MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE

Monday, April 17, 2000

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  None

Also Present:    David Bragdon, Ed Washington

Chair McLain called the meeting to order at 3:23 P.M.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 3, 4 AND 6, 2000, BUDGET AND FINANCE 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 all technical and substantive amendments were complete to date. Due to Counsel's other commitments the Committee would begin with the Office of General Counsel (OGC) amendment. A copy is included in the public record.

Dan Cooper, Metro General Counsel, said the line item that funded the archivist was inadvertently left off of the original budget submission.

Chair McLain said that the next amendments to be reviewed were for the Administrative Services Department (ASD). Copies are included in the public record.

Councilor Washington said regarding MBE/WBE/DBE/ESB (Minority/Women/Disabled Business Enterprise and Emerging Small Businesses), that it was common sense that Metro support and preserve contracting procedures that provided fair and equal access for women and minority businesses. Chair McLain said the amendment would help Metro provide leadership on the issue. This position allowed the agency to do at least the minimum of what was considered good practices for this type of program for minorities and women. The position was cut without the Council’s advice/input regarding following the Metro Code and Council policy. Therefore, she planned to support Councilor Washington’s amendment, which required raising approximately $77k to fund the program and position. She urged the rest of the Council to support it as well.

Councilor Atherton asked how many years the project/program had been in effect. Chair McLain said since 1992. Councilor Atherton asked if there had been any benchmarks for measuring the success of the program. He asked if there had been changes in attitudes and when the program would stop, or if Metro would need it in perpetuity. John Houser, Council Analyst, said staff created an annual report for the Council related to the program that described the number of contracts Metro had with women and minority businesses.

Scott Moss, Assistant ASD Director, said Metro’s performance, in terms of this issue, varied from year to year depending on the number and type of projects the agency was involved with. Performance went up significantly when the agency added emerging small businesses to the program, including Portland Metropolitan Exposition Center (Expo), with approximately 26% participation. Councilor Atherton asked if staff had ever explored the concept of a small grant, perhaps $10k to $12k to the Chamber of Commerce, for outreach and to encourage participation in the program. He asked if it was something Metro needed to have in-house. There must have been a reason why the program was cut. Mr. Moss said he was delighted it was back in the budget. Contracts was not a mission-critical program, but it was an important program for Metro and the region. ASD had looked at other sources, such as OAME (Oregon Association of Minority Entrepreneurs), a local association of minorities, but had not developed serious discussions.

Councilor Atherton asked if staff explored other alternatives since there was a Council directive that required the policy to be implemented. Council felt it was part of the mission of the agency. Councilor Washington said every other jurisdiction in the region had minority contracting programs. The Council could try to eliminate the program, but he would not vote to support that action. Upcoming projects at the Expo and OCC (Oregon Convention Center) would offer opportunities for people to participate in the contracting process. As long as Metro could be involved, the agency should be involved. It was good business and the community looked to Metro for leadership. It was a good program to retain and keep active. Presiding Officer Bragdon asked if Metro had any policy that ensured that vendors did not discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation, and if so, was it covered by this position. Mr. Moss said all Metro’s contracts and solicitations addressed that issue and included language that prohibited discrimination. However, the agency did not have an affirmative action program where the agency evaluated contractors.

Councilor Atherton said when a governing body made a policy and expected it to be implemented, a department must provide alternative ways to comply with the Council directive, before recommending elimination of the program from the budget. He asked if they had provided any such documentation. Chair McLain said that at the first Budget meeting ASD had indicated that they would try to determine how a staff member could implement the code. Council had not received any explanation of the issue before the position was cut, or how it might be facilitated at a lower cost by an outside organization such as the Chamber of Commerce. Councilor Monroe said he always supported Metro’s efforts to strengthen businesses owned by women and minorities because it was an important part of the agency’s outreach into the community. It also strengthened the overall community. He thanked Councilor Washington for his vigilance in supporting the issue and would support it as well.

Michael Morrissey, Council Analyst, said ASD amendment #3 dealt with the preparation and delivery of the Metropolitan Exposition-Recreation Commission (MERC) budget to the Executive Office and then to the Council. MERC and Metro worked on different budgetary timelines. This amendment was essentially a budget note directing a reworking of Metro Code to more clearly direct that ASD staff received the MERC budget in time to provide an analysis. It would add .5 FTE analyst to the ASD budget, in part to help with this analysis during annual budget time, and throughout the year.

