BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

Thursday, April 6, 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.  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 said that the meeting would begin with the Regional Environmental Management (REM #15-16) amendments. They are included in the public record along with Analyst Recommendations Related to Proposed FY 00-01 REM Budget and REM Department Related Questions/Answers.

John Houser, Council Analyst, said that REM Amendment #15 was based on a previous discussion about increasing the appropriation level for funds out from the business recycling grant program from $250kto $500k. It would not increase the appropriation that was being made into the account out of the REM fund balances. It provided the ability for REM to spend all the money that was in the account.

Councilor Kvistad said that within the consulting area of REM, he had noticed an automatic increase in the use of consultants. The proposed budget note read as follows:

“Prior to obtaining outside consulting assistance, the REM Department shall review the potential for using internal Metro resources to perform the proposed work and shall make a determination that such resources do not exist or are otherwise not available to perform the work. The letting of such consulting contracts shall be subject to review and approval by the Council REM Committee.”

He explained the last sentence, saying that rather than burden the Council as a whole in reviewing consulting contracts, the REM Committee, through their frequent meetings would not burden the Department and yet address the important points of the amendment.

Councilor Monroe said the first sentence might be workable, but the second sentence excluded the whole Council in favor of a minority committee of Councilors. He could never support that. Terry Petersen, REM Director, encouraged the Council to continue to use the established system. Councilor Atherton agreed with Councilor Monroe and asked if Councilor Kvistad would accept a friendly amendment to remove the second sentence. Councilor Kvistad responded by saying this practice was done all the time. He had researched and been unable to determine the current number of Metro contracts. He suggested removing the word “approval” would be acceptable, but wanted to leave in the word “review” because it was critical.

Chair McLain clarified saying the Council could request review of any contract, but this amendment automatically directed staff to send contracts through the REM Committee for review. Councilor Monroe said the Metro Code directed all contracts over a certain amount of money to be reviewed by Council. Scott Moss, Administrative Services Assistant Director, said the Council must approve any contract over $50k. Councilor Monroe said the Council may review contracts less than that, and this process had worked well and should not be changed. He agreed with Councilor Atherton’s suggestion to delete the entire second sentence of the amendment, which would leave REM to continue what they are already doing.

Chair McLain said that she received updated contract lists monthly from Mr. Moss as she had requested. She felt the budget note without the last sentence was asking REM to pull out any consultant contract and bring it before the REM Committee. If that was the desire of the committee, it would be appropriate. If that was not what this committee wanted, then the budget note would be more than the status quo. Councilor Monroe said that deletion of the second sentence would remove the reference to “review and approval by the Council REM Committee.” He could support that because it was what he thought they were doing now.

Councilor Kvistad said his intent was to change the status quo. The note said that small contracts would be reviewed. Chair McLain suggested that Councilor Kvistad move that the amendment go forward with neutral recommendation. Councilor Kvistad agreed.

Chair McLain said that the Committee would address Metropolitan Exposition-Recreation Commission (MERC) next. All questions and answers on the proposed MERC budget had been addressed. Copies of Analyst Recommendations Related to Proposed FY 2000-01 MERC Budget, Council Analyst Questions Regarding the MERC Budget and memo re: Metro Support Services Discussion are included in the public record. Mr. Williams had worked closely with the committee on this budget and the cost allocation plan, and an approach was being worked on with conclusion hopefully by April 12, 2000. Councilor Kvistad said he did not support changes in the proposed MERC budget and moved the MERC budget as presented by MERC.

Councilor Atherton asked Mr. Williams what he saw as the major points of disagreement. Mark Williams, MERC General Manager, responded that the major point of disagreement was essentially how much MERC should pay for support services. He did not feel the POVA contract was discussed much, if at all. Councilor Monroe said this motion abrogated Council’s fiduciary responsibility. The Committee had been constituted by the Presiding Officer to review budget recommendations and make appropriate changes. He was opposed to this motion.

