MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE

Wednesday, April 12, 2000

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Susan McLain (Chair), Bill Atherton (Vice Chair), David Bragdon (ex officio),

Members Absent:  Jon Kvistad, Rod Monroe  

Also Present:    Ed Washington

Chair McLain called the meeting to order at 1:37 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 noted all technical and substantive amendments were complete to date. The next department to be reviewed was Administrative Services (ASD).

John Houser, Council Analyst, spoke to Questions and Issues Related to the Proposed FY 2000-01 and is included in the public record. NOTE: The tape began about 4 minutes into the session. Jennifer Sims, Director Administrative Services, spoke to the training costs included in the budget. She felt that customer service training helped the staff keep their orientation of being helpful to the public. She wanted to keep it a high priority. Chair McLain asked which staff she recognized as public oriented. Ms. Sims responded that she felt it included all department staff. ASD customers included the public, vendors and other departments staff. Contractors seeking business licenses and people paying their solid waste bills were examples of outside customers. She said 4 years ago, when ASD was a bigger department, they trained in two sessions. At that time ASD included IT and positions now proposed to be cut. They did some role-playing and a variety of exercises to practice and learn more about good customer service. She felt awareness levels and skills increased as a result. The new sessions would be reinforcement for people who already had training and a good beginning for those hired since that training.

Councilor Bragdon felt customer service was very important in all departments, both in and out of the building. He had heard from employees in other departments that opportunities for skill development were very important to them. He asked if it was an issue in her department as well. Ms. Sims responded that she had recently completed interviews with accounting staff that showed training as their number one concern in regard to doing their jobs better. Computer skills and the use of PeopleSoft software were a high priority for staff. She said ASD had been forced to under-spend their budget and training had been cut back over the past several years. Councilor Atherton asked if any Council staff had attended customer service training in the past several years. Mr. Houser could not recall any such training for Council staff in that time.

Mr. Houser noted the proposed increase in the amount dedicated to staff development. He said if ASD was in a position to expend only the funds allocated for this purpose, they might want to look at dedicating a portion of the development allocation to something else. He noted ASD's priority list of items to be restored if money was available for some basic work. He felt the question became whether the department wanted to allocate enhanced money for staff development and travel, for example, when a position supporting Metro's the MBE/WBE/DBE/ESB (Minority/Women/Disabled Business Enterprise and Emerging Small Businesses) program was being cut. He said it was a difficult call to make. Ms. Sims reiterated that the training was needed and their intent was to do the training. It was broken into two parts: 1) PeopleSoft and 2) other skill development. She felt it was an important budget item.

Councilor Washington asked about complaints he had heard that Metro did not address MBE/WBE/DBE/ESB issue as well as the City and County did. He felt Metro needed to take a hard look at this, Metro surely had a minimum obligation in this area and in many situations this program was the first to be cut. Chair McLain asked what the program cost last year. Ms. Sims responded that this position and related materials and services cost $66k. Chair McLain said it was her understanding that they were not obligated to do this by federal law, but the Council had previously agreed that minimal good business practices should be in place to participate in a program of this type. She asked Ms. Sims to explain how they would do the minimum work without that position in place. Ms. Sims answered that they had worked out a plan between ASD and Transportation, which had grant requirements to meet in the area, to cover the minimal grant requirements between the two departments. She agreed with Councilor Washington that this should not be cut if there was another choice, but there was no other choice. She had to cut three positions and this was one of them. Chair McLain asked Mr. Houser to review the transportation budget in this regard and how the integration was being done before the budget was voted on.

Councilor Atherton asked if there was a protocol when people received training and then left Metro. Ms. Sims responded this was a common experience, especially in IT (Information Technology) and Accounting, where staff was trained and then left within a year. She noted that this was not unusual in the current job market and there was no protocol in place to address it. Chair McLain asked if Councilor Washington was requesting an amendment to add MBE/WBE/DBE/ESB back into the budget. Councilor Washington said he was; he knew it was difficult, but it was a program well worth having. Chair McLain asked Mr. Houser to review this cut and come up with an amendment for discussion at Committee.