Chair McLain stated that when the Committee reviewed Metro Code they found that review of the MERC budget was required by Metro as MERC's budget authority. It was important that Metro adhere to the Code. Metro could expect some assistance in the review of that budget, just like every other proposed budget that came to the Council from the Executive Office. Mr. Morrissey added that it helped to have the work done by the Executive department on their material. The analysts received budget notebooks from MERC staff. Assistance from the ASD staff, who looked at each budget and compared each budget to the whole Metro organization, was very helpful. He assumed the cost would be allocated and distributed through the allocation cost formula if the Committee recommended it. Jennifer Sims, ASD Director, said ASD eliminated one full position when the Code change was implemented, but it did not correlate exactly to the reduction of work. The position would give welcome assistance to review of the budget. As to whether it should be a direct add-on to MERC or put in the general allocation, she proposed it be put in the general allocation to create a system where all of the analysts would be treated equally. Chair McLain agreed that this made sense, as it would also add to the body of work, not necessarily to a function.

Tony Mounts, Manager, Financial Planning Division, commented that MERC had its own budget process that supported the Commission’s review of its budget. He was concerned that whatever review of MERC’s budget Metro performed be appropriate and performed within the budget review process used by MERC. Metro should not make MERC adjust to Metro’s budget process. Chair McLain appreciated Mr. Mounts’ sensitivity to the issue. She said that Mr. Morrissey also had tried to note that issue in the analysis he provided.

Councilor Atherton asked why the $45k was necessary. He asked if it was possible that the agency could create a budget note that indicated the budget be provided at the time that all other Metro departments was provided. Then the Council could observe the process, instead of justifying a $45k expenditure that might not be necessary. Mr. Morrissey responded that even if it was not a one-to-one exact reduction when ASD lost staff, it was, at least in part, related to the fact that the analysis of the MERC budget had been at a much more arm-length removal three years ago. ASD staff was lean and efficient, at least during budget time. The amendment was meant to recognize the additional work ASD would have. He was not sure if a half-time position was the right amount or not, but he at least wanted to propose that amount.

Chair McLain said the amendment was to discuss Council’s request for more review. It might not have been the correct vehicle and the timing might not have been right; however the issue was to make sure Council received the MERC budget at the same time as other department budgets were presented. Metro still needed time to review the MERC budget. She said that the issue could be divided into two amendments, if that was desired. Councilor Atherton preferred that suggestion and asked for direction on a motion. Chair McLain suggested Councilor Atherton move to divide the amendment and indicate that he wanted the first amendment to include just the budget note on the timing of receiving the budget.

Councilor Monroe said it would be inappropriate for the Council to add responsibilities to an office that was already extremely overburdened, without also giving them additional resources. Councilor Atherton said he was not as confident as Councilor Monroe was about adding $45k to the budget. He asked that the Auditor or the independent agency that audits the Metro budget be asked for their input. He wanted to know whether having timely access to the budget was necessary and if Metro needed to add more staff. He planned to vote no on the amendment. Chair McLain said ASD #3B was simply the .5 FTE (full-time equivalent) Analyst III be added (as recommended) to assist with the tracking and analysis of the annual budget.

Mr. Houser, introduced IT (Information Technology) amendment #1. A copy is included in the public record.

Ruth Scott, Interim IT Director, said the Executive Office opposed this amendment. The Executive Office felt it was important to maintain the IT Director position in the budget. Councilor Monroe asked if the amendment was related to the IT discussion at MERC and Metro. Chair McLain said no it was not. Councilor Monroe asked if the position would facilitate the merger of MERC/Metro IT needs. Chair McLain and Ms. Scott both said no. Councilor Monroe asked why the position was needed. Ms. Scott responded that it had been decided that the IT department should do strategic planning and future IT directions for the entire agency. Further, the position should be a high enough level to develop customer service agreements with the different departments that it served through the cost allocation program. At other agencies the highest level IT position was comparable to Metro’s Director I level.

Presiding Officer Bragdon said there were IT needs, especially line service help, that needed to be managed throughout Metro. The question was the level that would provide the most effective service to the agency. Chair McLain understood that the original proposed budget included a description of the manager it was felt would be the most appropriate and effective for the restructured IT department. She asked if they had discussed and considered alternatives to the director level position.

