MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING

Wednesday, April 1, 1998

Metro Council Annex

Chair McCaig called the meeting to order at 2:35 PM.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF MARCH 18 AND 25, 1998

Councilor Morissette asked that the minutes of March 18, 1998, page 6, paragraph 1, be amended as shown: “Councilor Morissette said councilors should not overlook the potential for additional cost overruns.”

2.  ORDINANCE NO. 98-734, AMENDING AND READOPTING METRO CODE 2.06 (INVESTMENT POLICY); AN DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

Howard Hansen, Investment and Credit Analyst, reported on Ordinance No. 98-734, which would amend and readopt Metro Code 2.06 pertaining to the investment policy. A staff report to the ordinance contains the substance of Mr. Hansen’s remarks. Mr. Hansen noted that Metro’s investment policy had received good marks in an audit by Metro’s auditor. Brief committee discussion followed.

Councilor Washington will carry the ordinance to full Council.

3.  ORDINANCE NO. 98-737, AMENDING THE FY 1997-98 BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS SCHEDULE IN THE SUPPORT SERVICES FUND BY TRANSFERRING $15,000 FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO THE OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR AND TRANSFERRING $4,600 FROM CAPITAL OUTLAY TO MATERIALS AND SERVICES WITHIN THE OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR CONDUCTING AN IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW OF THE INFOLINK PROJECT

Alexis Dow, Metro Auditor, appeared before the committee to present Ordinance No. 98-737, which would amend the FY 97-98 budget to provide funding for an audit of the InfoLink project. Ms. Dow pointed out that the committee had agreed to fund the project during its consideration of the Auditor’s FY 98-99 budget. Brief committee discussion followed.

Councilor Morissette will carry the ordinance to full Council.

4.  ORDINANCE NO. 98-724, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998-99, MAKING APPROPRIATIONS, CREATING FUNDS, LEVYING AD VALOREM TAXES, AUTHORIZING INTERFUND LOANS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

Administrative Services Department Budget

Jennifer Sims, Director of Administrative Services, appeared before the committee to continue her presentation of the Administrative Services Department (ASD) Budget. She was asked to address ASD’s agreement with MERC, specifically with regard to the 90-day provision, the impact on the rest of the agency, and the ability of MERC to select services.

Ms. Sims began by reporting on ASD performance measures. These performance measurements are included in the document entitled “Administrative Services Department Budget Overview,” a copy of which is included as part of the meeting record.

Chair McCaig said a $75,000 contribution to MERC’s contract, based on unspent funds in the Support Services budget, had been negotiated as part of that agreement with MERC for the provision of support services. Ms. Sims said that other Metro departments will benefit by underspending, and staff intends to give a credit to MERC in the amount of $75,000 for its anticipated underspending. Chair McCaig said the proposed credit has prompted a broader discussion about how far the Council should go in negotiating MERC’s contract.

Chair McCaig said Councilor Morissette indicated previously that he is comfortable with the $200,000 and the $175,000 contributions that were part of the original agreement. The $75,000 is an additional amount that is being requested in order to further reduce the costs of the contract for MERC. Councilor Morissette said Metro is negotiating the $75,000 because MERC has said Metro is not competitive with its prices for its services. As a result, Metro will be reducing other departments’ return proportionately in order to find the $75,000. Ms. Sims said this is not the case. She said all departments have historically underspent their Support Services budget, and at the end of every year, the charge to each department is based only on what it actually spent, not on the budgeted amount. Ms. Sims said she is simply proposing to give MERC the benefit of their underspending.

Councilor Morissette said Ms. Sims’ explanation had changed since the last committee discussion. Chair McCaig asked Ms. Sims if, even with the $75,000 proposal, the underspent moneys would be returned to all of the departments proportionately; Ms. Sims answered affirmatively. Councilor Morissette asked if MERC’s proportional amount of the anticipated underspending is expected to be about $75,000. Ms. Sims said the $75,000 figure is expected to be their fair share. Councilor Naito asked if she could then assume that underspending will not be taken from Growth Management to subsidize MERC, and Ms. Sims agreed. Councilor Naito said this is an important distinction that had not been made last week. Councilor Morissette asked Ms. Sims what total underspending is projected to be. Ms. Sims said a conservative figure is about $300,000 to $400,000. Councilor Morissette asked what percentage of Support Service spending is charged to MERC. Ms. Sims said MERC’s piece is about 15 or 16%. Councilor Morissette said 15% of $400,000 is about $60,000. Councilor McFarland asked what underspending was last year. Ms. Sims said it was about $500,000. Councilor Morissette said, in that case, $75,000 is probably a fair expectation of MERC’s underspending. He reiterated that this is not how the discussion came across previously.

