MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE

Monday, April 3, 2000

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  None  

Also Present:    David Bragdon (Presiding Officer), Rod Park, Ed Washington

Chair McLain called the meeting to order at 3:12 P.M.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of March 29, 2000 Committee Meeting.

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.

Chair McLain noted that the meeting would begin with amendments to the General Fund and then move on to proposed amendments to the Enterprise Fund. She presented two Growth Management (GM) amendments. They addressed specific purposes that Elaine Wilkerson, Director of Growth Management, had indicated under additional funding priorities and are included in the public record. The monies requested equaled the amount cut from the Council budget, therefore they would not increase General Fund requests.

Chair McLain said that GM Amendment #1 would allow notification that staff felt was necessary for urban growth boundary and Goal 5 issues. Notification was an important element of outreach. Councilor Monroe said Metro was required to have a balanced budget, and it would. If the budget did not balance at the end of this process, adjustments would have to be made to comply with Oregon law. He said, however, that Metro’s primary responsibility was for growth management, and outreach was key to that process. He said it would be shortsighted to cut outreach and he would support the amendment.

Councilor Kvistad objected to spending more money. Chair McLain urged an aye vote.

Chair McLain said that GM amendment #2 was related to work on this year’s work plan on Goal 5 and storm-water issues. It would allow staff to publish a storm-water handbook to be distributed to all jurisdictions. It would present models and results of work done on that issue and save duplication of effort by districts facing these issues. Councilor Kvistad said that although he approved of the intent of the amendment, he felt Metro did not have the money, and he was unwilling to cut into other budgets to fund this. He noted that Metro was $1.5 million in the hole. He advised against adding new things, and would not support the amendment.

Councilor Monroe said that this amendment shifted FTE in accordance with priorities; it did not represent any change in the overall budget. It would allow use of the funds from bike map sales to fill a hole. It is included in the public record. Andy Cotugno, Transportation Director, said this would increase FTE by 0.6 and materials and services by $25,000, with an increase of revenue of $50,000 from bike map sales. It would have no impact on the general fund.

Chair McLain introduced Transportation Amendment #2, which is included in the public record. She said there were not enough resources in the budget to make the program work. In spite of her personal support for educational purposes, she recommended eliminating this program at this time in order to put existing resources toward higher priorities. This would allow 0.1 FTE, $3,200 in materials and services, and $2,200 in interfund transfer allocations to be used for higher priorities.

Councilor Monroe urged restoration of money for Railvolution, based on Metro’s role in starting this organization and based on the region’s leading role in promoting light rail. Councilor Kvistad said he supports the organization and the purpose, but opposed add packages in general.

Councilor Monroe said it was essential to Metro’s efforts to obtain federal funding for transportation projects to have a lobbying presence in Washington DC. Councilor Kvistad said that he would support this add package, as he recognized its importance.

Councilor Monroe urged support for this amendment. Metro has been a leader in regional government nationwide; to not continue Metro’s membership would deprive the rest of the country of its experience. Councilor Kvistad said that while he recognized the value of the organization, he would not support the add package.

Andy Cotugno, Transportation Director, said that these costs covered a condensed version of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for public distribution. It would provide 20,000 copies of more reader-friendly version of the RTP at $1 apiece, $6,000 for a four-page edition, translated into six different languages and 2,500 copies of 14 different fact sheets on the different topics covered in the RTP—e.g. level of service standards, street connectivity, finance, etc. Finally, it would cover developing updated table-top materials for speeches and other presentations.

Councilor Kvistad asked if any revenues remain from this year that could be shifted, rather than funding these materials as an add package for next year. Mr. Cotugno said all carry-forward funds have been assumed as budgeted in next year’s budget. This had been cut out because of a $200,000 drop in the excise tax. Councilor Kvistad said this posed a difficult decision for him, as he had opposed similar outreach materials with regard to storm-water management. To be consistent, he would not support this. Chair McLain said she would not support it either, based on past experience with Transportation Department outreach efforts. She felt the public had been overwhelmed in the past with brochures and displays and recommended finding better, more effective ways of connecting with the public.

Chair McLain announced that all Growth Management and Transportation amendments had been addressed to date. Councilor Kvistad said he would be proposing a series of cuts for the GM Department soon. Chair McLain asked that those cuts be prepared as soon as possible. She then called for consideration of the budget for the Enterprise Fund, including the Zoo, Regional Environmental Management (REM) Department and Metro Exposition and Recreation Commission (MERC).