Bruce Warner, Executive Office Chief Operating Officer, said Ms. Scott had outlined how important the position was. There were problems to overcome and improvements to be made in the delivery of IT services throughout the agency. The process could be much more efficient and effective. The Executive Office had a Plan B if Council decided not to create this new IT position. It would essentially be to restructure the existing manager position and upgrade the description and levels to match what was wanted in the position. Councilor Atherton asked if Mr. Warner was saying the Executive Office needed the new position, but if they did not receive it they would reserve other positions that were not filled or retrain.

Mr. Warner clarified his remarks by saying the Executive Office currently had an IT manger. It was their belief, that in order to take the agency to a higher level, a new position, with additional duties and responsibilities beyond what were currently assigned to the existing manager, was needed. There had been some turnover issues in the IT department, due in part to salary concerns. Metro needed to provide salaries that allowed the agency to recruit and retain quality IT employees. Plan B would upgrade an existing position to obtain the qualifications (knowledge, skills and abilities) needed in the IT Director position with a salary commensurate with market demands.

Councilor Atherton said that like Councilor Monroe he was looking for some savings in the budget, but he had not seen that happening. Mr. Warner suggested that this amendment would save money for MERC and the rest of the agency in terms of indirect cost allocations. Councilor Atherton asked if trying Plan B first, before they made a commitment to add more FTE, had been discussed. Mr. Warner said they had not achieved that level of discussion today. Councilor Atherton asked if it was an option. Presiding Officer Bragdon said the extent of his conversation with the Executive Officer was that he had heard sentiment among Councilors questioning the position and whether there were other ways to achieve the same goal. Ms. Scott clarified that if the Council did not give the Executive Office the director position, the existing FTE would be used (Plan B).

Councilor Monroe said in earlier discussions he heard that one area where Metro would achieve efficiency by merging Metro and MERC activities was in the IT area. He asked if that was still planned and if it was related to the director position. Mr. Warner said it was his vision to bring Metro, MERC and all the other satellite operations into a much more integrated system than existed today, from an IT standpoint. He believed the proposed position would help the agency achieve that goal quicker.

Chair McLain stated that the Auditor amendments would be addressed next. Copies are included in the public record. Mr. Houser noted there were several line items about which he raised specific questions, based on apparent disparity between the requested amount and actual expenditures. Ms. Dow reviewed her actual level of expenditure for certain line items, particularly in cases where reductions were noted. He had worked with her to determine that those line items could be reduced to more closely reflect actual expenditures. Alexis Dow, Metro Auditor, said she would begin with AUD amendment #4.

Chair McLain asked if the amendment would reduce the line items by those amounts. Mr. Houser said yes, but on the flip side, personal services were slated to increase by $4.7k for COLA (cost of living adjustment) related salary increases for staff. Chair McLain asked if the Auditor had under-budgeted that amount in the line item. Mr. Houser said yes, the Auditor felt she could finance COLA from the combined total she allocated for both M&S (materials and services) and personal services. He felt it was more appropriate from a budgetary standpoint to directly budget COLA in personal services rather than assume the combined total could absorb the increases. Chair McLain asked if essentially what Metro did was to ask that the budget reflect actuals. Mr. Houser agreed.

Ms. Dow noted that the audit of the Auditors office was an independent and impartial peer review. She did not select the auditor. The National Association of Local Government Auditors (NALGA) assigned audits. She felt that the current level of funds and staffing was the minimum needed for her to complete her required duties. She identified the sections of the Metro Code that required adequate funding for her office and the nine major elements that were included within the scope of her work. She said the proposed Auditor’s Office budget was presented by the Executive Officer and represented his view of how her office should operate. The budget was created without her input or approval. She occasionally felt pressure to provide a positive image of Metro, because of political considerations. Her goals and reports were intended as constructive criticism designed to continuously improve Metro’s operating practices.

She said that perhaps all the agency wanted to hear was good news, not bad. She felt her office was considered the enemy instead of the messenger, and often reports were challenged based on few, if any facts, despite the fact that department heads usually agreed with her findings. She said a diminished Auditors office was not in Metro’s best interest. It should be capable of providing objective, independent information that would facilitate increased public confidence in Metro and boost the agency’s level of public accountability. She asked the Council to 1) approve all the budget amendments she submitted and 2) establish a formula to ensure a level of basic support for the Auditor’s office so its Charter mandated independence would be fulfilled.

