MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE

Thursday, April 12, 2001

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Susan McLain (Chair), Carl Hosticka (Vice Chair), Bill Atherton, David Bragdon, Rex Burkholder, Rod Monroe, Rod Park

Members Absent:  None

Chair McLain called the meeting to order at 3:38 PM.

1.  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.

Chair McLain began with the technical amendments. A revised copy is included in the public record of the meeting.

Chair McLain moved on to the substantive amendments. A copy is included in the public record of the meeting.

Councilor Monroe felt Metro, as the only elected regional government in the nation, should continue to be a role model and national leader in land use. Metro was a part of the larger world and needed to continue to act as a resource. Councilor Park noted that he had attended one year and found it interesting, however he felt the most important interaction was with other Oregon planning departments from within Oregon. He preferred to put Metro’s limited funds into bridging the urban-rural gap. Councilor Bragdon said that there was fence mending to be done intrastate and felt funds could be better used within Oregon. Councilor Burkholder was concerned about three amendments competing for the same small pot of savings. Peggy Coats, Council Analyst, responded that there were now just two amendments competing for the same savings funding, Council #1 and #2, the third amendment, #6 had been withdrawn.

Councilor Park spoke to Council amendment #2. The 2040-reengagement project, actually the Goal 1 process, was required under State law. It would culminate in the 2002 Growth Boundary decision. Metro needed public input in this process. This amendment would approve Council’s part of departmental funding for outreach that would total $172k. Councilor Bragdon noted that it had not been included in the original budget, but staff had since defined a superb public involvement process. Therefore he felt it was appropriate for Council to support the amendment.

Councilor Hosticka asked about control over the creative content. Councilor Park said it was clear that outside sponsorship was needed in order to do all of the pieces of the project, but the Goal 1 process under periodic review controlled part of the content. Chair McLain noted that staff would continue to review it with Council on a regular basis. Councilor Bragdon added that it was part of an earlier communication plan agreed to by Council and provided for frequent reports to the Community Planning committee. Goal 5 also had a citizen involvement component. Councilor Hosticka was concerned that it be a dialogue and not a monologue. Councilor Atherton was concerned that surveys were included in the funding. Chair McLain assured the committee that; both formal and informal scientific surveys were a part of the package.

Councilor Burkholder spoke to Council amendment #5. It was a general rewrite of language from the proposed Council budget narrative. The point was to tie real, measurable numbers to Council objectives. Councilor Hosticka asked if there would be future budget implication regarding the strategic planning process. Councilor Burkholder said there would be implications, but were already in the budget. Councilor Park asked if the figure of 10% as a diversity goal was tied to regional diversity. Councilor Burkholder responded that 10% was less than actual diversity, but set as an overall goal. Councilor Hosticka asked if an aye vote would initiate an agency-wide strategic planning process. Chair McLain noted that this idea came from the Council Retreat where it was agreed to initiate the plan as a goal, but Council would review costs as they were developed.

Councilor Park asked if the goal was to become a general-purpose regional government. Chair McLain said that simple question had legal and political implications and a council action perspective. She suggested that the amendment be set aside while obtaining a legal opinion and a definition of general-purpose government. Councilor Burkholder asked staff to strike the last bullet, “develop redistricting plan”. The committee agreed to both requests. Councilor Bragdon noted that Mr. Mounts would discuss what was meant by a strategic plan at the next Council Informal.

Councilor Bragdon spoke to Council Amendment #7. In order to accept a grant from the Mt. Hood Cable Access Regulatory Commission to improve Metro’s public access facilities, matching funds from Metro was required. Chair McLain requested that a note of appreciation be sent to all those staff people who took part in securing the grant.

Kathy Rutkowski, ASD (Administrative Services Department) Financial Planning Analyst, noted that there were four parks amendments (1-4) that were new grants and not currently in the budget.

Councilor Bragdon asked if the new signing for the park would include the Metro logo. Michael Morrissey, Council Analyst, said it would.

Councilor Burkholder spoke to Planning Amendment #2. Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, noted that Metro had sponsored Rail-volution from its beginnings. Metro had already scaled down its commitment from $12k to $7.5k. He noted that now there were good examples coming forward from other regions that could help shore up Metro’s regional goals. The new emphasis of the conference was on growing communities around light rail. Councilor Bragdon stressed that this amendment only addressed sponsorship, not participation. National visibility should not be Metro’s prime outreach goal; but rather should be Milwaukie, Gladstone and Beaverton. There were many other worthwhile organizations, very important to Metro’s work, that could be sponsored if money was available; e.g. American Zoological Association or Congress for the New Urbanism. The reason Metro did not sponsor them was that it must be disciplined and tend to business closer to home. Chair McLain felt sponsorship had spin-off effects such as more project dollars, grants and technical expertise that helped Metro at home.

Councilor Park spoke to Planning Amendment #3. He noted that a critical decision was to be made in the next two years, and although he was reluctant to go into reserves to fund it, it was an important part of the program. Chair McLain felt the periodic review could not be done without this funding.

Cherie Yasami, ASD Financial Analyst, was there to answer any questions from committee, as MERC staff was unable to attend.

Ms. Yasami spoke to MERC #3. Councilor Hosticka asked if was one of the “pots” for money to flow into from the IGA (Intergovernmental Agreement) with city of Portland. Ms. Yasami said yes, this was pot #5 and based on information from Multnomah County, it looked as if it would be available. Councilor Monroe noted that conventions booked 3-5 years in advance; by that time the new Oregon Convention Center addition would be completed and open. This amendment would help make sure it was fully booked.

