MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE

Monday, March 6, 2000

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Susan McLain (Chair), Bill Atherton (Vice Chair), Rod Monroe

Members Absent:  None  

Also Present:    Rod Park, Ed Washington

Chair McLain called the meeting to order at 3:08 P.M.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of March 1, 2000 Committee Meeting.

The Minutes were not available at this time.

2.  Ordinance No. 00-847, For the Purpose of Adopting the Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2000-01, making appropriations, and levying ad valorem taxes, and declaring an emergency.

SUPPORT SERVICE FUND/MISCELLANEOUS FUND PRESENTATIONS:

▪  Administrative Services Department

▪  Human Resources Department

▪  Information Technology Department

▪  Auditors Office

▪  Office of General Counsel

▪  Office of Citizen Involvement

▪  Executive Office/Council (Support Services)

▪  Building Management/Risk Management Funds

Distribution of Council Analyst Questions/Issues Related to Enterprise Fund Departments

BACKGROUND ON PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCES

Chair McLain announced that due to other staff obligations the order of hearing Support Services departments had changed with the Executive, Council, General Counsel and Auditor Offices comprising the first 4 departments to be heard. She asked that any amendments being considered be submitted as soon as possible.

Tony Mounts, Financial Planning Manager, presented a staff overview of the Support Services, Budget and Finance Committee, March 6, 2000. A copy is included in the public record.

Councilor Atherton asked if the methodology required for applying for Federal and State grants was also used for internal operations. Mr. Mounts said that basically it required direct and indirect costs be defined and allocation of these costs. Councilor Atherton asked if the private sector used a similar process. Mr. Mounts responded that the private sector used activity-based costing to assign costs and was slightly different.

Jeff Stone, Council Office, presented the Council Staff Review of the Support Service & Allocated Costs of the Metro Council Budget and is included in the public record. The written work plan for the council assistants would be submitted March 20.

Chair McLain asked if the Public Outreach assistant line item included benefits. Mr. Stone said that it did.

Councilor Atherton asked about the history of the General Fund travel budget. Mr. Stone responded that the new Presiding Officer had cut the travel budget $14k from last year's figure. Councilor Monroe added that last year's travel budget had been depleted within 6 months; thus it was enhanced for the following year.

Bruce Warner, Executive Office, spoke to the Executive Officer’s Budget Summary 2000-2001 as it applied to Support Services (Public Affairs & Government Relations, Office of Citizen Involvement and Creative Services), and is included in the public record.

Councilor Monroe asked about support for non-charter driven committees. Mr. Warner responded that Metro advisory committees also required support, but the costs associated with those committees were not currently identified. He hoped to lay out the individual costs associated with each committee in the future. He believed that a forthcoming ordinance regarding advisory committees including staff obligations to those committees might address this in more detail. Chair McLain said that such a document was in process from the General Counsel office, but that it may not be ready prior to budget action.

Councilor Atherton asked if it were possible that Metro might provide support in the form of office space for MPACT and MCCI in the future. Mr. Warner responded that conversations were in progress. Councilor Atherton asked what support level was budgeted. Mr. Warner responded that it was .5 FTE for MPACT and .4 FTE for MCCI. If the committees decided that they wanted a higher level of service than Metro budgeted, then they might want to hire their own dedicated staff with their own funds. Councilor Atherton said that MCCI had proposed combining all citizen communication activities into one line item in the budget that would be managed out of the MCCI office. Chair McLain said she believed this would be addressed at the Thursday evening Council meeting.

Mr. Warner said that recent audits on support services have indicated that Metro was run on a lean budget when compared with similar organizations nationally. While it is a testament to the management skills of the organization, it also meant that there were fewer resources available for special projects. As to the MERC support services study there had been agreement on the services and the service levels needed. The disagreement between MERC and Metro was as to how best provide those services. He felt that MERC wanted to pick and choose which Metro support services they took. MERC would like to provide other services within their own organization. Both agencies agreed that the services could not be provided in the private sector at less expense than in-house, but disagreed as to which agency should provide them. This disagreement was the reason the study was not completed. He hoped the Committee would be able to end the debate within this year's budget process. Seven FTE (15%) would be lost without MERC as part of the Metro support services family.

Councilor Monroe asked if the disagreement was over the costs of providing the operation of this government; Council, Auditor, Executive Officer. Mr. Warner replied that MERC was looking at the bottom line rather than as a part of the agency as a whole. They are an enterprise driven activity like the Zoo, but he noted that the Code was different for MERC than for the Zoo and REM. Councilor Monroe asked for information on possible HR savings by providing a joint department, or for the reasons why it was not feasible. Mr. Warner responded that he felt that question should be directed to Ruth Scott when she spoke to the HR budget later.

