MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING

Tuesday, April 9, 2002

Metro Council Chamber Annex

Members Present:  Rex Burkholder (Chair), David Bragdon (Vice Chair), Bill Atherton, Susan McLain

Members Absent:  Rod Monroe (excused)

Also Present:  Carl Hosticka (arrived at 4:36 p.m.)

Chair Burkholder called the meeting to order at 4:17 p.m.

1.  Consideration of the Minutes

2.  ORDINANCE NO. 02-940, For the Purpose of Adopting the Annual Budget for Fiscal Year  2002-03, Making Appropriations, and Levying Ad Valorem Taxes, and Declaring an  Emergency

Public Testimony

There was no public testimony.

Consideration of Technical Amendments

John Houser, Council Analyst, briefly overviewed the FY 2002-03 budget technical amendments. Copies of the technical amendments and a summary are included as part of the meeting record. He explained that several of the amendments were for projects that were funded during the current year but would be carried over in total or in part to next fiscal year.

In response to a question from Councilor McLain about Amendment #12, which moved $50,000 budgeted in special appropriations for the Transportation Investment Task Force to the Planning Fund, Mr. Houser explained that the project would be overseen and the funds controlled by Planning Department staff, so it was determined that the funds should be allocated in the Planning Fund rather than as a separate special appropriation. Casey Short, Financial Planning Manager, added that this was a one-time transfer.

Consideration of Councilor Amendments

Before the committee considered councilor amendments, Councilor McLain raised an issue about a budget notification issue that needed to be taken into consideration. She explained that notices had been budgeted for the Urban Growth Boundary and Goal 5 ESEE steps, but there was another notification having to do with outreach that had not been budgeted because it was anticipated that the work would not be completed until the next budget cycle. Councilor McLain wanted to ensure that there was a commitment to find the necessary money for notification if the work for the Goal 5 program was completed earlier than anticipated. The dollar impact on the Planning Department would be approximately $15,000.

The following Councilor Amendments are referred to by their designation on the Summary of Budget Amendment Requests, which is included as part of the meeting record.

General Amendment #2

Chair Burkholder introduced the first councilor amendment, which would provide $80,000 for implementation of Metro’s affordable housing strategies. He summarized the two sections of the amendment and said that although he supported it, at the time he proposed the amendment he thought it would be funded from $125,000 in one-time unexpected revenue. Subsequently, he learned that any expenditure from the $125,000 amount would slow the Council’s goal of reaching $1 million in the General Fund fund balance.

The committee discussed the amendment and agreed that it was worthwhile, but that there were areas that needed to be worked out, such as the issue of eroding the fund balance and how great was the need for assistance to local jurisdictions.

General Amendment #3

Councilor McLain summarized the amendment, which would enhance the capability of the Planning and Regional Parks and Greenspaces departments to pursue grant opportunities by providing $15,000 to each department for grant writing assistance. She said that the dollars would provide the departments with the possible means to accomplish some of the objectives identified in their add packages and would not be spent unless grants worth pursuing were identified. She said she hoped the $15,000 to each department would generate between $150,000 and $500,000 in grants.

Chair Burkholder asked if the possibility existed to use some or all of the dollars to free up Metro staff to seek specialized grants rather than hiring an outside consultant, since Metro staff would be more knowledgeable about these grants and how the federal funding system worked.

Jeff Tucker, Parks Budget Analyst, pointed out that the Parks Department grant writer was paid by the Open Spaces and Diack Nature Center programs, both of which are bond-restricted funds. If the grant writer sought a grant outside his area, his time could be paid for from this source.

Chair Burkholder commented that the amendment involved a small amount of money with the potential for leveraging a much larger amount. He requested a budget note that would require a report at the end of FY 2002-03 showing how the funds were spent and what results were achieved.

The suggestion was made to delete “outside” from the phrase “outside grant-writing assistance” and replace it with “either in-house or outside grant-writing assistance.”

General Amendment #4

Councilor McLain explained that this amendment added $3,000 to the Special Appropriation line item for the Water Consortium, increasing the total appropriation from $15,000 to $18,000. The additional $3,000 was a one-year obligation to cover Metro’s share of the cost of updating the regional water supply plan.

HR Amendment #1

Councilor McLain explained that the amendment would address a portion of Human Resource’s add package, which called for a 1.00 FTE position to assess training needs and implement a training program. This amendment would provide $35,000 to hire an outside consultant to carry out the first part of the plan by conducting an assessment and inventory of Metro’s training needs.

Lilly Aguilar, Human Resources Director, said there was a significant need for training at Metro, from managing Metro’s workforce to providing the kinds of skills needed for staff development, and she explained that there were not adequate resources to accomplish the assessment with existing staff.

Chair Burkholder asked if the Human Resources Department would look for recommendations on how best to provide the training, whether through outside consultants or in-house staff. Ms. Aguilar said that they would consider all options and that the training program resulting from this assessment could include a number of different options, including managerial and supervisory training, technical training, and training programs developed at the department level.

Chair Burkholder noted that last year the Facilities and Operations Committee conducted an e-mail survey of Metro employees and discovered that the majority wanted more computer training. He said that providing staff with this type of training would increase efficiency and productivity.

Pete Sandrock, Chief Operating Officer, said that all Metro departments budget money for training. He said Metro needs a comprehensive assessment of how effectively that money is being spent and whether Metro could be more efficient by standardizing training requirements and using training dollars more creatively.

Councilor Hosticka said that if the training program made Metro’s existing investments more efficient, he would support the amendment. However, he cautioned the committee to be aware that it would be committing itself to a course of action once the assessment was completed.