Mr. Houser noted that if this position was in fact eliminated, the Metro Code would have to be amended. Chair McLain said that she was interested in the Code language, as well as the minutes from those meetings. Councilor Bragdon asked about alternative ways to provide staffing support in terms of the elements of the agency that did the most contracting, i.e. REM, Zoo, MERC - was there another way to achieve the same results without the assigned FTE. Ms. Sims explained that the position is now vacant and in the interim they were working with other departments to carry on under the Code. The work impact on departments had not been sorted out. The focal point, coordination and presence would be lost. The person who held this position had been a really good ambassador and a community presence. Chair McLain said she had always supported this program but that a budget cut made it impossible in her mind to carry on the Code language currently in place. It was an efficiency, management and FTE issue.

Mr. Houser addressed the budget narrative that implied a cut back in the number of credit checks of vendors. The response indicated that what we are really doing was cutting back the number of services used to acquire credit information. The budget proposed to cut back to using only one such agency, foregoing the potential information that second credit agency might have.

Mr. Houser addressed computer software upgrades in ASD. He said that Metro was always at risk that the support entities for the various platforms, operating systems, etc. might decide that they would no longer support a particular aspect of that platform or system. For example they might say they would require the use of Windows NT in order to continue support of the application. If Windows NT was not being used, but IT wanted to continue receiving support for the software application, then IT would have to get Windows NT. No particular area had been targeted as a possible trouble area, but IT had eliminated the money to accommodate the situation, should it occur. Chair McLain said they have gone through this before; Metro was in a catch 22 with regard to service. A point always came where the next generation of software was required. She asked if there was any predictability as to when they would or would not service an iteration? Ms. Sims said that PeopleSoft normally advised what the next release would be and what the base requirements were; in other cases it was less predicable. Currently, no such requirements seemed to be on the horizon, so it was taken out of the budget. It could still come up. Chair McLain saw it as a black hole without organizational funding. She directed the problem be added to the list of issues to be reviewed in May.

Mr. Houser noted there was a budget note from Council in the FY 1999-00 budget directing ASD to fund an independent analysis of its accounting and business procedures. No direct identifiable source was provided to pay for it. The issue was still there, but the Budget Advisory Committee recognized that we should proceed to try to find funding for this type of analysis, that there was a potential for increased efficiencies and an improved level of control for business and accounting procedures. The Advisory Committee should determine if this was a high enough priority to attempt to find funding ($50-60k).

Mr. Houser read Question 6, under Regular Staff Development into the record and requested ASD and Auditor reaction to this question re transferring resources from the Auditor's Office to Accounting by the Advisory Committee. Chair McLain asked if anyone had anything else to say. No one responded. Mr. Houser said another question was raised at the Advisory Committee's conclusion that the implementation of PeopleSoft had been uneven, limiting the new system’s effectiveness. He wanted staff’s reaction to how it might be addressed in the proposed budget. Ms. Sims responded the unevenness was due to the availability of training and the receptivity of various departments to get up to speed and utilize the system. She said great progress was achieved this last year. With the completion of the project, the project manager was used to provide training. A more standard level of use had been achieved across the organization. Councilor Washington asked for figures on the cost for PeopleSoft. Ms. Sims said that next year’s budget proposed no further implementation of PeopleSoft, leaving it at the current 7 modules. That total, including purchase of software, hardware, implementation and training, was just over $2 million. Not all monies were spent, so it could be used for other PeopleSoft recommendations.

Mr. Houser said his recommendations would be ready for the April 17 meeting. Chair McLain stated that because of the cuts proposed, all budgets would be suspect until the Committee had a chance to review the base. Cuts would come very quickly and it was important to get them on the table by April 17. The final budget action would be April 27, so the date of April 17 allowed 10 days for review and adjustment.

Mr. Houser moved on to Financial Planning. Chair McLain said one of the things brought up by Councilor Atherton on maintenance was answered as far as the definition of how it was done, but would be addressed further as part of the capital improvement discussions in May. Mr. Houser said in comprehensive financial policies, only preliminary work had been done. It was not directly covered in the current work plan, but could be added. Ms. Sims said that when this Committee moved into the next phase of work, many of the issues surrounding funding would bring the Committee back to the question of financial policies. She suggested that it possibly could be put on the list. Chair McLain agreed.