Michael Morrissey, Council Analyst, distributed Council Analyst Questions for the Oregon Zoo and Response to Council Analyst Questions for the Oregon Zoo, and are included in the public record. He said his questions had been answered satisfactorily, and he recommended no changes. Chair McLain expressed concern about mid-year requests for changes between operating and capital fund. She thought that indicated a lack of understanding for the kinds of projects to come out of each type of fund. She asked what the limitations were on those two funds, and what could be done to make certain they were budgeted correctly.

Cherie Yasami, Financial Planning Program Analyst, said that as the Zoo generated revenues from operations, it transferred money to support its capital projects. Tony Mounts, Financial Planning Manager, explained that Metro’s definition of a capital project was a project greater than $50,000 with a useful life of more than five years. Renewal and replacement projects would fit in that category. Some things that historically have been done as part of operating funds, could become capital projects without being a new asset. He suggested that the Committee review financial policies relative to capital budgeting and its definition in an effort to come up with something more workable.

Chair McLain said there would be an opportunity to do that in late spring and early summer, when the Committee addressed capital projects. She felt it would be worthwhile to clarify which projects would be assets. She thought it was problematic to take money out of operating funds to do capital projects, even though the projections might be good. She felt it was wise to keep sufficient money in the operating funds.

Kathy Kiaunis, Zoo Deputy Director, explained that the Zoo always planned to raise revenues in excess of operating fund expenditures, specifically to reinvest back into capital projects. She said it was a budgeting convenience to be able to transfer into the capital fund in order to track larger projects. Those projects could be left in the operating fund if the Committee preferred that method. The Zoo aimed to keep sufficient money in the operating fund to tide it over during periods of low attendance, e.g. during unseasonable rains. Chair McLain recommended keeping those funds distinct, although she would not require it to be done this year. Councilor Monroe requested that a budget note be made to remind the committee to address this issue later this spring.

Chair McLain asked where the $6,900 for a library computer would be re-dedicated, since the computer would be donated instead of purchased. Ms. Kiaunis said the money would be left in the capital budget in the animal management division to pay for contingencies. Chair McLain asked about the travel and training budget. Ms. Kiaunis said that the American Association of Zoo and Aquariums (AAZA) accredited the Zoo for participation in zoo and endangered species programs. Zoo staff members were, in many cases, key people in many programs and meetings of the organization. Participation in AAZA allowed the Zoo to request animals from other institutions. That was a big part of the budget. In addition, the Zoo participated in conservation and animal enrichment programs, veterinarian travel, and elephant issues throughout the country. Keeper training was also included. Another reason for the increase related to moving the horticulture section from facilities to animal management. Chair McLain asked how often AAZA and other meetings were held. Ms. Kiaunis said that most were held yearly.

Councilor Kvistad asked about progress on the Great Northwest project. Ms. Kiaunis said it was right on track; Stellar Cove would open July 8 and Phase 4 was in the planning process. Councilor Kvistad said that, depending on the answer he received re cost allocations for Metro from the Zoo's Enterprise Fund, he could have additional questions or comments. Chair McLain said the cost allocation program was to provide services, as well as to pay for the general overhead of the government as they related to the enterprise facilities. Mr. Morrissey offered to provide information concerning a comparison of this year’s cost allocation and last.

Chair McLain stated that this completed the Zoo segment; the next area for consideration was amendments to the REM budget.

John Houser, Councilor Analyst, said he would work from two documents: 1) FY 2000-01 Budget Regional Environmental Management Department Related questions/Answers, and 2) Analyst Recommendations Related to Proposed FY 00-01 REM Budget. Copies are included in the public record.

Terry Petersen, REM Director, said that the facility inspector position was part of a new program begun last fall. REM planned to operate that program for a year at 0.5 FTE, then reassess the need. The recent vacancy in that position created a good opportunity to do that reassessment now. He agreed with Mr. Houser’s recommendation to make the position full time. Councilor McLain asked if the proposed events would be simple roundup events or full-blown household hazardous waste events. Mr. Petersen said these would be strictly hazardous waste collection events, not for solid waste collection. The actual time spent at the events was minimal in comparison to the labor involved in processing the waste at the facility, identifying unknown substances, doing the laboratory tests, bulking some of the waste into larger 55-gallon drums, and filling out paperwork. Even the usual winter slowdown had lessened recently. The positions would open in March of 2001. It was felt that by the following winter, growth in the program would keep staff busy just handling customers coming to the site. He felt confident the FTE numbers were accurate based on past experience, but agreed to monitor the events to see how they progressed.