Chair McCaig agreed that today’s discussion did not match up with the way it was left at the last meeting. She asked if the $75,000 is savings that MERC will realize anyway. Ms. Sims said no, because it is a contract. Chair McCaig asked if this is the case, and MERC will not realize this savings, will the money go back as a cost savings to Metro’s other departments. Ms. Sims said yes. In light of Ms. Sims’ response, Chair McCaig said it is, therefore, inaccurate to say this money is MERC’s proportional share, and that it will not have an impact on the rest of the agency. She asked Ms. Sims if it is true, 1) that this money does not belong to MERC, 2) that rather, Ms. Sims is using the money to negotiate a contract with MERC, and 3) that by negotiating this deal, Ms. Sims is reducing the amount of available moneys to go back to Metro’s departments. Ms. Sims said yes. She added that if MERC does not get the $75,000 underspending benefit, then that money would offset the cost of service to other departments.

Councilor Morissette said he does not want to keep MERC from getting its proportional share of underspending simply because of shortfalls in another budget, such as the Growth Management budget, for example. After the previous discussion of the $75,000, it had been his understanding that underspending was being taken from other departments to benefit MERC, simply as a negotiating tool to give MERC a better deal. He disagreed with that tactic. However, in light of today’s discussions, he said he is not looking to give MERC’s share of the underspending to another department. His major concern is fairness.

Councilor McFarland agreed the issue is one of fairness. She said will be unfair if, at the end of the year, all of the other departments share in the underspending, while MERC is unable to receive its fair share because its contract does not provide for it. She said to be fair, the $75,000 should be included in the contract, based on historical underspending, so that everybody will benefit proportionately from a reduced charge.

Referring to her notes of the previous Budget Committee discussion of the MERC contract, Councilor McLain said Ms. Sims reported that MERC had informed Metro that its charges for accounting services was $177,000 more than what MERC would have to pay elsewhere. Subsequently, Ms. Sims negotiated a deal to reduce MERC’s bill by $75,000. This money would come from underspent money in the proposed budget. Ms. Sims agreed with Councilor McLain’s summary. Councilor McLain said she wants to make sure that this budget stays intact and that Metro is not placed at a disadvantage. She said Metro is at a disadvantage, however, when it has to reduce a bill by $75,000 in order to please a contractor. She said staff should proceed this year, however, Metro should never again be held hostage by any contractor. Metro needs to be fair with every contractor, so if MERC should share in an underspending, then that should happen. Councilor McLain said Metro has basically offered MERC the percentage they deserve because Support Services costs will be less than budgeted; and this is appropriate. What is inappropriate is for staff to offer to reduce a contractor’s bill by $75,000 because the contractor says it could bet a better deal elsewhere. Councilor Morissette agreed with Councilor McLain. Councilor McLain said this is a bad negotiating tool and should not be offered again without policy direction by the Council.

Councilor McLain said the second thing she is unhappy about is the idea that MERC can at any time, go shopping, every 90 days or so, to look for a better deal. She said if Metro has a year-long budget process, then MERC’s shopping tour had better coincide with Metro’s time frame for that budget process.

Ms. Sims said MERC’s ability to shop for services and to give 90 days notice of its intent to purchase outside services is provided for in the code. She distributed copies of the pertinent portion of the Metro Code to councilors, and a copy is included as part of the meeting record.

Councilor McLain said she is aware of the provisions of the code. She said the code must reflect a protection for Metro’s budget, budget process, and services. If the code needs to be changed, Metro should do so, after consulting with its partners. She said a footnote should be made that Metro will not subsidize and will not negotiate lower prices in any other budget year. She said councilors need to know that Metro has a contract that will permit the budget process to progress effectively and efficiently from year to year.