Councilor Monroe asked, with respect to peer review, if it had been inadvertently omitted from the original budget proposal. Ms. Dow responded yes, she had not realized it was due next year. It was her oversight. Councilor Monroe asked if she had any influence on whom was selected to audit her work. Ms. Dow said, she could select the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), which worked mostly with private sector agencies, or NALGA, which worked mostly with local government agencies. She had used the latter organization, and planned to use them in the future, because they more closely represented the Metro organization. Councilor Monroe asked if there was any reason her audit peer review could not be administered from the Council office. Ms. Dow said no. Councilor Monroe supported the review and AUD amendment #5.

Mr. Houser said when the committee adopted AUD #4 there would be a transfer of approximately $2k to contracted professional services. He suggested when the committee considered AUD #3 and # 5, they might want to remember that; and if they really wanted to add an additional $2.5k. Perhaps the $2k they had already added would be sufficient. Chair McLain suggested AUD #4 was not budget neutral. Ms. Dow said it was not included in AUD #4 because she knew AUD #3 for the $2.5k was coming up. Chair McLain asked what line item included the $2k in AUD #4. Council Monroe and Ms. Dow said it was the $2,047 line item figure in AUD #4. Ms. Dow said it was exclusive of the peer review. Councilor Monroe believed Council analysts and the Auditor could create an additional conforming technical amendment, if necessary. He would let his amendment stand as it was. It placed $2.5k in the Council budget to administer the tri-annual peer review. Chair McLain directed Mr. Houser to handle any technical issues dealing with either of the amendments prior to the presentation of the budget to the full Council.

Councilor Atherton asked if this audit was required as part of having an auditor’s license, and what range of organizations could the Council choose from, and how the Council would do that. Ms. Dow said it was arranged through NALGA or IIA. Councilor Monroe said the amendment was important for public perception and accountability. It would indicate the fact that the peer review would be completely external, not handled by the Auditor herself. Councilor Atherton said it seemed appropriate and would preserve the gentle checks and balances system in the agency.

Councilor Atherton asked Ms. Dow if the Executive Officer provided any written communication or any reason he suggested his changes in her budget. Ms. Dow said she was told the Executive Officer made the cuts in her budget to save money for the agency, particularly in the general fund. But the funding she asked for was part of the cost allocation plan. The effect on the general fund would be less than $3,500 or approximately 9 percent of the funding she sought. Councilor Atherton asked if her budget was part of a cost allocation or head of the organization and not one of the arms. Ms. Dow said it was a support function.

Councilor Atherton felt the leadership functions of the agency seemed to be coming together and that was good. He said he was looking for ways for the Auditor’s Office to provide additional services. He had had discussions with MCCI (Metro Committee for Citizen Involvement) and its chair, Ray Sherwood, about the possibility of the group functioning within the Auditor’s Office. Ms. Dow said Metro would have to decide what MCCI was and why it should be placed in the Council, Executive or Auditor’s office. She felt it was important to have an on-site official provide oversight of the day-to-day work of MCCI volunteer members. She felt that her assistant might be able to assume such responsibilities, as the Auditor’s Office planned to produce shorter, more timely reports. There might be some savings, but she would have to analyze the issue further, then provide the Council an update. Councilor Atherton said one of the key roles of MCCI was to provide a watchdog function of citizen process. It seemed natural to MCCI, that since the Auditor was also a watchdog, there was a natural relationship with MCCI. Regarding the relationship between MCCI and the Auditor’s Office, he thought there were some possibilities for efficiencies in economy and reduction in cost if the Auditor’s Office provided the MCCI service. He asked that the Council recognize that possibility in the analysis of the Auditor’s budget.

Chair McLain asked if there would be the same FTE this year with the proposed budget as last year. Mr. Houser said it would be. The difference would be that historically the Auditor used funding in the temporary employee line item and a portion of her contracted professional services funding to purchase auditing assistance from outside the agency. That assistance did not appear in the Metro budget as an actual FTE. Ms. Dow had indicated her use of that money created one additional person for her staff. Chair McLain asked what the actual expenditure was compared to the budgeted amount. Mr. Houser said during the current budget year, a total of $33,347 was budgeted for temporary employees. AUD #1 asked for a slight adjustment in that amount. In FY 97-98, $39,983 was spent for that purpose. In FY 98-99, it was $29,820. Councilor Atherton asked Ms. Dow to explain the $10k difference. Ms. Dow said during that period they also handled an InfoLink project and juggled numbers to provide as much resource as possible from her budget for that project.

Ms. Dow said she had benchmarked the appropriate size for an Auditor’s Office for an organization the size of Metro and determined four professional staff was appropriate. The best way to give the office the flexibility required to perform the work necessary to meet the different demands and operations at Metro was to have a staff of three full-time plus one part-time employee, leaving approximately $30k for contracting. The $10k would bring the contracted professional services to $30k to provide adequate resources to carry out the duties of her office.

Councilor Atherton asked if the Auditor’s budget had a rainy day or contingency fund. Ms. Dow said no. Councilor Atherton said he could think of many possible reforms in the area discussed. He would support the amendment until Metro developed a clear system for creating a contingency process, because emergencies could happen; e.g. the Auditor might need to contract for more expensive outside assistance.

Councilor Monroe said all departments of the agency had absorbed budget cuts and FTE reductions, except the Auditor’s Office. He understood it would be more difficult for her to perform her duties, but that was true for all Metro departments. It was appropriate for all departments to share the pain, including the Auditor’s Office. That was why he would vote against the amendment. Councilor Atherton said he voted aye because of the possible inclusion of MCCI within the Auditor’s Office, the contingency fund and necessary flexibility considerations.

Ray Sherwood, Chair, MCCI, said his group fully recognized the constraints Metro was operating under. However, no one in the Metro Council or Executive’s Office had offered MCCI relief from a situation he and the other MCCI members considered quite serious. While he did not plan to participate in any budget conversations, he felt it was incumbent upon him to present a defense of MCCI’s position. Chair McLain asked if the budget amendments reflected the official position of MCCI. Mr. Sherwood said yes, to the degree he was able to speak with the members of MCCI. He described the four MCCI budget notes and amendments. Copies of the amendments are included in the public record. Chair McLain wanted to know if they were feasible.

Alida Woodruff, MCCI member, 2143 NE 95^th Pl., Portland, OR, said that she had served with four different MCCI chairs. At the time MCCI moved from Council to the Executive Office, they were promised, but never received, 1.5 FTE to help MCCI record minutes, attend meetings, perform associated work and staff the committee adequately. Presently they did not have 1 FTE. Their staff person also provided many services for the Executive Office not directly connected to MCCI or citizen outreach activities. Chair McLain said she was primarily concerned that, regardless of the configuration, Metro staffed and funded the functions necessary. She asked Kathy Rutkowski, Financial Planning Analyst, to provide her opinion regarding the structure and funding mechanisms presented and the associated issues.

Ms. Rutkowski said MCCI #1 was simply a budget note. There was no funding attached to it, but there would be additional work required in each department. She could not say what that work would be. Her biggest concern was MCCI #2A, which proposed transferring one FTE Associate Public Affairs Specialist from the Transportation Department to MCCI along with the associated funding. In analyzing how each of the Transportation Department’s Public Affairs Specialists was financed, she found that of the 4 FTE, 3.75 FTE were funded in either transportation planning or high capacity transit. Approximately 95% of those sections were funded by grants. It was highly unlikely the grant funding sources for those positions would be available to fund the position if it were part of MCCI. The only other available source of funding was excise tax in the Planning Fund; however that was all programmed for grant matching funds.

Ms. Rutkowski said MCCI #2B was simply an explanation of the duties assigned to the new position. MCCI #3 would transfer funding from the MERC (Metropolitan Exposition-Recreation Commission) budget and OCC (Oregon Convention Center) directly to MCCI. She was not sure whether that could be done, as it would be a direct transfer of resources from MERC's operating enterprise revenue. It was questionable whether it would be an allowable expense. Mr. Houser concurred with Ms. Rutkowski’s assessment of MCCI #2A and 2B. The positions were grant funded and he did not see how they could be moved. He had talked to Mark Williams, MERC General Manager, who also questioned the legality of the funding transfer.