Councilor Kvistad asked if studies had been done on the effect of charging a small participation fee. Mr. Petersen said it had been studied some time ago, but thought that it might be worth requesting the Rate Review committee to review possible fees when it meets this spring. He pointed out that handling cash at the large-scale events would contribute to longer lines, but that might not be an issue at smaller scale events. Councilor Monroe asked what percentage of household hazardous waste was currently being properly disposed of through Metro facilities. Jim Watkins, REM Engineering and Analysis Manager, said only about 10% to 15% of the region’s households had participated in these events to date.

Councilor Monroe said that Metro had an obligation to try to increase participation in these programs. He suggested that along with studying the effect of imposing fees at the roundups, Metro also should study the effect of not charging a fee at its permanent facility. That meant that Metro would be subsidizing the proper disposal of household hazardous waste, using some of the surplus money being generated by the current garbage tip fee. He thought that would be appropriate, as proper disposal of household hazardous waste removed that substance from the environment, while improper disposal threatened soil and groundwater.

Councilor Bragdon asked if more materials and services would be needed to promote these events and educate the public. Mr. Watkins said that developing an advertising campaign was a major part of the program. The events would have a large educational component.

Mr. Houser questioned the ability to sell the amount of paint projected to be collected, as he calculated that it would require Metro to garner 4% of the paint market for the area. Mr. Petersen said he was confident it could be done. The program began and ran primarily this winter, and had not been through the busier summer season. He said if the paint could not be marketed locally, it could be marketed outside the state. Some donations had also been made to third world countries that desperately needed paint. He guaranteed that none of the paint would end up in a landfill. Councilor Kvistad suggested any excess could be donated to local governments to help clean up graffiti. He said there had been numerous requests from local groups for help in their efforts to paint public areas. Mr. Petersen said he would welcome direction from the Council on how the paint should be distributed.

Councilor Atherton asked about the user-pay concept. He suggested REM research imposing a deposit on paint cans, to help pay for disposal. He also suggested they research the elasticity of these markets. He thought this information was already available from California's hazardous waste program. He felt that information would help the Committee address this issue. Mr. Petersen said he would follow up on those suggestions. Studies were underway on the effect of charging in relation to hazardous waste disposal. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) currently was doing one. He supported the concept of product responsibility on the part of the manufacturer.

Councilor Kvistad said spray cans used for graffiti have not been regulated and suggested a way might be found to regulate sales of these cans regionally, without inconveniencing legitimate users. He thought Metro might be able to craft a regional policy. Chair McLain suggested this topic might be appropriate for the REM committee's consideration. Councilor Washington, REM Committee Chair, said he had already discussed this need with Presiding Officer Bragdon. He thought it would be a worthwhile effort.

Mr. Petersen agreed with Mr. Houser’s recommendation that Metro consider not subsidizing the bulky waste collection events, as they were City not regional events. He thought that paying for waste disposal was one of the best incentives for waste reduction. He advised caution on promoting programs that did not charge people for the cost of disposal.

Councilor Bragdon asked if criteria might be developed to ensure geographic equity and to target the program to waste that otherwise would not be collected. Councilor Atherton thought this was more a local than regional issue. Councilor Washington said these events had occurred primarily in his district rather than regionally because they were trial events.

Mr. Houser discussed the Rate Review Committee’s suggestion that Metro increase its transaction fee at transfer stations, from $5 to $7, to more closely collect the actual cost of service from self-haulers. He then gave a brief overview of an abandoned site, the Killingsworth Fast Disposal landfill. Charlie Landmon, DEQ Legal Policy Advisor, spoke to the Killingsworth landfill project in the Cully neighborhood. He said this site has been an eyesore and a hazard to the people in that area, and the DEQ would like to convert it to a benefit to the community by turning it into a park. He requested a contribution of $50k from Metro. In the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Portland, the City agreed to assume all operation and maintenance in perpetuity of the new park. No further contribution would be sought from Metro.

Mr. Landmon said that Metro was the largest contributor to the orphan site account, however the statue that governed that account required that a municipality contribute a per capita amount toward cleanup before it can tap that amount—in the neighborhood of $60 per capita for five years. He felt it was unlikely Metro would ever be able to use the solid waste orphan site account, as the legislature had set up the account to benefit small local governments. This project would use about half the money in the account.