Councilor McLain asked what the impact to Metro will be if MERC pulls out with 90 days notice. She said Council needs to be in a planning mode in anticipation of this potential situation. Chair McCaig said the 90 day issue can be dealt with when the MERC budget is considered, but it cannot be solved in the ASD budget. Councilor McFarland began to give a history of how the 90 days came about. Chair McCaig said a history was not needed at this time; however, Councilor McFarland said the information would prove useful. Councilor McFarland said every contract that MERC has is for 30 days. However, in their dealings with Doug Butler, former Director of Administrative Services, MERC agreed to Mr. Butler’s request for a 90-day provision. Councilor McFarland said the 90-day requirement exists because ASD staff asked to have it put in, not because MERC requested it.

Councilor Naito said she never intended to place the executive in the position of being unable to negotiate for a whole package of services. She never intended for negotiations to be only on the part of MERC. She said if MERC wishes to pull out of one service, the executive officer should be able to say we have a package deal. Ms. Sims said this is how staff has approached the matter. Councilor Naito said Ms. Sims’ comments today differed from her statements in earlier discussions. She understood that Metro is required to provide individual services, and that MERC can choose from those individual services. Councilor Morissette and Councilor McLain said they came away from previous discussions with the same understanding. Councilor Naito said her current understanding of the $75,000 is that Metro is able to cut the contract by a certain amount because staff always over-budgets, and there is a cushion. Ms. Sims agreed this is the case.

Ms. Sims said she spoke with Mr. Butler regarding the 90-day requirement, and it was his recollection that he had asked for six months. The 90 days was the negotiated term.

Alexis Dow, Metro Auditor, observed that the MERC contract sets a limit on the maximum amount they pay. By coming back if there is any savings, then they are also getting that benefit. So they are getting the best of both worlds.

Chair McCaig asked Ms. Sims to proceed with the impact on the remaining departments if the contract does not go forward. Ms. Sims distributed a handout that showed this impact. A copy of this handout is included as part of the meeting record. Discussion took place in which Ms. Sims essentially reported that the total cost of MERC Services in FY 98-99 will be $1,390,365. Of that amount, variable costs are $489,984, plus there is a revenue offset in the amount of $37,780, bringing the total variable costs and revenue offset to $527,764. This is the amount costs that could go away if MERC goes away. The remaining fixed costs are $862,601, which would need to be covered without MERC. Ms. Sims said the committee could choose to further buy down the impact of MERC leaving by allocating the $375,000 currently contributed to MERC to other departments.

Councilor Morissette said the $862,601 figure is high. He said Metro could lease space to MERC to make up some of the remaining costs. He said he understands there are fixed costs that do not go away, however, there are other ways of offsetting these costs. He said revenue from Metro’s MERC buildings needed to be figured in. Councilor Morissette said he does not buy the numbers, even though he is sure there is a lot of integrity behind them. He said there is much more than a 4.5FTE savings that could be achieved by direct exchanges throughout the process. There would be a revenue stream out of MERC for the Metro-owned assets Expo and the convention center. Ms. Sims said this is the excise tax.

Councilor Naito pointed out Ms. Sims’ chart only represented only expenditures. Incomes are not reflected on this sheet. Councilor Morissette said this is the point he is trying to make, that only one side of the equation is being shown, and that income will change so that the hole will not be as large as portrayed on the document. Chair McCaig said the income will probably not change based upon the actions Metro takes related to the contract. She said some of the excise tax in the General Fund could be used to offset some of this expense, but in doing so, other Metro programs will be hurt.

Councilor McLain said it is important that Metro has an opportunity to put together a package, and that we have some control over that package. It is important to stay competitive. MERC is looking for an over-all bottom line, not just a singular savings. Councilor McLain said she does not feel good about the presentation the committee received today and the presentation given last time, because they described two completely different scenarios. She said it needs to be understood that MERC is just getting the money they have coming to them, not that they negotiated a $75,000 reduction to keep them as a contractor.

Chair McCaig said the latter scenario is how she may have represented the situation. She said she understood the situation to be that Metro was providing $1.3 million in services for less than $900,000 in billable increments. As she understood it, the choices for negotiation included the $200,000, the $175,000, and finding ways to gain some efficiencies. She said Metro needs to decide at what point it is appropriate to say the cost to the government of keeping the $862,601 hole from appearing (that cost being the $200,000, the $175,000, and the $75,000 subsidies) is no longer worth it. She said at some point, the difference between the $500,000 and the $800,000 gets to be pretty narrow.

