MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL BUDGET TASK FORCE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING

November 8, 1999

Council Annex

Councilors Present:  David Bragdon, Ed Washington, Rod Park and Susan McLain.

Others Present:    John Houser, Elaine Wilkerson, Terry Peterson and Dan Cooper.

Subcommittee Chair David Bragdon convened the Council Budget Task Force Subcommittee meeting at 1:10 p.m.

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Chair Bragdon began by stating the $60 million revenue generated by the solid waste contract negotiations was good news. The money would be available for use within the region. Public testimony and communications have been categorized and will become part of the record. Written comments were encouraged while public comment will be taken at the full Council hearings.

2.  APPROVAL OF TASK FORCE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE AND SCOPE OF WORK

Chair Bragdon stated the upcoming scheduled subcommittee meetings.

Councilor Washington requested that the 1:00 p.m. meetings be changed to 1:15 p.m.

Chair Bragdon agreed.

Mr. Ray Phelps asked if the future meetings were to be held in the Council Annex.

Chair Bragdon said yes.

Chair Bragdon said that all of the Metro Councilors had been invited to participate. Councilor McLain was on her way and would give her comments, then leave to attend another meeting. He read Councilor Bill Atherton’s statement into the record. It is attached as a permanent part of this record.

Chair Bragdon also said Council Analyst John Houser was developing a summary of Councilor Kvistad’s proposal. He stated that the initial purpose of the committee was to look at the 60% portion of the savings to be allocated outside of solid waste programs, but wanted the two above-mentioned Councilors’ statements to remain as options.

Councilor Park said if a solid waste suggestion was brought in, it could now compete for the remaining savings. All proposals brought to committee would be entered into consideration for the savings money.

Councilor McLain arrived and Chair Bragdon asked for her comments.

Councilor McLain said that she felt the Council was more in agreement than disagreement. She felt the priority issues were stablizing the rate for a three to four year period, keeping recycling as a high priority, keeping the tipping fee at $62.50 while looking at ways to assist recycling efforts. She said that use of the solid waste funds had to further connect resources and issues, like brown fields, recycling and clean water. She referred the subcommittee to her comments at the October 28, 1999 Council meeting.

Councilor Washington stated that Councilor McLain had a concern about maintaining a strong planning program to achieve the goals that had been targeted. He asked Ms. Wilkerson how she had planned to budget for her department if the contract savings had not been negotiated?

Ms. Wilkerson responded that some funds had been set aside from last year’s budget to carryover into this year because of the anticipated zero budget projection. But even with that, the Growth Management Department was facing downsizing three to four staff persons.

Councilor Park said he understood Ms. Wilkerson’s concern, however, felt that was not under the subcommittee’s purview.

Councilor McLain said the focus of this task force was not to address line item issues. That was to be done by the entire Council.

Councilor Washington said he would not approach those issues with this subcommittee.

Chair Bragdon said that the budget will be produced as if these revenues had not occurred. Not one cent of this money was to be put into the budget at this stage.

Councilor McLain expressed the importance of the press understanding the process involved in projecting taxes for budgeting purposes, and how it would be used.

3.  REVIEW OF PREVIOUS PUBLIC COMMENT

Chair Bragdon requested John Houser to explain the compilation of public comments document provided for subcommittee review.

Mr. Houser thanked Pat Mannhalter and Pat Emmerson for pulling the information together from committee and Council records relating to this subject. The document is attached as a permanent part of this record.

Mr. Houser summarized that input had been gathered from 109 individuals and organizations. A copy of Mr. Houser’s summary is attached as a permanent part of this record.

4.  ANNUAL PROJECTIONS OF FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR NON-SOLID WASTE

USES

Chair Bragdon said part of the subcommittee’s job was to bring criteria and screening to these comments. He asked Mr. Houser to quantify the amount in question, using the 60% that the Council passed, as the assumption.