Solid waste people in other areas had expressed concern about the availability of funds, as clean-up projects underway in other areas would likely draw from this fund. Therefore the DEQ had an interest in replenishing the fund. The City had agreed to provide $500,000 in cleanup costs in return for release from liability, and title to the property, a complex issue. He personally believed this would be a good project. It would provide a 24-acre park in an under-served area of the city. He thought there were strong environmental justice considerations. From DEQ’s standpoint this site had been a great concern. It had among the highest levels of methane ever recorded—enough to blow up surrounding buildings. DEQ had stepped up to the plate a year ago to make necessary repairs and was ready to go forward with redeveloping this property. He encouraged Metro’s participation.

Councilor McLain said Metro’s legal department was addressing this issue. Councilor Kvistad said he did not believe Metro should participate; this was not a Metro issue and set a bad precedent. He asked where the site was. Mr. Landmon said it lay between N. 75th and Killingsworth, with Columbia Boulevard on the north, east of Cully Blvd. Metro had not participated financially up to this point. Councilor McLain agreed; Metro had discussed the orphan site fund, but nothing had been contributed for this particular site. Councilor Bragdon asked how many orphan sites were out there and if this might set a precedent.

Mr. Landmon said this was the only site the DEQ knew of where there was no responsible operator who could be held accountable for cleanup. Other sites that might need the orphan site account were owned by small local governments. They mostly needed groundwater cleanup. Councilor McLain noted that the orphan site list was being added to. Mr. Landmon agreed, but said that this would be the first use of the account; none of the clean-ups to this point had needed to use the account. Councilor McLain said in her view, the Killingsworth landfill issue and the St. Johns landfill plan were interconnected; she would not support taking on more responsibilities until she knew what the St. Johns landfill financial responsibilities would be.

Mr. Houser addressed his recommendations regarding an FTE to handle a new market development program for Waste Reduction, Planning, and Outreach Division. Mr. Petersen thought existing staff was sufficient to handle the business assistance program at its current level. Adding an FTE would allow the department to go to the next level. He said the department had proposed about $1 million in new waste reduction initiatives, which represented quite a bit of work to take on, but without over-commitment. Councilor Kvistad said he would like to see the small-business grant program restored. He also liked the idea of a revolving fund, and would support both.

Mr. Houser noted that the potential existed for establishing a fairly large revolving loan fund.

Chair McLain said amendments might be handled in several ways. One would be to forward only those recommendations a Councilor agrees to carry. Another would be to have the Chair of the REM committee forward his preferred recommendations, with the rest of the Councilors being provided with a list of those he had chosen not to forward. A third way might be to forward all the recommendations and consider them as amendments to be voted on at the next meeting. Councilor Washington preferred that Councilors notify Mr. Houser of issues they felt strongly about. He said he would take anything left over.

Councilor Monroe said it appeared that Mr. Petersen agreed with Mr. Houser’s suggestions. He recommended preparing these recommendations as amendments, to be considered one at a time. Chair McLain directed Mr. Houser to prepare his recommendations as amendments, then notify her of the level of support among the Councilors. Councilor Kvistad said he would carry the small-business grant program and the revolving fund.

Councilor Atherton said it was not the Committee’s job to decide whether a fee was a subsidy or not,. Its job was to determine if the fee covered the full cost. The Council then would decide whether to accept the fee or not.

Chair McLain asked the Councilors to work with the analysts on developing amendments. She asked that the total impact on the excise tax be included. Councilor Monroe asked when the next rate review committee meeting would be. Chair McLain said the next meeting would be on April 19. Councilor Monroe wanted it on the record that he was concerned that a rate hike might increase illegal dumping. Chair McLain asked if the REM committee would discuss this at its next meeting. Councilor Bragdon said he would be willing to look at an amendment to support Mr. Houser’s recommendation #1, but he would like conditions targeting illegal dump sites where the ownership of the waste was not known. He would also prefer conditions that address geographic equity. If such an amendment could be drafted, he would carry it.

Chair McLain called for discussions of the MERC budget with all three analysts. A copy of Council Analyst Questions Regarding the MERC Budget is included in the public record. Mark Williams, MERC General Manager, or a member of his staff would be asked to follow any questions up. She emphasized that the Committee was there to support MERC, its managers and facilities. The Council had a responsibility to understand the budget and make sure it also made sense to the general public.

Councilor Kvistad understood there would be discussions on whether to move the human resources position, and asked if anyone had had a conversation with the Executive, so the vacancy was not filled before the policy decision had been made. Chair McLain responded that no formal amendment was on the table. She said she and Councilor Washington had been working on amendments and they might include that recommendation. There had been a request by the Executive to the legal staff on the responsibilities of hiring labor relations people for the agency. She understood, however, that no decision had been reached. Councilor Kvistad noted that in the past a position had been filled by the Executive Officer before Council had determined whether the position ought to continue. He did not want that to happen again. Chair McLain said she would address that with Presiding Officer Bragdon after the meeting.