Mr. Houser went on to Property Services and the financial status of the parking garage. Operations were $54k in the hole. Expenses included debt service on the structure, all revenues and potential expenditures. Chair McLain noted some University of Oregon students were working on potential use of the air space above the parking structure for housing. She hoped that the housing potential for sale or lease could be beneficial to solving the deficit. She asked to be informed of the findings. Further, the Metro staff person working on that project was a proposed elimination in the budget cuts. She said we needed help to make up that $54k deficit; just selling parking had not worked. She asked Mr. Houser and ASD to look for a way for the project to go forward despite the FTE reduction. She said a budget note would be okay, but would rather have suggestions regarding staff configuration that would allow the work to continue.

Councilor Washington suggested skate boarders should be charged admission because they are in the garage every weekend. Ms. Sims said it was a great idea, but then someone would have to be hired to collect the money. Councilor Bragdon asked if the garage had an operating deficit net of the debt service. Ms. Sims said no, it was the total package that caused the deficit and ceasing parking would worsen the deficit. Councilor Bragdon agreed with Councilor McLain’s point regarding the use of air space for housing. The students took pictures and planed to return twice in May, at no charge. There was potential revenue in shared parking, as well as potential retail. Councilor Atherton noted that a skate board admission charge in Lake Oswego had not worked. He asked if an enlarged Fareless Square and a proposed pedestrian bridge might help the situation. Ms. Sims said it might, but it was more a factor of supply and demand; if people thought it was easier and less expensive to park on the east side, it could help, but it was hard to tell at this point.

Mr. Houser said there was an issue of actual versus projected expenditures for maintenance and repair services. The actual expenditures were below budgeted expenditures by nearly $20,000, which raised the question of whether the gap should be allowed to remain. Chair McLain suggested that if the machines had been operating well and continuously, this $20,000 should be looked at since actuals proved the amount was over-budgeted.

Mr. Houser went on to the level of utility services costs with electric lights being left on at off hours. Ms. Sims noted there had not been a change in lighting policy. Chair McLain said she did not understand why there was a perception of lights being left on. Her experience was that lights went off even when people were in the room. She would consider it further.

Mr. Houser finished with ASD's limited 'wish' list and said that further discussion would be held in May. Chair McLain asked about the Print shop. Ms. Sims said that the Print Shop was integral to Metro operations, and the .5 FTE was necessary to cover illness and vacation time. She provided a list of services that would and would not be provided, ASD Budget and ASD Services in FY 2000-01. It is included in the public record. Councilor Atherton asked about accounting overtime. Ms. Sims said it was about .5 FTE, and its primary use was for year-end closing and the upgrade for PeopleSoft. Councilor Atherton inquired about number 6, Processes Study for $120,000 would be for an estimate for comprehensive target review.

Mr. Houser said the Human Resource (HR) budget was a fairly bare-boned budget. Chair McLain said one of the issues regarding the MERC subsidy was if sufficient funds were budgeted to handle hr requests as historically noted. Ruth Scott said the same number of FTE had been retained in this year’s budget as last year. Chair McLain asked if Metro was still handling the majority of that type of work for MERC. Ms. Scott responded that they were. Chair McLain asked if Metro was still assisting in review and maintenance of the MERC pay plan. Ms. Scott said yes, it had been implemented and was in a maintenance mode. Metro HR and HRIS people do the maintenance to the plan and salary structure. Chair McLain asked that if MERC maintained the HR position in their budget would that HR person be retained for additional projects beyond the basic package. Ms. Scott introduced the new HR Manager, Lillie Aguillar.

Mr. Houser addressed the IT budget. Metro had five database systems, three network operating systems and two work station platforms that were the result of past independent IT systems’ purchases. The Advisory Committee said it was expensive and unsustainable. Ms. Scott said the network operating system was one issue that the subcommittee of the IT Steering Committee was addressing. She thought they would come up with a better system(s) that would better utilize the agency-wide applications, integrate what Metro had and make it more cost effective. Chair McLain said she felt this team would take Metro out of the black hole and allow the agency to catch-up and keep up.

Mr. Houser noted that management of the networks was largely divided among existing IMS, Growth Management and Transportation staff, which meant each area had to build a level of technical expertise. The Advisory Committee felt this was expensive and inefficient. Ms. Scott said the IT Steering Committee would actually be strategic oversight for this work. The IT director would be the policymaker agency-wide by bringing in positions for the diverse silos we currently have. All that expertise would be brought together to cross-train, back-up, and create greater perspective in job descriptions. Chair McLain thought it was exactly what was needed.

