Laserfiche WebLink
Staff indicated that SPOC's confusion may have resulted because of not reading and digesting the <br />material that was given to them. Ken was open to any suggestions to put into this format to show <br />~,r how the county process works and not perpetuate SPOC's issue that we aze not providing information <br />as directed. We need to realize that some committee members are approaching this area from the <br />private sector, and not as we see it in the public sector. We have to show them that a part of the <br />budget process is dealing with reconciliation of revenues to expenditures. This is a normal process <br />for us. It is not e~rtraordinary for county to have a big expense and deal with it during a typical year, <br />looking to the impact of Ballot Measure 50 and Ballot Measure 5 as examples. Ken is hoping for an <br />opportunity to present this to SPOC. If not, it can be used as an education tool for the finance <br />committee, bring new commissioner up to speed on the process, etc. <br />2. Review of the 5130 Rental te <br />Randy Curtis had Bob McCune of Facilities Management review the $1.30 cost sheet prepared by <br />Melvin Mark and present his findings to staf£ There were a few differences in the way Melvin <br />Mark split out the costs and how county would have treated them. The bottom line would have <br />come out to about the same value. Custodial and maintenance fees seemed to be the main areas <br />of concern. County custodial costs are currently higher than what is plugged into the $1.30 rate, but <br />Randy Curtis has already committed to using outside service in this a.rea if county cannot reduce costs <br />to this level. It has been assumed by General Services that maintenance would be handled in-house <br />and have not addressed contracting out maintenance services. A policy decision will have to be made <br />to decide this issue. Further information will be available during a county meeting tomorrow that <br />~ may impact this issue. <br />There was concern that the $1.30 did not include management overhead. Melvin Ma.rk did not <br />include in their calculations a fee for professional property management services like you would find <br />in the private sector. Property management fees (for General Services/ Facilities Management staff j <br />have been blended into the custodial/maintenance fees included in the $1.30 rate and is not <br />understated from county point of view. <br />John Whittington suggested meeting with Randy Compton away from the SPOC public meetings and <br />go through this process with him to provide further explanation for his concerns. It was decided that <br />staff would wait until Justice Petersen has issued his report, then decide what course of action to take. <br />4. Design/Construction Schedule - Statuc <br />Craig Lewis said that they would have an updated design/construction schedule ready for next week's <br />meeting. They were expecting additional information to come from the architect tomorrow. <br />5. Other - Transit - Preliminar..y Operating Proforma <br />A revised preliminary copy of Transit's Operating Proforma was handed out to staf£ This report <br />incorporated changes requested last week in separating costs for Condo office, mall and other <br />expenses categories. This profornla has been adopted by the transit board and is marked preliminary <br />~ until final numbers of the project are agreed upon. <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />