MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

 

Thursday, June 18, 1998

 

Metro Council Chamber

 

 

Members Present:  Patricia McCaig (Chair), Ruth McFarland (Vice Chair), Don Morissette,

     Ed Washington, Lisa Naito

 

Members Absent:  Jon Kvistad, Susan McLain

 

Chair McCaig called the meeting to order at 1:00 PM.

 

1.  CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF THE APRIL 15, 1998 BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING AND THE APRIL 23, AND JUNE 3, 1998 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETINGS.

 

Motion:  Councilor McFarland moved to adopt the minutes of the April 5, 1998 Budget Committee Meeting, and the April 23 and June 3, 1998 Finance Committee Meetings.

 

Seconded:  Councilor Washington seconded the motion.

 

Councilor Morissette noted that he had been absent from 2 of the meetings but would vote to adopt the minutes of the meeting he had attended.

 

Vote:    The motion was unanimously adopted as approved.

 

2.  ORDINANCE NO. 98-759, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FY 1997-98 BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS SCHEDULE BY TRANSFERRING $8,000 FROM MATERIALS AND SERVICES TO PERSONAL SERVICES WITHIN THE OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR TO COMPLETE A CASH RECEIPTS AUDIT, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.

 

Alexis Dow, Auditor, explained the $8,000 was needed because of part of her audit plan to look at controls surrounding cash receipts at outside locations including the Zoo, MERC facilities, parks and transfer stations. She said her research found it could be done for substantially less money by using a part-time person to do the work rather than hiring a consultant. She said because of that decision, a transfer of funds was necessary.

 

Motion:  Councilor Naito moved to bring Ordinance No. 98-759 to full council for adoption.

 

Second:  Councilor Washington seconded the motion to adopt the Ordinance.

 

Discussion:  Councilor McFarland clarified the ordinance would simply transfer money within the department and did not come from elsewhere.

 

Vote:    5 yes/ 0 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion carried unanimously of those present.

 

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 98-2665, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING A CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FOR METRO NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES.

 

Judy Gregory, Human Resources, urged the committee to pass the resolution to the council for adoption. She noted the background information that had been presented to the committee (a copy of staff report “Consideration of Resolution No. 98-2665” is included in the permanent record of this meeting). She said the budget allowed for such a resolution to be adopted. She noted an amendment that would reclassify some positions that could be forthcoming due to an appeal in process.

 

Councilor McFarland asked if the money would still be available if the reclassification amendment was sent.

 

Judy Gregory said adding the classification had no cost to it.

 

Councilor Washington asked to have information regarding the appeal sent to him before the next council meeting and asked for a definition of “vacant” as used in the staff report.

 

Judy Gregory said the system had been designed to include the appeal process and “vacant” indicated there was no classification allocated to that salary range. In response to Councilor Washington’s question she noted that one could be added.

 

Chair McCaig commented on her continuing interest in the process for review of salaries and job descriptions of the Metro Council non-represented staff.. She reminded the committee that the issue had come up a few times in the previous years. She was interested to see that the council staff had not been included in the classification review.

 

Judy Gregory explained that a separate study had been done for Council staff using the same process as the study for the non-reps. She said it had not been included because a decision had not been made regarding whether to bring it forward or not.

 

Chair McCaig asked who would make that decision and who had asked for the study.

 

Judy Gregory said she also had an on-going interest in council staff classifications and had consulted with Presiding Officer Kvistad and Jeff Stone about including the council staff in a study. She said they agreed and a separate study was done for the council staff.

 

Chair McCaig said she believed it had been done with thoughtful discussion and asked what factors had made it appropriate to do two studies.

 

Judy Gregory declared it was sound human resource practices and principals to have structures and systems in place for employees.

 

Chair McCaig said she agreed with that and asked again why the studies were separate.

 

Judy Gregory said from an HR prospective Council staff was considered unclassified and served totally at the discretion of elected officials. She said it was the same with the auditor’s staff,. She said she had inquired of the auditor, Presiding Officer Kvistad and Executive Officer Burton if they wished to have their staffs included in the study. She said she received a “no” from Executive Officer Burton, and Auditor Alexis Dow, and a “yes” from Presiding Officer Kvistad. She said the studies had been done at the same time and with the same process but the reports had been separated because of the unclassified nature of the Council staff.

 

Chair McCaig said she would look forward to an explanation from Presiding Officer Kvistad.

 

Councilor Morissette wondered if there was a political process to evaluate non-classified employees that would include information that the committee might or might not be privy to. He asked for the results from the Council staff survey.

 

Chair McCaig said she understood Councilor Kvistad had the draft report and would distribute it to the rest of the Councilors.

 

Councilor Morissette felt the report should cover the entire agency and the Auditor, the Executive, the Council, et al, should all have the same standards.

 

Judy Gregory recognized that it was allowed for in the Personnel Code that the Presiding Officer, the Auditor and the Executive Officer could exempt themselves and their staffs from any provisions of that code.

 

Councilor Morissette commended Councilor Kvistad for going ahead with the review of Council staff and wanted to see the results. He wished the Executive and the Auditor would do the same thing.

 

Motion:  Councilor Washington moved to bring Resolution No. 98-2665 to full Council for adoption.

 

Second:  Councilor McFarland seconded the motion.

 

Discussion:  None.

 

Vote:    5 yes/ 0 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion carried unanimously of those present.

 

4.  REPORT ON TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE PROPOSED FY 1998-99 BUDGET.

 

Mr. Craig Prosser, Financial Planning Manager, noted the memos being handed out to the committee (a copy of both “Technical Amendments to the FY 1998-00 Approved Budget” and “Substantive Adjustments to the FY 1998-99 Approved Budget” can be found with the permanent record of this meeting).

 

Chair McCaig noted that these amendments would be adopted for the final budget on June 25th.

 

Mr. Prosser said the technical adjustments were primarily carry overs including an adjustment to the MERC operating balance of $1.4 million. He asked the committee to look over the reports to see if they were acceptable for incorporation into the budget amendment for the following week. He explained substantive amendments were actions which the Councilors had not yet seen. He said they required no action but if they were acceptable they could be incorporated into the budget ordinance which would be adopted the following week.. He talked about the substantive amendments and explained the first one was related to the contract between Human Resources and MERC. He said a Human Resources analyst had been hired and managed by Human Resources but actually placed in MERC offices and doing work there. MERC and HR have determined this did not work out as well as they anticipated so they requested a substantive amendment which would cut one position out of the Human Resources, that position that has been placed at MERC, and on the MERC side it creates a new position of Human Resources Analyst. The net affect for the agency is zero but it just change these between departments.

 

Chair McCaig said she felt human resources fell within the parameters of Metro as provider of administrative services for MERC and said she would be uncomfortable shifting the position there.

 

Councilor McFarland responded that the $70,000 for the position had come from MERC so it was not a position donated by Metro. She explained that the majority of the human resources work done for MERC would still be done by Metro.

 

Chair McCaig noted the evolutionary relationship between MERC and the Council and the services provided. Her concern was for some future time when MERC would find less expensive ways to provide the services. She wondered if there was already a plan afoot for restructuring the services currently provided by Metro.

 

Councilor McFarland commented that she saw it as a way to get a human resources person at MERC and a part of that position would be to assist the relationship between MERC and Metro.

 

Chair McCaig asked who would the position report to.

 

Mr. Prosser answered it would be to the MERC General Manager. He explained the history between MERC and Metro and the services that were provided. He said they still intended to purchase their human resources from Metro and this request was in addition to the basic package. He said the job description would be identical to the same classification at Metro. He felt they should have a human resources person stationed at MERC and intended for that person to work cooperatively with the HR staff at Metro.

 

Chair McCaig asked why this request was necessary if they were working cooperatively now.

 

Mr. Prosser explained it was for extra services. He said MERC was a large suborganization of Metro with its own needs. He felt it was a good idea to have someone who was familiar with all aspects of MERC’s responsibilities.

 

Chair McCaig asked about the person already learning those responsibilities.

 

Mr. Prosser reported that the person had been reassigned to the Zoo.

 

Chair McCaig suggested the position could be refilled and the only real difference would be who that position was accountable to. She asked if the Ordinance had come through MERC and wondered if the Executive Officer had a position on it.

 

Jennifer Sims, Chief Financial Officer, answered it was MERC’s ordinance and to her knowledge the Executive Officer would not be taking a position on the matter.

 

Mr. Prosser said it had been passed by the commission at their last meeting. He continued to review the substantive amendments. He explained the need for a new Events Coordinator position and the need to repair the box seats at the stadium. He explained the rest of the amendments.

 

Councilor McFarland mentioned that the stadium would be operating in the black this year and she felt they should get their own Events Coordinator.

 

Chair McCaig reminded the committee there would be discussion next week on the amendments. She urged everyone to look them over.

