MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

Thursday, February 19, 1998

Metro Council Chamber

Chair McCaig called the meeting to order at 3:15 PM.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 21 AND FEBRUARY 5, 1998

2.  DISCUSSION OF BUDGET COMMITTEE PROCESS AND SCHEDULE FOR DELIBERATIONS ON THE FY 1998-99 PROPOSED BUDGET

Chair McCaig briefly described the process for Budget Committee deliberations on the FY 1998-99 Proposed Budget. She distributed copies of the FY 1998-99 Budget Hearings Finance Committee and Council Schedule to councilors. A copy of this schedule is included as part of the meeting record. Chair McCaig reminded the committee that last year, due to unanticipated critical issues arising in different funds, it was not always possible to adhere strictly to the schedule; and the same could be true this year. Therefore, some modifications to the schedule may occur.

Chair McCaig said at next week’s meeting, the committee will open with a public hearing. The budget will have been available for public review for one week, and anyone wishing to make comments may do so at that time. She said long range funding would be discussed briefly. Following this discussion, deliberations on the budgets for the Office of the Auditor and the Office of General Counsel will take place.

Chair McCaig distributed copies of budget overviews for the Office of the Auditor and the Office of General Counsel. A copy of these overviews are included as part of the meeting record. The overviews describe the department purpose, major objectives, performance measurements, and any major changes in the budget. The overview for each department budget will be distributed at the committee meeting one week prior to consideration of that department’s budget. An additional copy of each overview will be distributed at the meeting during which the department budget is discussed.

Chair McCaig reviewed the dates on the schedule. Review of individual department budgets and funds will conclude Wednesday, April 15, at which time a public hearing will be held to offer an opportunity for the public to comment on the decisions of the committee. A public hearing will be held at the full Council meeting on April 23, at which time the Council will approve transmitting the budget to the Tax Supervision and Conservation Commission (TSCC). The TSCC will hold a public hearing during the first or second week of June. An additional public hearing will be held at Metro’s evening Council meeting on May 28. No work related to the budget will be undertaken at that meeting, however, it will provide one more opportunity for public input. Finally, a public hearing will be held at the June 25 Council meeting, at which meeting the FY 1998-99 Budget will be adopted.

Councilor Naito commented favorably that the opportunities for public input are very extensive. She asked whether amendments to a department budget should be made on the date the department is listed on the schedule, or if they should be made at one meeting and acted on the next. Chair McCaig said Councilor Naito’s question would be answered in the description of the process that followed. She distributed to the committee, a copy of a memorandum to Chair McCaig from John Houser, Senior Council Analyst, that set forth the budget assignments for Council and Executive analysts. A copy of this memorandum is included as part of the meeting record.

Chair McCaig said Council analysts will meet with committee chairs to review the budget and develop a list of questions to submit and discuss with the department managers. It is up to each committee chair to decide whether to do this through the committee process or by a report from the chair through the Finance Committee. She said the analyst and chair will then participate in a meeting with executive staff to resolve as many of the individual questions as possible. Those questions should be developed and forwarded to the chair of the committee and any other councilor who is interested two weeks prior to the budget appearing on the agenda. During this time frame, if the chair finds there are issues that are not being resolved, the process to develop amendments should begin. Chair McCaig said amendments should be in front of the committee at the time the department budget is scheduled to be reviewed. She said minor issues should be resolved prior to the meeting, and substantive issues could be discussed at the meeting date listed. The committee does not need to act to approve the items at the meeting date listed. Rather, the committee will act on as many items as possible, and hold over pending issues for future discussion and adoption. Councilor Naito asked for clarification that the committee would take action on non-controversial items on the meeting date listed, however, if an item appeared to be controversial, the committee would hold over taking action for one week. Chair McCaig agreed this would be the process. She said that as much as 90 percent of the budget should be handled in a straightforward way, and the controversial issues should be discussed at the meeting date listed, and moved to the next meeting for a vote.

Chair McCaig said the department will briefly -- in five to ten minutes -- make their presentation at the meeting. The committee chair, any other councilors, and the Council analyst will talk about the process they went through, the questions that were raised, how they were resolved, and then the discussion will take place on are any outstanding issue. Chair McCaig said public input can be received at any of the hearings. The purpose of the public hearing schedule is not to eliminate public input at other times, but to provide a predictable opportunity for this input.

Councilor McLain said she feels secure with the process set forth by Chair McCaig, however, she asked for clarification about how discussion would move forward from week to week if controversial items arose. She said this led to confusion last year, because the individual department budgets were not considered according to the published schedule. She asked if the controversial issues could all be held over to a particular meeting where they could be voted on. Chair McCaig said the dilemma with that would, if the committee does not make decisions on a variety of significant issues that actually affect the budget, the process is paralyzed because the money is tied up and the committee cannot see how the funds will come down. She said in order to keep the process moving, the committee should vote on those items; however, they could be highlighted for review at a public hearing. Chair McCaig said there would be nothing to stop a committee member from moving to revisit an item once additional information has come to light from a member of the public. She said in last year’s deliberations, the committee could have taken virtually no action on any part of the budget until the very end, had it not moved in a progression of steps to approve parks funding and tip fee reductions. She said, and Councilor McLain agreed that this would not have been a good position to end up in. Councilor McLain asked whether between the April 1, 8, and 15, meeting there could be a wrap-up meeting where those amendments could be addressed again. Chair McCaig said they could be addressed on April 15, before it was moved to the full Council. Councilor McLain said if there are a group of amendments that the committee has not yet reached agreement on, the public could be notified that on a given date public testimony will be taken and a decision made. She said if consensus was reached on amendments, they would not need to be held over. Chair McCaig said this will probably take place on April 15. Chair McCaig said the sooner Finance staff can receive any proposed amendments the better the process will work.

Councilor Kvistad asked where arts funding will be found. Craig Prosser, Financial Planning Manager, said it is included in the General Fund, and is found in volume one, page 116, and in volume 2, page 24.

Chair McCaig said performance measurements are a valuable measurement to be used in the budget process. She introduced Kathy Rutkowski, Principal Administrative Services Analyst, who gave a brief presentation on performance measures. Her presentation was based on a Power Point (slide) presentation, a hard copy of which is included as part of the meeting record. Ms. Rutkowski said performance measures are internal operating measures of an organization, while benchmarks are external comparisons to other agencies and other jurisdictions.

Ms. Rutkowski said in development of performance measures, it is important to ensure the measures relate to the mission. However, sometimes a mission is difficult to measure, and the cost of gathering data for the measurement needs to be considered. She said results of a performance measure are not inherently good or bad. Rather, it is important to understand the underlying factors behind the results. Based on that understanding, a manager can either encourage the continuation of the success, or develop a plan to effect change if the result indicates improvement is needed.

Ms. Rutkowski reported this is the third year performance measures have been part of the budget process. This year, staff is examining the measurements to determine whether they provide meaningful information. There are two types of measurements. One is work load indicator, and the second is an efficiency measure, generally portrayed in a percentage or ratio. She then walked the committee through an example of performance measurements, using the REM department performance measures. Chair McCaig said performance measures will be reviewed during deliberations of each department’s budget.

Chair McCaig said the Budget Committee will next meet on Wednesday, February 25, 1998 at 3:30 PM in the Council Annex.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McCaig adjourned the meeting at 3:40 PM.

Prepared by,

Lindsey Ray

Senior Council Assistant

C:\Micro Focus Content Manager\WebDrawerWorkpath\TEMP\HPTRIM.23448\t0OAW2EX.doc