Chair McCaig said she is very persuaded by Councilor McLain’s point that the MERC contract and the $75,000 has been presented in two different ways. She said the next time the contract comes up, Council needs to be clearer with the limits to be used in negotiations. Councilor Washington said there are clear misunderstandings of the issues at hand. He said it is essential to address these issues outside of the budget process as soon as possible. He said Council may have done some things with the ordinance that need to be revisited. Chair McCaig agreed, and said if they are not resolved by the end of the budget process, they should be referred to the substantive committee, either Regional Facilities or Governmental Affairs.

Councilor McLain asked how Ms. Sims will be able to figure out where to find the $400,000 if MERC pulls its contract. She requested this information in writing. Ms. Sims said she is working to ensure that MERC does not want to leave. Ms. Sims said staff has done some scoping out to see where the numbers would come from.

Chair McCaig said today’s conversation has been helpful. She said the MERC contract issues can be revisited when the committee deals with the MERC budget. For the purposes of the discussion about the ASD budget, which includes a $75,000 under spending, no other action is needed. She asked if there were amendments to the ASD budget.

Chair McCaig said one of the problems with the MERC “contract” is that it is not a true contract, it is a memorandum of agreement, and as such does not come before the Council. She said the process needs to be defined.

Office of the Council Budget

Jeff Stone, Assistant to the Presiding Officer, and Chris Billington, Council Office Manager, appeared before the committee to give a presentation on the Office of the Council Budget. They distributed a 20-page packet of materials pertaining to the budget, a copy of which is included as part of the meeting record. Following their presentation, John Houser, Senior Council Analyst, presented his analysis of the Council Office budget. His analysis is found in his memorandum dated 3/24/98 to Chair McCaig, a copy of which is included as part of the meeting record.

Councilor Naito noted that no specific expenditures were planned in the Capital Outlay in the Council General Fund budget. Ms. Billington said the only expenditures that might be anticipated would pertain to the purchase of new computers for the new Councilors who will be coming on board in January 1999. Councilor McLain said she would support a motion to reduce it to $2,000 rather than $5,000. Ms. Billington said if a computer breaks, at least $2,500 would be needed to replace it. Councilors agreed that it is not feasible to repair most computer problems, that replacements are called for.

Councilor Kvistad said his goal had been to achieve a zero percent increase. He said his budget is as close to that as possible. He cautioned the committee to keep a cushion in some of these areas to accommodate unanticipated expenditures.

Councilor McLain asked if this is the time to identify where the moneys made available will be placed. Councilor Naito said her budget amendment would pertain to the cut only, and the appropriation of available funds will be considered at a future budget discussion.

Councilor McLain discussed making a similar motion in the Council Outreach Office budget for Capital Outlay by $2,000, from $5,000 to $3,000. Chair McCaig made the point that the outreach office is funded from Support Service dollars, not General Fund dollars. Councilor McLain agreed this made a difference to her, and decided not to make her motion. However, she said she questioned the allocation of those moneys to purchase two additional computers, when there is already a computer in the front station of the Outreach Office, as well as a computer in the Council Office for use by interns. Ms. Billington said the computer currently set up near the outreach office belongs to the Office of General Counsel and will be used by an archiving intern. It will not be available to be used by the Outreach Office intern. Councilor Naito asked if the intern could use Councilor Morissette’s old laptop computer. Councilor Kvistad said there has been a problem with theft of laptop computers in the Council office. Laptop computers cannot be left out at a work station.

Chair McCaig asked that the discussion center first around the General Fund budget before moving to the Support Service budget. She said this is a $950,000 budget, not including the Support Service budget. When she started her term, it was a $780,000 budget. She said staff did a good job of trying to keep the budget flat or with only a small increase in the proposed budget. There are a few places where we can find additional savings, however, there is no huge savings to be found in any one space or area without losing a position. She expressed interest in reducing the Overtime line item. She said one of the places that is uncomfortable as a councilor, because it has no bearing on the quality of the work, but both the Executive Officer’s budget and the Council budget contain a salary increase that is substantial. It is a 26% increase in the executive’s budget, and a 18% increase in the Council budget. She said an increase of this size is unusual. All of the other increases are step or merit increases and are appropriate. She said there should be a process that is separate from the budget process to give somebody that kind of an increase. Councilor Naito asked if the Council staff increase was related to the changes that took place in last year’s budget. Councilor McCaig said it is a separate issue. Councilor Kvistad said it is related. Chair McCaig said it is not clear. She said she would refer the matter of the appropriate process to a different committee for review. She said job classification changes should require Council input, and not simply show up in the Council budget.

Councilor Morissette said he is bothered by the increase in the Council’s budget over the period of time he has been here. He believes the Council Office budget moved too high last year and he does not think the increase was warranted. He believes staff works hard, however, after seeing the result of the increase, he is not satisfied. He said he had spoken with several staff members privately to assure them that his comments do not reflect his dissatisfaction with staff. He said he feels he made a mistake in voting with the majority in increasing the Council budget last year.

Councilor Morissette recommended eliminating a staff position in the FY 98-99 Council budget. He said he does not have a specific proposal for doing so, but he would recommend that the Council budget be reduced by about two percent. The only way to do this is to reduce staff from 18 FTE to 17 FTE. Chair McCaig said one option would be to direct staff to go back to find additional savings, without specifying that a position be eliminated. Councilor Morissette said there is no portion of the Metro budget that has increased as much as Council’s budget. He acknowledged a good argument can be made that Council was very much underfunded when he first arrived, and in order to get the work done that needs to be done, the positions are needed. However, it seems hypocritical to ask Alexis not to remodel her offices, while approving last year’s large increase. He said he would like to find between $30,000 to $50,000 in savings.

Councilor Washington said he will not support any reduction in Council staff because Council is not over staffed.

Councilor Kvistad said Council has spent the first three years with insufficient staff to do the work of the Council. In the last two years, we have made changes to put in place a team that works well. It is funded at a budget level that is appropriate, and not excessive. He said the largest increases have been for equipment purchases, for salary adjustments for Councilors that have been mandated by the legislature, and for retention of staff. He said the fact that we have retained staff is a real testimony to the work environment. He said he has no problem with not filling positions that are vacated due to attrition. However, he cannot support the motion. The budget as amended is a solid one.

Councilor Washington said we have a good staff for the first time since he has been here. We are getting work done, and it is vital to have an effective, good staff for this department.

Chair McCaig said last year she tried to stop the large increase in the budget, and she was the lone vote to do so. She said she has been consistent in her stand that large budget increases in these times are not appropriate. She pointed out that all other local governments cut 5% or more, except for one that remained flat, at a time when we increased our budget by 22% (including Support Services). The General Fund increase was 12%. As areas for potential cuts, she pointed to the travel budget for councilors and councilor expense accounts, which have doubled in the three years she has been here. She appreciates that Council has a great working staff. Her recommendations are not a reflection on the quality of the team. They are an acknowledgment that we may need to make do with less in order to put money into those areas that desperately need our support. She said there may be places in the Council budget where the money can be found that does not require the elimination of a position. Chair McCaig said she believes the Public Outreach Office has done a good job in furthering the goals and objectives of the Council. However, the office requires two additional staff, paid for out of Support Services. This only increases her argument that the Council Office staff could be decreased because the Outreach Office has increased the Council’s capacity in a different way.

Councilor Naito said she is always willing to look for potential savings. She pointed out that last year a large portion of the increase did not constitute an overall budget increase, because it was simply a shift of funds from the agency staff. She said the Council Outreach staff has been excellent. They are very much needed to coordinate the legislative policies with the other work that is being done in the agency so the public is better informed about what Council is doing.

Councilor McLain says she is always looking for savings, but she has gone through the line items, and she has asked staff to go through the line items, and she does not see where this level of reductions can be made. She said having staff spend more time looking for these reductions, when they have already spent two or three months doing this, is not a good use of their time or our dollar. She said she believes there are a couple of line items where there may be another $2,000, however, $30,000 to $50,000 is not available.

Councilor Kvistad said if he thought the money could be found, he would support the cut. He said the Executive Office General Fund budget has an increase of about 10%, while Council’s General Fund budget increases 1.2%. On the Support Services side, Council will increase about 9%, and the Executive Office budget will increase 95%.