Dan Cooper, General Counsel, spoke to the Office of General Counsel Budget Summary Proposed FY 2000-2001 Budget and FY 00-01 Agency Archive Add Package. Both documents are included in the public record.

Chair McLain asked about the Iron Mountain Transport costs. Mr. Cooper answered that it was to transport permanent records out of the Metro office into storage.

Alexis Dow, Auditor, gave an overview of the Office of the Auditor 2000-01 Budget Proposal and is included in the public record.

Councilor Atherton asked if the FTE included the Auditor. Ms. Dow said that it did. Councilor Atherton asked why the cost of HR had increased at a higher rate over the past 4 years. Ms. Dow said she would need to check and get back to the Committee as she used the figures to illustrate the growth of Metro overall as compared to the Auditor's office. Chair McLain asked that Ms. Dow submit the original auditor’s budget as 3 amendments and are included in the public record.

Councilor Atherton asked about the 7% figure shown for funding from the excise tax. Ms. Dow responded that the actual number was 8-8 ½%. Chair McLain asked Mr. Houser to review these figures.

Jennifer Sims, Financial Planning Director, spoke to the Administrative Services Department Budget Presentation Outline. It is included in the public record.

Chair McLain said that any areas that were understaffed should be addressed in the Needs Assessment that had been requested for long-term requirements that could not be made a part of this budget. The Committee would address these needs in May-June-July in a parallel process to the budget, or as an Add Package. She suggested that all departments use the amendment process with numbers and line items to request monies for critical needs.

Ms. Sims pointed out that there was a great disparity between the boom in enterprise activities with new construction and high revenues and the portion of the agency that provided the services demanded by that boom, but limited in size by the excise tax limitation. It was a struggle. Chair McLain said that the Council understood that these problems existed, but that the entire budget must be reviewed in a systematic manner. These problems will be addressed after the short-term budget review.

Ms. Sims said that the new Metro building manager, Brian Phillips, was reviewing renewal and replacement (R&R) needs. Risk reserves were fully funded, however there were no excess reserves as there were in the past. Councilor Atherton asked why the parking garage showed a deficit. Ms. Sims stated that Metro had not attracted enough users to cover expenses. While loss had been projected for the first 5-years of operation, at year-8 it still shows a loss. MERC had agreed to use the first 2-floors during the OCC construction. Councilor Atherton suggested that the proposed pedestrian bridge across the Willamette might present marketing opportunities for the parking structure.

Ruth Scott, Human Resources and Interim IMS/IT Department Manager, spoke to Human Resources Budget Summary 2000/2001 and IMS/IT Department Budget Summary FY 2000/2001. The documents are included in the public record.

Councilor Monroe asked about the advisability of maintaining a separate HR manager at MERC. Ms. Scott said that it was her opinion that MERC did not need an HR position on-site. Metro HR performed all functions except the MERC Pay for Performance Plan and managing the tuition reimbursement program. Councilor Monroe stated that Ms. Scott was in a unique position since she had worked at both Metro and MERC and could see the needs from both sides. As such, she was a great resource to the Committee.

Ms. Scott said that HR would not be able to respond to the Auditor's Benchmarking recommendation that certain software modules be implemented. The funds to purchase and maintain the modules were not available in this budget. She noted that in the IMS/IT budget the Enterprise Application & Database Management FTE should be 10.0, rather than 1.0 as shown.

Councilor Atherton asked if there were plans to correct the current loss of web page development. Ms. Scott responded that under this budget there were no plans to correct it, but is being done by various people in various departments. There was no common oversight for this work. Chair McLain said that an element of evaluating the need for new technology was missing. Ms. Scott said that when a new IMS/IT director was on board, that person would meet with all departments in order to develop each department’s needs.

Chair McLain said that this concluded the department presentations. Responses from the Council analysts would begin the next step in the budget process. Questions from the Growth Management General Fund were submitted today. A copy is included in the public record. They will be given to the Executive, Financial staff and to the department involved. The first work session will be March 15 to talk about General Fund issues and the analysts questions. If another meeting was needed, Monday, March 20 was available. The decision would be made March 15.

3.  Councilor Communications

MEETING RECESSED UNTIL THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2000 AT 7:00 PM

There being no further business before the Committee, Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 5:18P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Weathers

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 16, 2000

The following have been included as part of the official public record:

i:\minutes\2000\budget&finance/03060bdm.doc