MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE TASK FORCE

 

Tuesday, July 24, 2001

Council Chamber

 

 

Members Present:  Bill Atherton (Chair), David Bragdon

Also present:    

 

Absent:    Susan McLain

 

Chair Atherton called the meeting to order at 12:04 p.m.

 

1.  Identification of Initial Task Force Policy Issues

 

John Houser, Council Analyst, explained the purpose of the task force and identified policy issues for discussion. (See copy of the memo, Systems Performance Task Force, which lists members and objectives and other information regarding the task force, included with permanent record of this meeting.)

 

Councilor Bragdon asked Mr. Houser to elaborate on whether current procedures involved an actual system or a series of departmental practices.

 

Mr. Houser’s impression was that it was a departmental approach. He said there were bond requirements in the REM Department, for instance, that required them to do certain things with regard to facility condition assessments and renewal and replacement which did not apply to other departments within the agency.

 

Chair Atherton commented that one clear purpose of this task force was to be sure of Metro’s financial status.

 

2.  Presentation of Draft Capital Asset Policies

 

Tony Mounts, ADS, Financial Planning, gave a background of the work done to get to the draft list of policies. He went over each policy on the list and explained why each was included. (For more detail, see Capital Asset Management Policies included in the agenda packet with the permanent record of this meeting.)

 

Mr. Houser asked about major IT system renewal and replacement. Mr. Mounts responded that it would be similar to a fleet fund. He added that currently, the agency had not chosen to build those types of fees into the cost plan.

 

Chair Atherton asked if they should be putting things into a capital improvement plan without first maintaining what they had. Mr. Mounts responded it was a policy choice of the council but it could certainly be placed as a priority. He thought it could be useful to have a current benchmark, and to then figure out what it would take to get to where you want to be.

 

3.  Committee Workplace and Meeting Schedule

 

Mr. Houser reviewed the draft workplace/timeline for the task force. He suggested the subject matter for the second meeting of the task force, the week of August 13th, would be the need to glean from the departments how they handle their capital assets. (See copy of Draft Systems Performance Task Force Work Plan included with the permanent record of this meeting.)

 

Chair Atherton felt the suggested September meetings could be a pretty tight schedule. He asked if there was any reason not to stretch it out to November. Councilor Bragdon agreed that stretching the time out was more realistic. Mr. Houser said they would have a better handle on the current status of assets and renewal and replacement needs as well as any deferred maintenance needs that could help as they looked at new capital improvement projects. He said the next CIP would be coming to Council in late November or early December 2001. Chair Atherton suggested having the third meeting of the Task Force closer to the end of September or the beginning or October. Mr. Houser said he would revise the document.

 

ADJOURN

 

There being no further business to come before the task force, Chair Atherton adjourned the meeting at 12:49 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

 

Cheryl Grant

Council Assistant

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments to the Public Record for the

Systems Development Task Force of July 24, 2001:

 

None.

 

 

Testimony Cards:

 

None.