Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Staffing And Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MDD board weighs paying city for staff time and whether to alternate work sessions with monthly meetings
Summary
The board discussed interlocal options for city staff to provide services to the MDD, concerns about possible conflicts when staff serve both bodies, and the pros and cons of monthly meetings versus work sessions; the board authorized staff research on job description and ILA options and delayed action on meeting cadence until a joint workshop.
Board members debated whether the City of Josephine may charge the MDD for city employee services and how an interlocal agreement would spell out cost sharing and time‑card calculations. The proposed services list included retirement, medical and workers' compensation costs; directors repeatedly emphasized the ILA must clearly document how staff time is allocated.
"It has to be clearly time card and it has to be clearly stated as to how those charges are coming through," the chair said when outlining the ILA requirements. Staff (Miguel) said finance would prepare percentages and cost breakdowns for a workshop and that city positions could be posted once the budget is approved in October.
Some board members voiced conflict‑of‑interest concerns about a city employee serving as the MDD's primary contact while also being a city employee. "I just don't see how it's still not... a conflict," one director said, pointing to the earlier advice that the city attorney could not serve both roles. Staff responded that an ILA would define the scope of services and that many municipalities use shared staff under clear agreements.
Separately, the board debated whether to alternate monthly meetings and work sessions or move to quarterly formal meetings. Arguments included Open Meetings Act constraints on informal communication, the need to respond quickly to prospects, and possible differential staff charges for more frequent meetings. The finance director's budget options were cited, showing staff costs in a $64,000–$75,000 annual band and an approximate per‑meeting allocation used for planning.
Pam Sardo moved that staff continue researching staffing options and that the board receive a potential job description for an economic development director as part of a joint workshop; the motion passed. The board agreed to postpone final action on the meeting cadence until the scheduled joint workshop and the Aug. 4 work session.
Next steps: staff will prepare percentage allocations and a draft ILA for the Aug. 4 work session and will compile a proposed job description for the economic development director to be discussed at a joint session with city council.