 

Jennifer Sims observed that the Council had taken a lot of time over the past few years dealing with such small amendments. She noted that 8 of the 13 actions taken in past months had been for very small amounts and suggested there were ways to handle minor amendments that wouldn’t have to come before the Council and take staff time.

 

Chair McCaig asked what the alternative would be

 

Ms. Sims answered that under budget law it was possible to combine personal services and materials and services appropriations. She said it would be a time saving move and capital outlay would continue to be a separate item.

 

Chair McCaig agreed to take the idea to the full Council

 

Mr. Prosser said MERC appropriated that way so a precedent had been set.

 

Councilor McFarland reiterated that this meeting had been another opportunity to review the technical amendments and no action was needed on them.

 

Chair McCaig added that the entire budget along with the technical and substantive amendments would be voted on June 25.

 

5.  RISK MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT.

 

Scott Moss. Risk Manager for Metro, explained risk management’s job was to save money by reducing risks and hazards to Metro, to promote safety, and to be prepared if an emergency should occur. He noted the Annual Report (a copy of 1997 Year End Report on Risk Management is attached to the permanent record of this meeting.) and explained the graph on page one.

 

Councilor McFarland asked if the higher rate of incidents for MERC was a result of that department having so much interaction with the public.

 

Mr. Moss said the MERC claims were tremendously low considering how many millions of people went through their facilities each year, and the large number of employees on the job. He felt less than 60 claims for the entire department in a year was remarkable. He mentioned their good job of reducing the number of claims each year. He explained the graph on page 2 which showed liability claims and types of liabilities included.

 

Councilor Washington referred to the Liability Claim graph and asked if the Zoo and MERC could learn something from the great reduction in claims at the Parks Department.

 

Scott Moss said they were proud of the Parks record for the past year. They had very active and watchful safety committees. He reported there was work being done to strengthen those committees at the Zoo and MERC.

 

Councilor Washington mentioned the importance of safety and asked what could be done to make it a number one priority in all the departments.

 

Mr. Moss said it was the department director’s interest and support of the safety programs that made them successful. He felt the excellent support from all the departments would come through as the report was explained. He noted the graph on page 3, Number of visitors/claim, and pointed out a savings of approximately $400,000 per year.

 

Chair McCaig asked for clarification of factors that explain such a substantial difference in the claims per visitor for each facility.

 

Scott Moss said the claims fluctuated yearly, but one thing to note was that MERC counted claims that ultimately might not be Metro’s responsibility unlike the Zoo which did not have the promoters to pass the responsibility along to. He said 1997 was the best year ever for Worker’s Compensation claims. He explained the graphs on page 4 that substantiated that fact. He continued explaining the Time Loss Claims and Cost of Claims graphs. He noted a very serious claim had already been filed this year in which an employee who fell off a ladder at the Zoo would probably be permanently partially disabled. He estimated the claim would probably cost around $400,000. He briefly noted the property claims and in answer to Councilor Washington’s question reported the 1997 expense was ice storm damage to the Zoo and the large tent at the OCC.

 

Councilor McFarland asked about claims for an incident in which a body had been found in some garbage.

 

Scott Moss said it was reported as a liability claim even though they did not feel Metro was responsible.

 

Councilor Washington asked if someone could come forward and say the death was a result of Metro’s negligence and Scott Moss said it was possible although the attorney would have to be very creative to find a way for Metro to be responsible. He continued explaining the graphs.

 

Chair McCaig said she believed one of the issues with the Tax Supervising Committee had been how to allocate the risk management fund on support services and that it was to be done differently next year.

 

Scott Moss said the TSSC had raised a question regarding using the interest earnings from the EIL reserve and yes, it would be looked into.

 

Chair McCaig asked how it could change the pie chart.

 

Scott Moss said the chart denoted overall risk management, but if the interest earnings were kept within the risk management function, he assumed there would be a larger portion for the interest slice, and therefore the other pieces would be smaller. He said the question would be whether to apportion all the departments equally or just the departments who had put the most money in the EIL which could then make a slice smaller. He summarized the rest of the report for the committee.

 

Chair McCaig said it had been a great presentation and said since the committee had just received it the morning of this meeting, there would be some follow up at the meeting next week after allowing time for a closer look at the report

 

Councilor Washington remarked on the charts and said they helped very much.

 

Scott Moss said a copy of the charts had been distributed the week previous by the Executive.

 

6.  INFOLINK QUARTERLY UPDATE

 

Moved to next agenda due to lack of time.

 

ADJOURN

 

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McCaig adjourned the meeting at 2:00 PM.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Cheryl Grant

Acting Council Assistant