Mr. Houser said the next issue was the centralized purchasing of computer equipment and software system related equipment. Essentially, it was a cost item. If a system or software was purchased that could not be supported, it forced IT to go out and get the expertise to provide the support. A more centralized oversight would ensure that all departments know whether or not the software they wanted could be supported in-house. Ms. Scott said it was not the intention to tie anyone’s hands in the agency but some oversight regarding compatibility should exist.

Mr. Houser discussed the current status of the implementation and upgrading of the InfoLink system, and the secondary issues of non-IT staff within ASD who were still needed to complete that work. Currently, ASD had to devote a significant amount of time to ensure that some of the upgrading operations occurred in a timely manner. Ms. Scott said it was true that departmental functional staff was still used for upgrades without foreseeable changes in the future. Chair McLain said this was the money constraint issue. Councilor Atherton asked if revamping IT would address this issue as well. Ms. Scott did not feel it would help immediately, as this issue was an additional body count issue. Mr. Houser closed by saying burn-out was the issue.

Mr. House said it was difficult to retain staff due to Metro's salary versus what the private sector offered. Ms. Scott said a presentation had been made to AFSCME (American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees) proposing a career ladder system (AFSCME represented IT staff). They said they would take it to their members for consideration. Basically, it was a three-tier career ladder from entry level progressing through a series of ladders. With regard to Metro being a training ground for staff who leave, part of the presentation to AFSCME was a payback strategy. For example, after receiving a certain amount of training, e.g. $1,800, Metro would expect a payback of 18 months service. She did not feel it had much chance of success.

Mr. Houser covered the lease of PeopleSoft hardware upgrade. While we had a number of flex leases, the shear number allowed us to charge off some costs against grants, but the amount of interest was becoming fairly significant. We got a charge-off benefit but we also had to pay. Casey Short, ASD Analyst, said the principle reason was case flow. Payment could be spread out over three years, rather than a lump sum payment. The interest, generally on a capital lease, was not disadvantageous. He asked to correct a statement he had made, which was that not all of the debt service was chargeable to the grant. Only the interest was chargeable against the grant. Chair McLain said this sounded like a May discussion item.

Mr. Houser said IT proposed to spend in two principle areas: 1) conversion of the database to the Oracle Database system, and 2) combining the current operating systems, using the $403k. Ms. Scott said ultimately Metro would have to convert to an Oracle Database system, we had no choice. Chair McLain said there must be an industry indicator that had this information. Ms. Scott said they hoped this kind if information would come with the IT Director - global perspective and the knowledge to review trends. Steve Heck, IT Manager, said the issue of migration to the Oracle Database was tied to the number of operating systems and databases. IT had some existing Oracle Database expertise in the Data Resource Center, so one of the benefits of migrating to Oracle would be to give IT more critical mass within Metro. A lot of organizations are looking at this type of information. Councilor Atherton said this information stunned him; he compared the situation to VHS versus Beta. Was Oracle a true, genuinely better product? Mr. Heck said it was an interesting analogy; both were good products, but Oracle was marketed and funded better. Metro must go with the better supported product. For example, if more Informix staff left, it would be very difficult to replace that staff. However, Oracle staff resources were more flush. He said Metro had made contacts with other public sector entitles who utilized PeopleSoft, like Portland Public Schools, Bonneville Power Administration and Clackamas County. That would provide more opportunities for development of critical mass. Ms. Scott said a user’s group had been formed with the hopes of obtaining strength in numbers.

Chair McLain said there had been an inquiry regarding supporting IT by reconfiguring its structure. Had that happened? Mr. Houser said he had not received a formal request to develop an amendment related to the IT directorship. Chair McLain asked to have all amendments on the table by April 17 and requested staff to talk to each councilor about any issues they might have. Ms. Scott asked to amend the answer to Question 10 to include an additional $13k for reclassification of the position that was transferred from Growth Management. Chair McLain said to make sure that it was included in the bottom line.