Mr. Morrissey said the analysts had been charged with reviewing the MERC budget in more detail than has been the case in the past. That has produced more questions than in the past. One of the overriding issues was the question of support services that Metro provided to MERC. MERC and Administrative Services had worked on a solution after testing various hypotheses. Negotiations had not reached a consensus. This situation provided the context for analysts’ questions. He summarized Council Analyst Questions Regarding the MERC Budget. It is included in the public record.

Mr. Williams said that MERC had a naming plan for its facilities, officially approved by the Commission. The plan included a price list for the performing arts facilities—this was the type of facility that generally attract donations for names. MERC had a much more ambitious plan for seeking naming opportunities than the $25,000 represented in its budget. MERC had recently launched a “sell the seats” campaign in conjunction with the Portland Center for Performing Arts (PCPA), whereby all the seats would be sold. He said confidential talks were underway with significant donors, and he felt confident that the plan was sound.

Chair McLain asked Mr. Williams’ response to the question of what MERC’s targeted goal was for fundraising, beyond that one program. Mr. Williams said discussions were underway regarding a very large donation that would exceed anything they had received in total. This type of donation was once-in-a-lifetime, and he did not think it wise to budget those types of donations into an annual budget. He welcomed an opportunity to discuss how the Zoo handles this type of donation. Chair McLain said she had understood Mr. Morrissey’s question as to how much funding MERC might be able to realize for particular programs from this. Mr. Morrissey added that although he recognized that MERC and the Zoo were different, the Zoo budgeted $1.2 million from fundraising efforts. He thought MERC might benefit from the Zoo’s experience.

Mr. Williams said that the flat year at PCPA was due to a downturn in Broadway shows. PCPA's fate was tied to Broadway and its high-dollar commercial events. Several shows had closed before they reached Portland, resulting in lost revenues. He said there were some strong shows currently touring, notably The Sound of Music, which was a sell-out. Councilor Atherton asked if the business cycle affected this industry. Mr. Williams said the Broadway industry had very interesting business cycles. Past shows such as Miss Saigon and Phantom of the Opera represented blockbusters. Until the market produced and sent shows to Portland that people would pay $60-$80 to see, MERC would not be realize that sort of revenue.

Mr. Williams explained the declining trend of revenues as a percentage of expenditures: 1) One reason the Oregon Convention Center (OCC) had proposed expansion was because revenues had flattened due to an inability to attract big shows, 2) There were many years of deferred capital maintenance at the PCPA-capital spending at the PCPA was on hold in anticipation of a $2 million infusion of additional capital from the City of Portland, as well as more later on, and 3) Uncertainties over Civic Stadium’s future has impacted event booking at the facility. He said Oregon Convention Center (OCC) revenues had increased. At the Portland Metropolitan Exposition Center (Expo), money had been spent out of the fund balance to get construction started. Some of that would be reimbursed from the bonds that were recently issued. At the PCPA, no more capital money would be spent until the owner made a contribution.

Mr. Morrissey suggested that the MERC budget and notebook be prepared in such a way that administrative charges for each facility could be easily distinguished. Mr. Williams agreed that was a good idea, and would prepare the next budget accordingly.

Councilor Bragdon asked about the formula and role that net book value played—he understood that it was a component of insurance costs. Further, he asked why the value of the facility was a factor in general MERC administration. Mr. Williams said net book value was one way to assess the size of the facility. It also allowed the larger and better-funded MERC facilities to pay a larger share of the cost. MERC facility directors met each year to decide what percentage each facility would be charged.

Peggy Coats, Council Analyst, discussed the sharp increases in MERC Administration costs in the past two years. Mr. Williams said it was important to compare actuals to actuals and budget to budget. In some years the budget had been deliberately under-spent, leaving some budgeted positions unfilled. For example, the budgeted Administrative costs for Fiscal Year 1998 were $903,000, but the actual expenditure was $671,000. The percentage change from 1990 ??? to 2001 is 30%, not 69%. He said under-spending the budget was a plus. Staff had been increased in order to provide better services, as recommended by a hired consultant and as requested by facility managers. He said MERC would not increase overhead without discussing it with facility directors, to be sure the services were necessary. Some of the services related to things that had been left undone. For example, a comparative analysis had been recently undertaken of PCPA in comparison with similar entities. Up-to-date information on the appropriate level of subsidy, staffing, and ratio of earned revenue to subsidy revenue had been lacking for some time. In addition, money had been allocated to complete a needed inventory of all MERC facilities.