Mr. Sherwood said MCCI did not have a Metro staff person in a position to exercise initiative and perform functions on behalf of the committee because of unknown obligations to the Executive Office. His point was that MCCI needed more staffing assistance. MCCI could serve as a conduit of information to and from Metro, but the amendments referred to work such as meeting minutes and journalism, digested and encapsulated in a format the public could understand (Internet, cable television, etc.) This information was hard for the public to obtain, even for MCCI members. Chair McLain asked Mr. Sherwood to identify MCCI needs that had not been addressed.

Executive Officer Burton said that when the position was moved from the Council to his office, a FTE was designated for MCCI from his existing staff. At that time, he hoped to identify an additional half-time support for MCCI in the future. However, the office staff had shrunk, not increased. The position was designated as MCCI staff. He said the incumbent, Karen Withrow, had done an excellent job for MCCI and was most capable of taking initiative. He felt the issue was whether Ms. Withrow received clear direction from MCCI regarding the functions they wanted performed. He disagreed that MCCI was a watchdog group. Their Charter instructed MCCI to advise the Council and Executive Office on how to involve citizens in the process. He felt there was some disagreement among MCCI members regarding their role. Some members used MCCI as a forum to express their ideas regarding a particular issue, but that was not their charter role.

Mr. Burton said Ms. Withrow was available and her first priority was MCCI. In fact, other members of his staff had filled in for her when she was not available. Last year, MCCI held 96 meetings. The Executive Office provided staffing for all of them. In the LCDC's (Land Conservation and Development Commission) Goals and Guidelines for Land Use Planning, citizen involvement was one of the first topics mentioned. As a member of the very first citizen involvement effort in the state in 1974, he had been part of the same debate concerning the proper role for a citizen organization. The State had instructed his group to advise the City of Portland of ways they could improve citizen access into the process (through information sources, etc.). Chair McLain said she appreciated the clarity he provided. She asked Mr. Sherwood if MCCI’s request for detailed reports for the citizens could be satisfied if Ms. Withrow reviewed the information sources available from the departments, instead of creating a new report.

Mr. Burton said last year he had directed each department to designate a person who would be available to MCCI for outreach and to answer any questions regarding levels of citizen involvement. Those individuals were available to provide the type of information requested in the amendment. Mr. Sherwood said he did not want to imply that Ms. Withrow was not competent, but that her time was so divided, her full capacity was not dedicated to serving MCCI. He said that Mr. Warner had provided the Council with information that indicated she spent only 40% of her time performing MCCI functions. Regarding the availability of funds for the position, they looked at sources that seemed related to MCCI. They would welcome suggestions for funding alternatives. He said the budget amendment resulted from past difficulty MCCI had in obtaining information from the designated department liaisons. Apparently, the problems were caused by the budget structure. The liaisons could not clearly calculate what portion of department budgets were spent on citizen involvement related activities. MCCI tried to evaluate citizen involvement activities by analyzing the level of funding provided by Metro. They also planned to use other evaluation techniques. That was one example of information MCCI could not obtain. Ms. Woodruff commended the two staff members she had served with as a member of the sub-committee, Jan O’Dell, REM, and Ron Klein, Regional Parks and Greenspaces.

Mr. Warner clarified that Ms. Withrow had told him she spent approximately 40% of her time directly in support of the MCCI committee (attending meetings, completing minutes). The rest of her time was spent serving MCCI as they brought issues to her attention. The department liaisons spent approximately .66 FTE serving MCCI. A variety of Metro employees spent time performing citizen involvement work. The Executive Office would be willing to devote more resources to citizen involvement activities if the Council decided it was necessary. Chair McLain suggested MCCI and the Council should consider a review of MCCI future needs, instead of attempting to pass amendments that might not be feasible. She thought the budget process might not be the proper forum, and suggested Metro's Federal and State Legislative Agenda Committee might better address the issues. She also suggested another review of the Metro Charter regarding MCCI's proper role within the agency. Mr. Sherwood agreed with her suggestions and offered MCCI’s cooperation. Councilor Atherton concurred with Chair McLain’s assessment.

Councilor Atherton noted that historically there was more to the history of MCCI type organizations in Oregon. While not necessarily watchdog groups, they helped guarantee the dissemination of reports and meeting notices so citizens had the opportunity to participate in the process, especially land use. There were other laws that governed Metro operations, not just the Charter. That was why he had suggested the association between MCCI and the Auditor’s Office.

