MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE

Wednesday, October 24, 2001

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  Rod Monroe

Chair McLain called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m.

2.  Results of Program Preferences Survey

Jennifer Sims, Chief Financial Officer, said departments were assembling requests, building in budget assumptions discussed with Council the previous day. She noted that the five-year forecast had predicted some shortages, and that preparation for this was necessary. She spoke to the Program Preference Survey Results, which are included as part of this record. These results were from the survey distributed at the previous Budget and Finance Committee meeting, and did not include Cabinet responses.

Councilor Hosticka asked for numbers clarification on pages 45, 47, and 51 of the results. Ms. Sims clarified the numbers. Chair McLain noted that the results information didn’t reflect which responsibilities were mandated by state law. Ms. Sims noted that there was no excise tax indicated by such an item. Chair McLain said the item still carried an FTE. Ms. Sims agreed that the program descriptions were very brief, due to the nature of the survey. She suggested that Finance Staff provide more information about items that were identified to be eliminated, reduced, or enhanced. Councilor Park said he thought the excise tax for Item 50 was high.

Chair McLain asked about the graphic legend on page 31. Ms. Sims responded that the dark bar represented the response rate to eliminate, maintain and enhance programs.

Chair McLain asked about the score of 4. Ms. Sims responded that that was the highest score, and there was no instance where an item received top scores for priority or for service level.

Chair McLain referred to the difference between priority level and service level for item 37 on page 42, and noted that funding resources were not included to fully explain the discrepancy. She referred to the survey, and noted that each item had a descriptor. She asked if those descriptors were consistent with the survey results. Ms. Sims responded that the survey scale was consistent with the results scale.

Pete Sandrock, Chief Operating Officer, referred to pages 45 and 47, and said that staff had made an arbitrary cutoff so that any item with at least three similar votes would make the list. Chair McLain said that she thought some votes looked strange, and said that the program descriptions had been unclear. She suggested that staff review the results in-depth to verify whether the votes were made with full information.

Ms. Sims referred to page 51, and noted there was general support for developing add packages for those items receiving three or more votes. Chair McLain said there were more discrepancies in this area, and managers should have the opportunity to explain the connections between existing programs and added programs. Ms. Sims that that kind of analysis had not been completed. Chair McLain said that explanation of votes was very important, and that simplified information could be used or abused.

Councilor Park commented that programs showing votes to eliminate, reduce or enhance might warrant further discussion among the voters to identify differences in opinion vs. differences in understanding.

Councilor Burkholder noted that votes to maintain programs were not reflected in the results. He said he didn’t see any conclusions being drawn in the results, but that it was helpful information. Chair McLain thanked Sarah Follett, Financial Analyst, for drawing up the survey results. She said this information was to be used as a starting point, and would be reviewed to provide more detail.

Ms. Sims said that in areas where there were only three votes to change service level, Finance Staff would take into account the number of councilors voting to maintain items. With direction from the committee, Finance Staff would provide more clarity regarding certain items so that the committee would have an informed idea of what options were available for eliminating and enhancing. Cut packages, which would be more generic, would also be developed. Chair McLain said that information needs differed with each councilor. She said that the information requests from councilors could be responded to by staff with a varying degree of formality. Peggy Coats, Council Analyst, said she was happy to coordinate that, and she hoped that Council would come forth with their questions. She said everyone was willing to convey information so that Council could make informed decisions.

Chair McLain noted that there were not many votes toward enhancing packages. She asked what kind of timeline would be needed to give budget priority information back to departments. Ms. Coats deferred to Ms. Sims as that information was dependent on packages submitted by departments to the Finance staff. Chair McLain noted that the next Budget and Finance committee meeting was November 14, 2001, and that didn’t leave much time. Councilor Burkholder asked Ms. Coats to assess the results and provide some guidance in interpreting them. Ms. Coats asked if it would be helpful for her and members of the Finance Staff to meet individually with councilors. Councilor Burkholder said he thought Ms. Coats could define a strategy that would be helpful to both staff and committee members. Chair McLain agreed that individual meetings would be helpful, and asked that this be done within the next eight or nine days.

Councilor Burkholder said he had discovered that some of this information had circulated throughout the building before it had been presented to the committee. He said he was disturbed that raw data had circulated while it was still sensitive. He said there was no clear budget decision predicated on the survey results. Chair McLain suggested adding the title “Preliminary” or “Draft” to the survey results. She said that, in statistics, there was a large difference between raw and interpreted data. Ms. Sims said that the managers and supervisors of the Planning Department had had their budget retreat at the previous Friday. The survey results had been given to them, with all the necessary caveats. Councilor Park said he was more disturbed by the fact that the survey was supposed to be confidential until the results were interpreted. He suggested setting up guidelines of some sort to address similar activities in the future. Chair McLain suggested that this issue be discussed at the next Budget pre-meeting. Councilor Atherton asked if giving the information to the Planning Department would skew the information received by Council from Finance Staff. Mr. Sandrock said he had approved giving those results to the Planning Department. He referred to confidence-building as one of the goals in the budget process, and said that a path towards that was transparency. He didn’t believe that Andy Cotugno, Director of Planning, nor his staff had taken the information to be anything but preliminary. He asked the committee to feel confident that this data was not being misused. Chair McLain responded that with Ms. Coats’ help, a level of confidence could be ensured in the future.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes of October 10, 2001, Budget and Finance Committee Meeting

3.  Councilor Communications

There being no further business before the committee, Chair McLain adjourned the meeting at 3:02 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Cary Stacey

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 2001

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

i:\minutes\2001\budget&finance/102401bdm.doc