Councilor Kvistad said that after reading and listening to the presentations, he did not find anything proposed that needed to be changed. He did not feel an abrogation of responsibility and recommended an aye vote. Chair McLain said the MERC amendments have not been brought to this Committee yet because after staff review, and the MERC Commission and Budget Committee reviews, more work was still needed. They would be brought forward next week.

Chair McLain stated that Growth Management amendments would be addressed next.

Councilor Kvistad offered GM Amendment #3. A copy is included in the public record. He said that it was the only cut of any kind that was on the table, and although painful, he recommended its passage. Councilor Atherton agreed with Councilor Kvistad that cuts were needed, but not in the Goal 5 Program. The key was that programs were authorized, but not required, by the State. The 20-year land law mandate was required by the State and cost the same amount of money. He asked if Councilor Kvistad would accept a friendly amendment to strike the “Goal 5” reference and insert “20-year land supply” as required by HB 2709 and 2493. If we were truly in a cost-cutting mode, the message to the State would be that we want them to assist in payment of the costly mandate they have given Metro.

Councilor Kvistad asked Councilor Atherton to detail cuts in the department that would be allocated towards his proposal; he would be interested in hearing them. Councilor Atherton said he would. Councilor Monroe stated that he still favored clean water. Councilor Atherton said he favored clean water as well and felt this program, of all Metro programs, was the one he supported the most. He asked Councilor Kvistad how he developed the figures. Councilor Kvistad said they were the Metro budget figures as assembled by Council staff with department assistance. Chair McLain said this work plan supported Metro’s obligations to the Regional Framework Plan, Future Vision or the RUGGOs document, as well as having been given approval by the Growth Management Committee 1999-2000. Metro Council had supported this important work as it related to the federal 4(d) rule and to the State Goal 5 rule. This amendment implied that it was Metro's choice to go forward with goals of clean water. The Clean Water Act and other federal acts were part of Metro’s responsibilities. She would not vote in favor of this amendment.

Councilor Bragdon asked, since the extension granted by LCDC (Land Conservation and Development Department) acknowledged the areas covered by these programs, if abandoned would the Council accept the current land need situation and not expand the urban growth boundary? Chair McLain responded that the work plan that had been developed was to meet the extension and to complete work on the buildable land inventory so the urban growth boundary (UGB)amendments could be made. Whether UGB amendments would be made would be decided after this work had been completed. Metro would be left with only the information we currently have, whether complete or incomplete.

Councilor Bragdon asked Councilor Kvistad if we did not pursue the Goal 5 plan and if further land was not protected, how did that affect our obligations to the UGB since Goal 5 was the major question left in the extension that we were granted? Councilor Kvistad said he did not think the Council would move forward with any boundary expansions in the near future; it had not done so within the past two years. He closed by saying that he had seen no cuts in a budget that was deficit $1.5 million. Requirements could not be cut, but this was not a mandate. Metro had taken this work on by choice, and as such was an area identified as able to be cut. He recommended an aye vote.

Chair McLain stated that Regional Parks Department Substantive adjustments would be addressed next.

Charlie Ciecko, Regional Parks and Greenspaces Director, referred to Executive Officer Burton’s April 3, 2000 memo and reviewed the Substantive amendments RPG1-5. The amendments are included in the public record.

Councilor Monroe asked about the high cost for the dam removal on Johnson Creek (RPG4). Mr. Ciecko responded that over the years a considerable amount of sediment had accumulated behind the dam, and with the dam removal some bank stabilization and restoration would also need to be done. Councilor Monroe supported this amendment. Councilor Atherton asked how the sediment would be removed. Mr. Ciecko responded that temporary cofferdams would be used for temporary stream diversion. Councilor Kvistad said this would be interesting to follow as it closely parallels what was currently occurring on much higher levels. He hoped the budget was sufficient for the type of work involved in removing such an obstruction.