Mr. Houser explained the projected gross contract savings handout which is attached as a permanent part of this record. The REM Department projected these savings. He mentioned several variables that could effect the projected amount of contract savings, those being a change in tonnage, a lawsuit pending relating to flow control authority and fluctuations in recycling markets. He noted that the annual portion of the savings dedicated to non-solid waste purposes could grow by up to $1 million over the next ten years.

Councilor Park asked Mr. Houser what level of recycling was being assumed.

Mr. Terry Peterson answered that if we achieved the 50% recycling projections, the amount of the savings would be lower. The projections assumed that the percentage would remain about the same as it is currently. The tonnage projections are made to set the rates for the following year using a realistic forecast.

Discussion followed on projected tonnage. Councilor Park requested revised numbers assuming that Metro does meet its recycling goals.

Councilor Washington asked Beth Anne Steele how much weight could be given the public comment received to date.

Ms. Steele replied that the comments were not representative of the public as a whole because of the small number involved. She said that a poll would have to be taken to obtain more complete data.

5.  INITIAL DISCUSSION OF CRITERIA, PROCEDURES AND STRUCTURE FOR

THE ALLOCATION OF NON-SOLID WASTE FUNDS

Chair Bragdon asked the other task force members what criteria would be important to them in allocating the savings.

Councilor Park said his criteria were based on one time type funding of projects. We don’t want to build programs based on revenues that may or may not be available. The projections must remain credible. He noted proposals offered by other Councilors and stressed the importance of a credible process that creates the maximum buy-in, can be explained and sustained.

Councilor Washington inquired regarding the possibility of returning the funds to respective cities to refund to the citizens. He called on Dan Cooper, Legal Counsel.

Mr. Cooper responded that legal advice would be provided the Council to minimize the possibility of legal challenges to the final Council decision.

Councilor Washington also noted that he had put forward a proposal to return the savings directly to the public.

Chair Bragdon spoke to the proposals he had made identifying criteria, setting up procedures and creating a structure. Every penny would be tracked. He asked for comments from the other Councilors.

Chair Bragdon explained his latest plan, the Daughter of Dakota, a ten-year plan. Elements of the plan include: 1) quantify the savings each year and have it flow into a distinct fund, not the Metro general fund, and 2) the funds would not be available for anything other than the distinct fund for which they were targeted.

The 60/40 split adopted by the Council was based on information provided by REM that 40% was adequate to fund solid waste and recycling programs. Chair Bragdon noted that decision should be revisited by future Councils to ensure that solid waste needs are met.

The Executive Officer would annually provide Council with a new budget based on no new revenue. The Council would adopt a broad mission for use of these funds, for example, funding activities that enhance, remediate or preserve the region’s environment, including but not limited to parks, planning issues whether they are carried out by Metro or local government, or other eligible organizations. Metro programs would have to compete for these funds. To ensure impartiality, a Board of Trustees would be appointed to utilize criteria adopted by Council. The mechanics of this plan would be for the Council to establish the criteria, convene the Board of Trustees, define the amount of the line item, and publish the request for applications. Qualified applicants would apply, and the Board of Trustees would make recommendations to the Council for a final decision. At the end of each fiscal year, an annual report would be made of the specific fund. In a manner yet to be determined, the annual report would indicate what each person in the region’s contribution had been applied to and offer them return of their money if they were dissatisfied, deducting the return from the fund.

Councilor Washington asked, if approved, it would sunset in about 10 years.

Chair Bragdon said yes.

In closing, both Councilors Washington and Park indicated they would consider Chair Bragdon’s proposal and respond at the next meeting.

Chair Bragdon had requested 10 minutes on MPAC’s agenda next Wednesday to bring them up to date.

Councilor Washington asked if the Chair hoped to conclude this matter in four meetings.

Chair Bragdon said yes.

ADJOURNMENT

The subcommittee meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Patricia Mannhalter

Council Assistant

i:\minutes\1999\budget\110899.btf.doc