Mr. Houser spoke to the Auditor’s Proposed FY 00-01 Budget questions and response and is included in the public record. Alexis Dow, Auditor, said that Metro does not have a requirement to adhere to line item budgetary limits. The Council had granted her office the authority to use personal service dollars for materials and services, and visa versa. With that flexibility in mind, she felt she had done an excellent job of managing the office in terms of the total rather than each line item. Historically, the number of reports planned for issue, were issued. The actual spending approximated the budget with the exception of those cases where specific items were identified for carry forward. While she had interchanged dollars between materials and services and personal services, there was not as much flexibility as appears. Looking at the permanent employee positions and the amount designated for outside financial statement audit contract, it accounted for over 85% of her budget. There was only 15% flexibility. She said she did not go by individual line items. When she received budget directions, they said to use last year's amount, plus a certain percentage. That was what she had done with just the total number in mind for operating the whole department.

Chair McLain clarified that instead of looking at actuals, Ms. Dow was adding a percentage increase. Ms. Dow said that was correct. Chair McLain asked what the percentage increase was based on. Ms. Dow said based on guidance from the Executive Officer. Chair McLain asked what the guidance was this year. Ms. Dow said base plus. What she had submitted was last year’s actual budget number. Chair McLain asked Ms. Dow if it was correct that she had not gone back to look at what was actually spent, or the cost of the service, but took last year’s budget and added the percentage. Ms. Dow said she did that for the department as a whole, but did not break it out into individual line items for budgetary purposes. Chair McLain asked if she knew what utilities cost last year. Ms. Dow said it was nominal, probably about $600. Mr. Houser said the Council had always directed the analysts to look at line items and make a judgment as to whether the projected budget for those items appeared to be justified. Michael Morrissey, Council Analyst, said typically that departments were asked to explain line items that exceeded 5% of current year expenditures. Most departments did, and although tedious, most of the agency did explain items greater than 5%. Chair McLain said that Ms. Dow’s explanation clarified for the Chair a different philosophy, however this budget was funded from the cost allocation plan, and the cost allocation plan effected everyone’s budget, not just the auditor’s. It was important that the cost allocation plan be very accurate. She asked Ms. Dow to explain the needs of the line items. Ms. Dow responded that it was her understanding that if the increase was over the prior year’s budget, that was the explanation. If, in fact, the instruction was for prior year actuals, then she owed the Committee an explanation. In that case, she would like to take the 15% of her budget that had flexibility and go back and recast the numbers based on actual experience. She said she would be glad to recast it with line items more reflective of actual expenditures. She had used this approach for the last five years, but would change the format.

Chair McLain said the actuals have always been requested because of the use of excise tax money, and the impact it had on other departments in the agency. She appreciated the fact that Ms. Dow was willing to go back and look at the actuals, and letting the committee know of the adjustments. Ms. Dow said that there were no percentage increases, and she would provide the additional detail. Chair McLain asked Mr. Houser for advice. Mr. Houser responded that approximately $5k had been spent by the Auditor’s Office for office supplies. For this year’s budget and next year’s budget the request had been for $9,362. Ms. Dow said she could justify the historical level of expenditures overall and would get back to the committee with that information. Chair McLain said it would be helpful to have the actuals and the need explained if an increase in budget was requested. Ms. Dow said she would be happy to break it out more accurately.

Mr. Houser said in the last fiscal year (98-99), the actual expenditures for operating supplies was zero. The $5,150 requested for the current fiscal year as well as FY 2000-01 made Mr. Houser wonder what it was for. Mr. Houser said the amount of $96k was for contract professional services with the major component being a contract with an outside vendor to do Metro's required annual outside financial audit. The annual amount had fluctuated from year to year. This number was determined by how much was dedicated to that audit as well as any other funds to be expended. A table outlining where those expenditures came from and are anticipated to come from was included. Ms. Dow responded that the question looked for the detail in expenditures for professional services and the table indicated actual numbers with estimates for the balance of this year and next. In 97-98 the bulk of expenditures was for the financial statement audit. In 98-99, the bulk was for the financial statement audit and the work that done relative to InfoLink. In the current year, about two-thirds of the amount would be needed between the audit and InfoLink. Some other items in the current year had to do with bringing in additional audit resources to complete audits. For the coming year, approximately $75k had been estimated for the financial statement audit; using the prior year budget number carrying forward was $96k. The balance was about $21k which would be used to pay for the amendment submitted for $2,500 for the peer review, leaving about $18k toward the .5 FTE in contracting dollars of about $30k.

