MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE

Tuesday, March 20, 2001

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Susan McLain (Chair), Carl Hosticka (Vice Chair arrived at 1;30 PM),Bill Atherton, David Bragdon Rex Burkholder, Rod Monroe

Members Absent:   Rod Park

Chair McLain called the meeting to order at 12:13 PM.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of March 13 and 14, 2001 Budget and Finance Committee Meetings

Minutes were not available at this time.

2.  Report on Cost of Committees per Ordinance No. 00-860

Karen Withrow, Executive Office staff, reviewed Report on Cost of Committees, per Ordinance #00-860. A copy is included in the pubic record of the meeting. She noted that MTAC was a sub-committee of MPAC and its cost was included in the MPAC budget line. Councilor Burkholder asked if parking validation fees for meeting attendees were included. Ms. Withrow said no. Councilor Bragdon asked if material and services (paper, postage, etc.) costs were allocated to the various committees. Ms. Withrow said that for MCCI she had taken an average size packet and figured the related costs of copying, postage, staff time, etc. multiplied by the number of meetings per year and used that as the figure.

3.  Ordinance No. 01-891 For the Purpose of Adopting the Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-02, Making Appropriations, and Levying ad valorem Taxes, and Declaring an Emergency.

David Biedermann, IT (Information Technology) Director, spoke to Questions and Issues Related to the Proposed FY 2001-02 Information Technology Budget. A copy is included in the public record of the meeting. Councilor Burkholder asked if costs and savings were tracked after a department consolidation in order to determine that it had really resulted in lower costs. Jennifer Sims, ASD (Administrative Services Department) Director/CFO, assured the committee that it was a conscious part of the initial review by ASD. Councilor Atherton asked why the agency had multiple websites, rather than one central service. Mr. Biedermann said that use of the internet had exploded in the past five years. MERC (Metropolitan Exposition-Recreation Commission) and the Oregon Zoo had set up their sites some time ago. If the web program budget was approved, an advisory committee that included MERC and the Zoo would be formed. He saw it as an opportunity for a collaborative effort to get out Metro’s common message for all groups. In addition he noted that websites were relatively inexpensive.

Councilor Burkholder asked what services IT was considering in e-commerce. Mr. Biedermann said that the Zoo had considerable interest in using it for the gift shop; however there was a lot of research still to be done on software. He planned to review these issues individually with each Councilor in the near future. Councilor Atherton asked why most computers seemed to be purchased at the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Biedermann said departments often kept funds earmarked for technology and computer replacements on hold until near the end of the fiscal year in order to maintain a contingency fund for possible emergencies. Consequently, many of these purchases were made in April-May.

Dan Cooper, General Counsel, spoke to Questions and Issues Related to the FY 2001-02 OGC Budget. A copy is included in the public record of the meeting. He reviewed the staff assignments at OGC (Office of General Counsel) and noted that funds associated with the Salmon Coordinator position were not needed since Ken Helm had added this work to his other Goal 5 duties. Chair McLain asked if the review of PacWest services, as Council had requested last year, had been done. Mr. Cooper said that detail was not always included in PacWest billings, but their activity level was high during this State legislative session; it certainly met his expectations. Chair McLain requested an overview of PacWest work, whether from OGC or PacWest or through a combined effort in order to evaluate the contract. Mr. Cooper agreed to provide an evaluation after the current legislative session ended. Michael Morrissey, Council Analyst, noted that PacWest was budgeted at $100k FY 2000-01. He felt that in an off year, i.e. when the State legislature was not in session (2002), costs should be less, (approximately $60k).

Lily Aguilar, HR (Human Resources) Director, reviewed Response to Council Budget Questions for FY 2001-02 including a matrix of HR programs and their impact. A copy is included in the public record of the meeting. Peggy Coats, Council Analyst, suggested that Council might wish to direct HR to identify the scope and cost of exploring possible unification of the HR system throughout the agency as a budget note, requesting a report after the beginning of the new fiscal year. Chair McLain agreed that such a study would give the committee critical information. Councilor Burkholder asked if the agency mission statement had to be done prior to any review of HR systems. Ms. Aguillar felt they could be done simultaneously.

