MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL
SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE TASK FORCE
Tuesday, August 15, 2001
Council Chamber
Members Present: Bill Atherton (Chair), Susan McLain
Also present: David Bragdon
Absent:
Chair Atherton called the meeting to order at 4:11 p.m.
1. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 24, 2001, SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE TASK FORCE MEETING
Chair Atherton set the minutes over to the next meeting as Councilor McLain was unable to attend the July 24 meeting and Councilor Bragdon was not present at this meeting to vote on the minutes.
2. Department Presentations - Capital Asset Management
Terry Petersen, Director, REM, responded to the five written questions from the committee. (For more detail, see the copy of the Director’s responses to the committee’s questions which is included in the agenda packet with the permanent record of this meeting).
In response to a question from Chair Atherton, Dr. Petersen said any capital renewal/replacement over $10,000 was included in the study.
Councilor McLain asked where the definitions for renewal and replacement, maintenance and capital projects came from and if they were acceptable to everyone, not just the task force members. John Houser, Council Analyst, responded that the definitions were provided by Karen Feher from ASD. Jennifer Sims, Director, ASD, said the definitions were ones that ASD used to develop the CIPs and were government standards. She added that the $50,000 definition was one that ASD had chosen to warrant inclusion in the CIP. She said that number could be changed if the council wanted to change it.
Councilor McLain asked Dr. Petersen if there would changes to his responses to questions #3 and #4, regarding capital improvements, with those definitions in mind. Dr. Petersen responded that they had used a $10,000 cutoff and anything greater than $10,000 was included in their renewal and replacement study.
Jennifer Sims, Director, ASD, responded to the five written questions from the committee. (For more detail, see the copy of the Director’s responses to the committee’s questions which is included in the agenda packet with the permanent record of this meeting). In response to a question from the Chair, Ms. Sims said the schedule, including a roof replacement, was done by in-house staff.
David Biedermann, Information Technology Director, responded to the five written questions from the committee. (For more detail, see the copy of the Director’s responses to the committee’s questions which is included in the agenda packet with the permanent record of this meeting).
In response to a question from the Chair, Mr. Biedermann said the Zoo’s problems would reasonably take 5 years to get their system up to a level comparable with MRC.
Councilor McLain felt this was one of the hardest to get any definition around because it was not a question of how to maintain something so it will last longer, it was usually a question of how to replace something in order to keep up with the technology so you have to guess which way to go.
Mr. Biedermann said that was exactly the dilemma. He said it is difficult to forecast and they monitor those things very closely. He added that the things you can actually see, like a computer on a desk, is more predictable for repair and replacement. He said it is the large enterprise systems that are unpredictable.
Chair Atherton noted that there would be further conversations with IT because it was such a large ticket item.
Tony Vecchio, Zoo Director, responded to the extra questions from the committee. (For more information, see the copy of the Director’s responses to the committee’s five questions which is included in the agenda packet with the permanent record of this meeting).
In response to a question, Ms. Sims said there was not language in the bonds to cover repair and replacement on the new exhibits because when they issued the bonds to build the transfer stations for REM they created a financial structure to guarantee repayment because they were revenue bonds and they had to provide assurances to the bond holders. She added that the Zoo bonds were general responsibility bonds.
Councilor McLain asked if there had been a companion piece on the ballot measure dealing with maintenance and operation of the zoo. She remembered that one passed and one did not.
Mr. Vecchio said there was language that said they would improve some of the exhibits to make life better for the animals but it was all capital focused. He acknowledged that the committee’s interest was in a fund for repair and replacement but said that was not how they had done things in the past. He noted the 25 year renewal and replacement plan put together by Judy Monroe, the former facilities director, which was more detailed for the near future than the far future. He said there was flexibility in the plan because it is funded through their operating budget every year. He commented that bond money or private money was raised to pay for new construction and was not part of operations. He also noted the 20-year master plan approved by the Council and the City of Portland in 1992.
Councilor McLain said this overall review by the committee was to build on the good and not just to change for change’s sake. She said they were asking for ways to improve what they already had. She asked Mr. Vecchio to think of some things that would help and bring them back to the committee.
Mr. Vecchio said there were plenty of ideas but every discussion seemed to come down to funding. There didn’t ever seem to be enough.
Mr. Houser asked Mr. Vecchio about a process for regular updating of the 25-year plan. He asked if there were policies or procedures in place when the original plan was done to guide the development of the plan.
Mr. Vecchio said there was not a process in place to update the plan because the plan was only finished about 4 years ago. He said, as they were shuffling priorities, they were starting to see that they needed to update it on a regular basis.
Bryant Enge, MERC Director of Administration, responded to the five written questions from the committee. (For more detail, see the copy of the responses to the committee’s questions included in the agenda packet with the permanent record of this meeting). He felt they had a very strong capital planning process and said they were working to formalize all of their processes in the coming year.
Councilor McLain asked what he would want to see improved and where he saw places for improvement in the system.
Mr. Enge said he would think about the processes and come up with some ideas.
Jeff Tucker, Finance Manager, Parks Department, responded to the five written questions from the committee. (For more detail, see the copy of Parks Director Charles Ciecko’s responses to the committee’s questions which is included in the agenda packet with the permanent record of this meeting). He responded to a question from the Chair that there is nothing in the budget at the present time for renewal and replacement but they did have a deferred maintenance list.
Chair Atherton wondered why they would be planning new facilities without seeing to the maintenance needs of current facilities
Mr. Tucker responded that included in the plans were ways to deal with facilities maintenance needs, of which many were infrastructure based. He said during master planning, they built in replacement and upgrade needs.
He said local share money was somewhat restricted by the bond covenants and Council policy to natural resource and passive recreational based needs, so that $1.2 million was allocated to things like the Sauvie Island boat ramp, Howell Territorial Park and Oxbow Camp improvements, and then those projects could be removed from the deferred maintenance list.
Councilor McLain asked what he would want to see improved and where he saw places for improvement in the system.
Charles Ciecko, Regional Parks & Greenspaces Director, assured the committee there were no problems with the Multnomah County local share funds and the projects completed so far were approved by the county before the bond measure election and reviewed by our legal counsel. They said there were no conflicts with bond covenants. Any change in the direction of the funds that remain is subject to Council action after consultation with Multnomah County. He noted deficiencies in the current funding of the department.
Jenny Kirk, Finance Administration Manager, Planning Department, responded to the five questions from the committee. (For more detail, see the copy of Planning Director Andy Cotugno’s responses to the committee’s questions which is included in the agenda packet with the permanent record of this meeting).
Dick Bolen, Data Resource Center (DRC) Manager, said they had started using the leasing mechanism because of the grants issue. He said it had enabled them to spread the cost. He said the cost allocation using the lease was a way to avoid the “blip” problem the committee had been discussing as computers are getting faster and better so they can get the performance they need much cheaper.
Councilor McLain asked what he would want to see improved and where he saw places for improvement in the system.
Mr. Bolen responded that one quick one would be dealing with the issue of the desk tops.
3. Task Force Discussion Concerning Additional Information Needs
None.
ADJOURN
There being no further business to come before the task force, Chair Atherton adjourned the meeting at 5:29 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.