Chair McLain asked Mr. Ciecko if he had an amendment to propose regarding cemetery fees. Dan Kromer, Parks and Greenspaces Manager, said there had been some discussion about increasing fees with a percentage of the money going into an endowment fund for long-term, perpetual care of the cemeteries. An amendment would come forth to Council at some future time.

Councilor Atherton asked if seeking funds from local affected jurisdictions, or neighborhood associations set a precedent in terms of regionalism and the role of Metro (RPG2). Mr. Ciecko said no, that local partners had been approached before with success. Councilor Kvistad said local groups have always been very supportive.

Next, the Committee reviewed Budget Technical Amendments 1-17. The technical amendments are included in the public record (GM1, RP1-9, ASD1-2, TR1-2 and REM1-2).

Mr. Ciecko reviewed the amendments RP1-9. Councilor Kvistad asked if the $144,500 were general fund dollars being carried forward (RP4). Mr. Ciecko responded they are mostly general fund dollars, with the exception of the Greenspaces Protection Plan funds which were generated by means of a fund-raising effort. Councilor Kvistad said there were existing line items in the budget for this year, Metro already had budgeted funds to do some of this work, and then these enhanced monies were rolled over into the department. His understanding was that these enhanced monies were excise tax dollars. By keeping the money there it would enhance our ability to do the projects. Heather Nelson Kent, Parks and Greenspaces Manager, responded that in the proposed FY 2000-01 budget there were no additional funds budgeted for grant writing or for the Greenspaces Protection Plan. There was an additional $30k budgeted for the Blue Lake Economic Feasibility Study Plan.

Councilor Kvistad asked if there were any FTEs directly affected by these dollars. Ms. Kent said no, they were material and services dollars. Grant writing had been done this year using existing staff, but more effort and staff time was needed, and this money would be used for professional grant writers to make the applications. As to the Greenspaces Protection Plan, because of limited excise tax dollars available next year, the department deliberately did not expend planned consultant dollars this fiscal year, but rolled them forward to next year for use in upcoming planning work. The Blue Lake Master Plan had slowed down, but would be completed next fiscal year. Councilor Kvistad said that with open and available excise tax funds, he looked for potential cuts. Chair McLain commented that the Council had already approved these types of programs. She asked Mr. Houser to seek legal counsel with regard to the Council having given permission for these programs. When the program lapped over into another year, the department had the responsibility to bring them before Council so they can be carried over for the appropriate purpose for which they were originally assigned. These were carry-over projects or they were projects not completed within one fiscal year.

Ms. Kent reiterated that there were no excise dollars budgeted next year for the Greenspaces Protection Plan, and the Blue Lake Master Plan money was contractually obligated. Councilor Atherton asked how much had already been committed to the Blue Lake Economic Feasibility Study. Ms. Kent responded that the amount was $60k. Michael Morrissey, Council Analyst, commented that in the past few years he had encouraged the department to find additional money to do what needed to be done.

Kathy Rutkowski, Financial Planning Program Analyst, reviewed GM1, ASD1-2 and TR1-2. A letter from East County Fireworks Committee was submitted in support of RP5 and is included in the public record. Cheri Yasami, Financial Planning Program Analyst, reviewed REM2. Jim Watkins, REM Manager, addressed amendment REM1. Councilor Atherton asked if RP5 was from excise tax funds. Ms. Kent nodded yes. Councilor Atherton asked what would happen if the $7k was dropped. Mr. Ciecko responded that the purpose of the event was to highlight a local share project and acknowledge the improvements made with citizen tax dollars. Bond funds could be used, but with the severe capital needs, it was avoided. The $7k came from funds previously used for entertainment at Blue Lake Park. He did not have an anticipated attendance figure for the grand opening.

3.  Councilor Communications

There being no further business before the Committee, Chair McLain recessed the meeting at 4:45 PM

Respectfully submitted,

Patricia Mannhalter

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 6, 2000

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

i:\minutes\2000\budget&finance/04060bdm.doc