Chair McLain noted that there were no questions for either Executive or Council offices. A copy of Executive Office Budget Questions Followup is included in the public record of the meeting. John Houser, Council Analyst, said that he had no questions regarding ASD or its two funds, however he wished to clarify his memo. He had been informed that a budget amendment relating to health care cost issues would come forward before the budget was sent to TSCC, sooner than had been expected. Chair McLain asked if all Councilors had been briefed on this subject. Ms. Sims responded that she still had to meet with Councilors Atherton, Hosticka and Monroe, but planned to do so this week.

Ms. Coats discussed Global Questions and Issues Related to the Proposed FY 2001-02 and asked for committee input. A copy is included in the public record of the meeting. Chair McLain noted two additional issues, Parks and long-term agency funding. Councilor Bragdon said he was concerned about the inequality in staff development, e.g. training and conferences. Currently it was, based on budgetary issues rather than equity. He felt the issue should go under agency standards. Ms. Coats agreed, in reviewing department budgets it was clear that some departments budgeted a large dollar amount per FTE, while other departments did not due to budgetary restraints. She suggested that it be made part of agency-wide standards and to set a per-employee rate for conferences and development; departments would be required to justify budgeting above that standard.

Councilor Atherton asked if the integration of Transportation and Planning departments under one director had generated any savings. Mr. Morrissey said Planning had indicated that perceived savings would be redirected into salary and materials & services. Chair McLain asked that an overall funding strategy for the agency, in conjunction with a strategic plan, be added to the list. Councilor Bragdon noted that Tony Mounts, ASD Financial Planning, had been invited to make a presentation of. Strategic Planning timelines at Council Informal April 24. He could cover this material as well. Councilor Burkholder felt Budget Notes were a good method of alerting departments of Council interest in possible studies. Chair McLain agreed and asked staff to come back with what was and was not captured in the current budget year.

Alexis Dow, Auditor, reviewed the memo, Budget Questions and Issues: Office of the Auditor, and Policies and Procedures Manual Office of the Auditor. Copies are included in the public record of the meeting. Mr. Houser, Council Analyst, asked what best practices the Auditor’s office had been cited for. Ms. Dow responded that she would have to get back to him with that information. Mr. Houser asked what types of reports were included in the seven noted, e.g. he understood that the report presented to Council last week was not defined as an audit, but as a performance measurement document. Ms. Dow said she did consider it an audit; however, about a month ago the Auditors Office issued a memo on effective project management to aid in the OCC (Oregon Convention Center) Expansion project. That document was not an audit. Benchmarking work was considered an audit.

Councilor Bragdon asked why the number of audits was the benchmark. He wondered if perhaps 20 small audits might sometimes be more useful than eight large ones. Ms. Dow said a lot depended on available staff resources. She tried to review each Metro department within a three-year cycle and felt that six-eight reports per year were a good balance. Mr. Houser asked if it were common practice within government agencies to maintain their employees’ credentials. Ms. Dow said it was, and it was also Metro policy. Mr. Houser asked if any training was paid for beyond the required 40 hours/year. Ms. Dow said it was possible that if an educational opportunity related to current work presented itself, she might approve additional training. Mr. Houser asked how many of her staff attended the NALGA (National Association of Local Government Auditors) conference. Ms. Dow said that at least two staff did. Other conferences included the Intergovernmental Audit Forum and Oregon Society of CPAs. Mr. Houser noted that actual travel/staff development expenditures ran about two-thirds of the amount requested in the budget. Councilor Atherton asked if Mr. Houser had compared attorney CLE (Continuing Legal Education) costs for OGC. Mr. Houser said that the OGC budget per employee was about one-third of the Auditors budget. Chair McLain asked Ms. Dow to come back to the next meeting, April 11 to complete her testimony.

4.  Councilor Communications

Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 1:51 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Weathers

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2001

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

i:\minutes\2001\budget&finance/032001bdm.doc