In closing, Councilor Morissette reiterated that this is not a matter of staff competency. He said if there was a graph that showed the increase of all the agency’s budget, you would see that the Council budget has increased at a greater rate. He said part of this is justified because we were understaffed. The reality is that there are arts programs and other conflicting needs, and he thinks Council needs to make a reduction. He commended Councilor Kvistad for having a good staff. He said not trying to find savings is not acceptable, because many councilors will be proposing to fund things for which the only source of funds may be Growth Management. He thinks there is a real chance to come up with additional funds. He said he does not know how it can be done without eliminating an FTE, but if it can, he would be satisfied. He cannot support the Council budget even at a break even this year.

Councilor Morissette reminded councilors that reduction this may mean councilors may be unable to have a meeting in their district with this reduction. Councilor McLain said she believes flex time, versus overtime can be used. Mr. Stone said the flex time can be used by Council staff, however, the over time is for security staff. Councilor McLain said some facilities will share security responsibilities, and there should be ways to get around this particular issue.

Councilor Washington asked why The Oregonian is used exclusively for public notices. Mr. Stone said the rule of thumb is to give the widest range of people the opportunity to see the notice. He said The Oregonian is the publication of record. Mr. Stone said the $2,000 to smaller newspapers is currently unfunded. Ms. Billington said the $17,500 budgeted does not permit for any increase in rates.

Councilor McLain asked about the line item regarding the Management Consulting Services line item. Discussion followed on the definition of Contracted Professional Services line items. Staff reported this line item is used to pay for facilitators, among other things.

Chair McCaig asked if there are any purposes for the line item of which the committee is not currently aware. Mr. Stone said that according to Mr. Prosser, the only purpose for the line item is consulting services and facilitators.

Councilor McLain said that the two times Council has used a facilitator in the past seven years, councilors did not take any action as a result of the facilitators recommendations. She said Council could be its own facilitator. Councilor Naito said something should be left in the line item. She said last year the MPAC process was at a breakdown point, and there was one meeting with a facilitator that made a real difference. She said there have been a lot of tempers on the Council, and there should be something left in for a contingency. Councilor McLain said there are people who volunteer this work. They are either Metro staff, county commissioners, or other citizen groups, and their time has been volunteered. This action does not preclude a facilitated meeting. Councilor Kvistad urged caution, and recommended against eliminating the line item. He would agree to a reduction to $3,000. He said money in the line item had been used in the past, and it would not be wise to completely eliminate it.

Councilor Washington said he could support only a reduction in the line item, not complete elimination, because councilors do not have any business trying to facilitate themselves. It just does not work very well. If you get to the point where you need a facilitator, you should have a neutral party come in. Councilor McLain agreed to a friendly amendment reducing the Contracted Professional Services line item to $1,000.

Ms. Billington said to-date, $1,800 has been used in this line item.

Chair McCaig said she would like to dedicate the $1,500 from her expense account in the proposed FY 98-99 budget to the cause of her choice in the rest of the budget process. She said she had intended to do this as a budget amendment, however, she neglected to do so. Discussion followed where several councilors expressed interest in making similar actions, as well as carrying over budgeted line items. Chair McCaig decided to remove her request from the table.

Councilor Kvistad said staff will need to make an expenditure in that line item. He said it is not prudent to completely eliminate the line item. Councilor McLain said the intern program should not be utilized this year. She is not aware of what they may be doing, or if anyone is on line to participate. Ms. Billington said students are lined up for Spring and Summer term. Councilor McLain offered use of her computer to the interns

Regional Parks and Greenspaces Department Budget

Charles Ciecko, Director of Regional Parks and Greenspaces, appeared before the committee to give a presentation on the Regional Parks and Greenspaces Department. He reviewed the Regional Parks and Greenspaces Department Budget Overview, a copy of which is included as part of the meeting record.

Councilor Morissette said his questions with regard to the transfer of responsibility for appraisal services to the Office of General Counsel had been answered to his satisfaction, and he would be able to vote in favor of the budget. Michael Morrissey, Senior Council Analyst, briefly reviewed his questions, a copy of which is included as part of the meeting record.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McCaig recessed the meeting at 4:55 PM until Wednesday, April 8, 1998 at 3:30 PM.

Prepared by,

Lindsey Ray

Senior Council Assistant

C:\Micro Focus Content Manager\WebDrawerWorkpath\TEMP\HPTRIM.1068\t02A5Q3S.doc