Mr. Houser called the committee’s attention of one number in the current fiscal year column which went back to the issue of line item budgeting. It was noted “transfer to personal services” of $16k. The Auditor already had some level of funding for temporary services within the personal services line item. This amount was intended for use to supplement that amount. Again, this $16k was not clearly identified within any line item within the materials and services portion of the budget other than this general contracted professional services, but would in fact supplement the personal services element of the budget. Ms. Dow said that it went hand in hand with the concept of having funds available part-time, half-time FTE professional and $30k in contracting. It depended upon the mix. It depended upon the work that needed to be done. Sometimes it was better to have it done by an outside consulting firm, and sometimes by contract staff. Flexibility was important.

Mr. Houser said the line for travel and staff development was a matter of several thousand dollars dealing with actuals and budgeted amounts. Ms. Dow said they were actually for the current year. There were a number of continuing education conferences scheduled for May. Ms. Dow said the professional certification for the year ended in June. Usually a large number of offerings were presented for credential updating.

Mr. Houser next examined the Executive Officer’s cut to the Auditor’s budget of about $30k in the temporary employee line item in personal services. He asked the Auditor to explain what that cut would mean in relation to the number of audits scheduled during the coming year. Ms. Dow said it would reduce the number of audits to be done. She said the result would be to reduce the effectiveness of the auditor function at Metro. Five years ago, after careful research, she determined that it would be appropriate to have a staff of four auditors. The first year she had two, the second year she had three, and because of flexibility, a half-time position with about $30k in contracting money was decided. Eliminating the half-time position and not funding the $30k was a significant reduction in the ability to accomplish what should be addressed. She felt it was incumbent upon the Auditor to address emerging issues as they arose and review operations by department every 3-4 years.

Mr. Houser said Question 7 was to give the committee a better understanding of approximately how long it had taken for audit reports to be produced and the approximate number of audits produced annually. Ms. Dow said that each audit takes about 6 months on average, allowing each auditor to produce two audits per year. Some audits can be done in less time, others take longer. Seven have been issued this year, with one more for sure, possibly two by the end of June or during the summer. Three informational papers have been issued. Because of the size of Metro and the size of the Auditor’s office, there was a need to have a certain amount of visibility in the organization.

Ms. Dow noted that the Budget Advisory Group had met twice as a group, and with the department head and individual members. She could not begin to explain how they reached their observation since no one in that group had auditing experience, and no one spoke with members of her department. She felt the comments were superficial and without basis. She spoke with the individual who evaluated her office and felt he did not know what her office did. He was unaware that the Auditor’s Office performed operational audits. Her office did not do transactional audits. Certain transactions would be reviewed occasionally in conjunction with an audit. She said the evaluator’s comments were certainly misdirected and based on misunderstandings. Councilor Atherton asked if it would be useful to reconvene the Budget Advisory group with Ms. Dow on the committee. She responded that she would be happy to do that.

Chair McLain asked about the composition of the Budget Advisory committee. Ms. Sims said they convened for three meetings and the group consisted of representatives from the private and public sectors with experience and knowledge in different areas of Metro’s services, not with audit backgrounds, but with public sector backgrounds. Chair McLain said that as the Committee reviewed needs, they could determine whether or not the group’s comments were legitimate. She said putting the group together again might not be necessary.

Chair McLain said the committee would continue to discuss these issues on Monday. There might be another meeting added as well. Mr. Houser said that no standing committee meetings had been cancelled to his knowledge, but a possible time might be after next the Council meeting.

Mr. Houser said he had no questions of the Office of General Counsel’s budget, but that the General Counsel would be bringing forward an amendment dealing with an item left out of the budget relating to the records management/archivist position on Monday. He had no questions with regard to the Office of Citizen Involvement, the chair might bring forward some amendments on Monday. Executive Office, Council and Support Service elements had been largely addressed in the General Fund discussion. All amendments had been brought forward and addressed. Building and Risk Management Fund questions had been addressed, and no amendments surfaced.

Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 3:44 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Weathers

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2000

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

i:\minutes\2000\budget&finance/04120bdm.doc