Councilor McLain asked if Mr. Williams had said that money had been budgeted for an FTE that MERC had no intention of filling that year. Mr. Williams said when positions had been vacated they were left unfilled. Chair McLain asked when those positions had been vacated with respect to the budget year. Mr. Williams said he did not know the answer. MERC managed to save more than $200,000 by not spending available funds. He thought that represented a good effort. Chair McLain said that she was trying to determine if the budgeted amount was set with the intention of spending up to that amount, with unexpected savings and just why the savings had been unexpected.

Mr. Williams said that when MERC had staff turnover, it had elected to wait to fill those positions. Anything that MERC administration did not spend went back to the facilities’ bottom line. MERC did not have a fund; at the end of the year money was transferred from the facilities to make up for expenditures. He said that if the full amount had been spent, $903,000 would have been transferred from the ending fund balances of the four facilities. By holding the expenditures to $671k, only that amount had to be transferred at the end of the year. That rendered net savings of $230k to the facilities. He encouraged all facility directors to find ways to cut expenses and increase revenues wherever possible. In MERC’s pay for performance plan, facility directors were expected to deliberately underspend their budget. Chair McLain said she asked because of the subsidies Metro had been giving for years. She wanted to make sure that the money given would be used during the year, when it was needed. Mr. Morrissey said Mr. William’s explanation was accurate. He invited Councilors to examine actuals compared with budgeted amounts. He said, however, that he was concerned about Mr. Williams’ remarks about not staffing up to levels the facility directors were comfortable with as that had not been brought up during Committee discussions.

Councilor Monroe expressed concern that if MERC operated with 25% less administrative costs than budgeted, it suggested to him that either MERC had over-budgeted, and the unfilled positions were not needed, or it was now overstaffed. One position or even 10% less would not be so troublesome, but $232k represented many positions or 1-2 high-paying positions. He found the magnitude troubling. Mr. Williams said that the positions were for fiscal director and special projects manager. The two positions were vacated early in 1998. MERC allowed the vacancies to go unfilled partly because the PCPA had been having a hard year. He had imposed an informal hiring freeze in that institution, even though some of those positions involved people desperately needed to do maintenance. He had imposed some of the same requirements on David Biedermann, Director of Administration, to ensure that MERC was part of the solution, and not the problem. He viewed those expenditures differently, as being a way to cut expenses during a hard budget year to help out one of the facilities. He encouraged all facilities directors to under-spend, but acknowledged that this was a different way of looking at budgeting, done because these were enterprise facilities. In addition, major projects that had been budgeted for that year were never done. One was a comparative management study of PCPA, and another was a capital assessment study. The projects were not done because staff was insufficient to do them. Not all the savings came from unfilled staff positions.

Presiding Officer Bragdon asked if the consultant had been from outside. Mr. Williams responded yes.

Ms. Coats continued with a series of questions related to the software support coordinator position, which changed from being a non-exempt, full-time staff to exempt, program analyst position. David Biedermann, MERC Director of Administration, said the position was originally suggested as part of the study and put into place as an addition to the system. MERC ran a system similar to Metro, but focused on events. He was directed by the general manager not to spend money. Therefore, he focused on getting more from the resources already available and chose then not to fill that position. That had worked short term, but the computer load was being increased. For example, MERC was considering doing its own ticketing. Concurrently, conversations were taking place around support services. He reminded the committee that this budget had been developed last October, before the results from the study were available. He shifted the job to a classification with more flexibility for hiring a person with implementation skills. He apologized to the Council for leaving the word temporary in the budget. It was meant to explain this position to the Commission, however the position was never intended to be temporary.

Chair McLain asked if the plateau in the training and stabilization was because training had caught up with the software. Mr. Biedermann agreed, but in addition there were only so many hours in the day, and one person supported four facilities, MERC hardware, software, the network and the interface with the Metro system.

Chair McLain announced that due to time constraints, she would recess this meeting until April 4, 1:30 PM. She noted that another meeting had been scheduled for Wednesday, April 5, at 3:00 PM, and depending on the length of that Council meeting, possibly one more on Thursday, April 6, after Council.

Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 5:57 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Weathers

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 3, 2000

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

i:\minutes\2000\budget&finance/04030bdm.doc