Councilor Atherton spoke to REM #2. Mr. Houser added that funds were designated for a City of Portland project for either building an independent facility or renovating Metro Central Transfer Station specifically for an organics processor.

David Biedermann, IT (Information Technology) Director, spoke to IT Amendment #1 at the chair’s request. He said it would serve as data storage for the entire agency with the exception of the Oregon Zoo. Because neither the Data Center nor IT had sufficient funds available, the two departments were sharing costs. Chair McLain noted that the new machine would integrate the two existing systems. Councilor Atherton asked why a lease would be used. Mr. Biedermann responded that outright purchase would have been his preferred method, but the cost was beyond either department’s budget allocation - the new machine cost approximately $115k.

Mr. Biedermann spoke to IT #2 that reallocated funding for an expanded web approach to work on 2040 via a position that would be moved from IT to Creative Services; it included net savings.

Councilor Hosticka questioned if a vote to postpone was needed. Chair McLain said it was the intent of the motion to indicate that it was still an active amendment to be discussed on April 18.

Chair McLain noted that the reduction in travel allocation was to reflect what was actually spent. Alexis Dow, Auditor, said she supported the amendment. She had not looked at her staff’s travel expenditures because of other budget amendments, and while she accepted the finding as correct, she reserved the right to return to committee at a later time if she found the figures in error. She added that in researching professional continuing education requirements auditors required 40 CPE hours/year while attorneys required 15 CLE hours/year. This explained the disparity between legal and auditor development budgets. Councilor Bragdon noted that training was very important in all professions, including planners and animal management staff at the Zoo. He hoped to give all Metro staff an equal chance for professional training in the future.

Chair McLain asked for a five-minute recess.

When the meeting resumed Scott Moss, ASD Assistant Director, spoke to ASD Amendment #1. Medical insurance renewals came in at a 46% increase; he hoped to continue negotiating down, but it was still well above the budgeted amount. Ms. Coats asked if the decision would come to Council or would be made at the Executive level. Mr. Moss said negotiations with ODS were incomplete, but stood today at $60 in out of pocket expense per employee. The decision would go to the Executive Officer. Chair McLain asked Ms. Coats to clarify the process with the Executive Officer and inform the committee. Councilor Hosticka hoped that Metro was fully engaged in trying to keep health insurance costs down.

Chair McLain went on to Budget Notes. . A revised copy is included in the public record of the meeting. Ms. Coats noted that Auditor Budget Notes #2 and #5 would be carried over to April 18. Councilor Hosticka asked to whom Budget Note #8 was directed to. Ms. Coats responded that the Executive Officer was to direct Zoo staff to return to Council with a feasibility study on converting the Zoo parking lot from a cost center to a profit center. Chair McLain noted that reports on this subject had been done twice before. Councilor Hosticka asked if this might be an appropriate task to discuss with the Auditor, who could separate the numbers from the politics as a disinterested party. Councilor Bragdon noted that it was not Council’s place to direct the Auditor, only agency staff, but that Council could invite her to consider it. Councilor Monroe agreed that the review would be useful, but the politics were another matter. Chair McLain said that no dollars were provided to do the study itself, just to evaluate scope, timelines and feasibility. Councilor Park asked how this would be interpreted differently than Council’s directive two years ago that parking facilities should operate in conjunction with the facilities they support.

Councilor Burkholder felt that parking should be viewed as a resource, not a liability; however Tony Vecchio, Zoo Director, was on record as saying that the Zoo should not be responsible for paying the debt service on the parking lot. Councilor Park asked about Council facilities policy that was passed two-years ago regarding parking. Councilor Bragdon clarified that it stated that parking lots adjacent to Metro facilities were to be used in support of the facilities. He felt that this budget note would not conflict with that policy, it only addressed the financial arrangements pertaining to use of the Zoo parking facility. Councilor Atherton asked for the history of the tunnel and light rail stop agreement. Councilor Monroe said that six years ago Metro had tried to buy the land from the City of Portland, but was unsuccessful. The city owned the land while Metro owned and managed the facility. In order to get a light rail station at the Zoo, Metro had agreed to pay a portion of its cost, just over $2 million. He said the plan had been to use the revenue from a paid parking lot to pay off the bonds. Two groups, Friends of the Zoo and a neighborhood group, were against paid parking; in the face of this opposition the plan failed. As a result the cost had to be absorbed out of Zoo revenue.

Ms. Coats noted that Budget Notes 9-14 were global issues affecting the agency as a whole. Most notes requested the Executive Officer to direct cross-departmental teams of staff to evaluate the issue and return to Council with costs, timeline and scope of work. Budget Note 15 directed staff to perform an action and report back to Council.

Chair McLain noted that Council had long sought to have all Metro programs include the Metro logo prominently displayed. Councilor Atherton asked what the tag line was. Ms. Coats said Metro was currently in the process of developing a tag line that would work in concert with the 2040-reengagement efforts. Councilor Park noted that in the regional facilities meeting this morning the Zoo had released an RFP (Request for Proposal) to do its advertising pro bono. Councilor Burkholder noted that it was sent out without coming before Council; he saw it as a lost opportunity. If it had come before Council before being let and done as Metro policy dictates, the RFP could have been expanded to include all of Metro. The budget for purchase of advertising was $1.3 million. Chair McLain said that this concluded the amendments and budget notes until the next meeting, Wednesday, April 18 at 1:30 PM.

2.  Councilor Communications

Councilor Burkholder noted that Expo (Portland Metropolitan Exposition Center) Hall D would host a Rave Friday night.

Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 5:47 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Weathers

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2001

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

i:\minutes\2001\budget&finance/041201bdm.doc