Executive Officer Burton said MCCI was a watchdog to ensure citizen access and participation in the process. He asked if MCCI drafted and voted to approve the budget amendments. Mr. Sherwood said due to the time interval between regular meetings, the MCCI membership had not voted on the amendments; but did represent the general opinions of the MCCI membership. Chair McLain proposed assigning the amendments to the Federal and State Legislative Agenda Committee to address the issues with MCCI and the Executive Office, and work toward a resolution. The Committee moved on to Transportation amendment #7.

Councilor Atherton said Metro was part of the consortium on the Willamette Shore Trolley. A copy of the amendment was included in the public record. There had been extensive discussion during the past several years about the difficulty of maintaining the route as a railroad. One opportunity was a pedestrian/bike path either in conjunction with the railroad and trolley operation or a conversion from rail to trail only. Recently, he discussed the issue with the regional trails committee, and explored an expanded vision of the Trails Plan. It would extend the trail along the Willamette greenway from Portland to West Linn and split off in Lake Oswego. He also considered extending it west to integrate Tigard, Tualatin, Sherwood, Beaverton and even Hillsboro along existing public rights of way. The proposed funds would explore the project's feasibility. He recommended an aye vote.

Councilor Monroe supported and applauded the proposal; however, he did not know where to find $50k in excise tax funding in the Transportation Planning Department budget. Andy Cotugno, Transportation Director, had told him the money was not available. Chair McLain suggested that staff look in the greenspace allocation (local share money and trails money and the bond measure). Metro had a Burlington Northern trail that could not be completed with some remaining funding. She did not think the right of way would be achieved any time soon because the short line operator was using it. She suggested a budget note requesting refinement and review of funding sources. Mr. Houser said the Burlington Northern rails-to-trails project never actually had any formal money set aside, despite the fact that Metro was in preliminary discussions with the railroad concerning the possibility of acquiring the right of way. There had been preliminary discussions with the department about this potential, but initial reaction was that they did not think the funds were applicable. He would check further to confirm that.

Chair McLain said she could not support the proposed amendment in its present configuration with its source of funding. Councilor Atherton said he reviewed the transportation budget and it contained funding that could be shifted. Councilor Monroe asked Councilor Atherton if he would be willing to work with staff to modify the amendment to encourage a search for non-General Fund funding sources to finance the feasibility study. He would support the amendment, if it were redrafted in those terms. Councilor Atherton agreed to delay consideration of the amendment until it was redrafted to stress searching for alternative funding sources for the project.

Chair McLain said that she and Councilor Washington had agreed to withdraw MERC #1 and MERC #2, and replace them with a MERC #3. A copy is included in the public record. Councilor Washington said Mr. Williams wanted to know what the Council’s position would be on Civic Stadium and if MERC would be responsible for the $107k. Chair McLain said the issue had been discussed before. As soon as Mr. Williams knew when MERC would relinquish management of the Civic Stadium, the Council would consider that issue. The same would be true in the reverse situation if the OCC expansion and/or Expo Building D were completed and required more MERC services. The issue did not affect the bottom line of the amendment.

Councilor Washington asked whether the $107k was tied to the MERC #3 amendment. Chair McLain said yes, it was definitely not tied to an increase or reduction in Metro’s subsidy. Councilor Monroe also had talked to Mr. Williams about the issue; Mr. Williams had said if the transfer occurred after July 1, 2000, he would have the authority to handle it. However, if it happened prior to July 1, 2000, Metro would need an emergency budget amendment for the FY 1999-2000 budget year, the current budget year. He assured Mr. Williams he would support that before the Council and it could be accomplished in a timely manner. Councilor Washington asked if a budget note that indicated that might be appropriate to address that issue. Chair McLain said that the amendment language indicated that if MERC’s responsibilities increased or decreased the Council would discuss the ramifications. Mr. Williams had been satisfied with that response. Councilor Atherton said now Metro needed to find ways to fund the amendment and reduce the excise taxes.

Chair McLain noted the document, Proposed General Fund Additions/Reductions. A copy is included in the public record. She asked staff to update it for Council review. She suggested with Committee approval that they recess now and reconvene at noon on Thursday, April 20 to review what the Committee/Council must do to balance the budget.

Chair McLain recessed the meeting at 5:45 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Weathers

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 17, 2000

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

i:\minutes\2000\budget&finance/04170bdm.doc