Roudybush wanted to clear the air on an item discussed in a previous intemal staff ineeting <br />regarding county not providing a graph with a third line showing a blended rental rate to SPOC on <br />February 24~` . It was both Ken Roudybush and Ra.ndy Franke's opinion that this chart would not <br />to be presented unless a question was asked that would require it. The chart was there and ready to <br />go. R.G. Andersen-Wyckoff said this was not a transit issue, but when the group had decided this <br />would be included and it wasn't, that becazne the point of concern. The line did not cross in year <br />3.5 as anticipated, but crossed at about the 8'~ year. Based on that information the decision was <br />made to not include the document. The judgment made was correct, but there was a <br />communication breakdown and the loop should have been completed by a briefing to the intemal <br />staff. <br />Meeting Adjourned <br />~r~+~' <br />Page 4 of 4 <br />