Councilor McLain suggested adding language saying “for training and efficiency of already allocated dollars” to address this issue. The committee agreed to the change.

ASD Amendments #1 and 2

Chair Burkholder suggested that the committee consider both amendments together, since they were so closely related.

John Houser began by introducing ASD Amendment #1 for Councilor Monroe. He explained that the amendment would provide a full-time position to make available additional safety and loss prevention training and emergency response, and he explained that Councilor Monroe wished to reserve the right to introduce this amendment to the full Council on April 25. Pete Sandrock added that the person hired for the position would be a security and first-aid qualified supervisor who would be available to patrol the building, leaving the security officer at the front desk full time. He said that, most importantly, the supervisor would be available to train staff in emergency response, security, safety and loss prevention and that the position had the additional benefit of relieving a half-time person to work full time on benefits administration.

Councilor McLain then introduced ASD Amendment #2 and explained that its purpose was to provide a full-time receptionist at the Security Desk, which would allow security staff to leave the front desk to fulfill security functions such as response and observation in the building.

The committee discussed and compared both amendments. Councilor McLain was concerned that Amendment #1 would leave the security staff without the ability to leave the front desk in case of an emergency after hours, and she pointed out that Metro would be hosting several evening meetings in the future. Mr. Sandrock responded that in those cases it would be necessary to make special security arrangements.

Chair Burkholder said that although he saw merit in both amendments, he was going to vote against them in order to keep allocated costs as low as possible while still maintaining function.

Councilor Bragdon said that he thought Amendment #2 provided an important and needed front-line position. Councilor McLain said that she thought Amendment #1 was, in part, an indirect way of providing additional resources for benefits administration, and she encouraged Mr. Sandrock to come back to the Council with a proposal that addressed the benefits issue.

Amendment #1

Amendment #2

REM Amendment #1

Councilor Bragdon explained that Metro had made blanket grants to the Regional Arts and Culture Council (RACC) in amounts up to $100,000 from Metro’s General Fund in past years. Since there was no money available in the General Fund for RACC this year, this amendment proposed pairing Metro’s Solid Waste Education Program with RACC to provide education and outreach to raise awareness of waste prevention and recycling opportunities in the region. The contract would be capped at $50,000 and would be contingent upon RACC’s ability to meet the legal limitations on the use of solid waste funds. The contract was amended to designate it as a “significant impact” contract and, as such, it would automatically come before the Council for approval.

Terry Petersen, REM Director, added that although the amendment showed that this expenditure would be reflected in the budget as a reduction in the department’s contingency fund, latest projections showed that $50,000 would probably be available from the department’s undesignated fund balance.

Chair Burkholder questioned whether the committee should make this a sole source contract. Councilor Bragdon explained that as an umbrella organization, RACC didn’t actually produce art but rather provided a conduit and competitive setting. Councilor McLain added that the reason Metro had funded RACC in the past was because it was a network that included Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington Counties and the City of Portland, which allowed Metro to maximize the benefit received from its arts dollars. She said this amendment would give Metro an opportunity to work with a larger audience on some important recycling issues.

Auditor Amendment #1

Alexis Dow, Metro Auditor, explained that the Executive Officer’s budget eliminated a temporary half-time auditing position and $30,000 for outside contracting from the Auditor’s Office to create a new accounting position in Administrative Services that would implement a number of auditor recommendations. She said that this action weakened the independent oversight responsibility of the Auditor’s Office and would result in inadequate resources to carry out her responsibilities under the Metro Charter. She added that the half-time temporary position and outside contracting funds that were eliminated gave the Auditor’s Office the flexibility to accomplish diverse audits and that it was important to reaffirm Metro’s commitment to independent oversight and public accountability at a time when Metro was facing a transition. The amendment would restore the Auditor’s budget to current staffing and program levels.

Ms. Dow discussed a letter she had distributed to Councilors, which reported on the issues addressed in the 2001-02 Budget Note requesting information on individual audit costs. A copy of Ms. Dow’s letter is included in the meeting record. She also talked about the audit plan she submitted, which she said included information on how much the Auditor’s Office planned to spend and what it planned to deliver in terms of number of audits and the topics they would be covering. She added that in addition to audits, her staff worked with departments to help them implement audit recommendations and that the Auditor’s role is not just issuing audit reports but also providing independent oversight and encouraging the organization to be efficient and accountable.

Councilor McLain responded that she respects the job the Auditor’s Office does but added that the specific information requested by the committee regarding the cost of audits had not been received. She said that the committee might consider amending the budget to restore funding to the Auditor’s Office when it had the information it needed to make that decision.

Councilor Hosticka said that he understood the justification for the added position in Administrative Services, but he didn’t think there was an adequate case made to cut the Auditor’s budget to fund it.

Chair Burkholder said that he supported the Executive Officer’s budget recommendation as the appropriate one to meet Council goals of being accountable and having a balanced budget. He added that he also supported adding a position in the Accounting Department to increase oversight and ensure that the Auditor’s recommendations to the Administrative Services Department were carried out. He said that Metro was not able to fully fund most departments because of the limited budget, and that Metro had to live within its resources and look for additional efficiencies, which involved trade-offs.

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 02-3181, For the Purpose of Approving the FY 2002-03 Budget and Transmitting the Approved Budget to the Tax Supervising and Conservation Commission.

Chair Burkholder complimented the committee and staff on a budget process that has worked well and for making difficult decisions. He added that the agency was not being funded at the level it should be in terms of delivering the best possible service to the public, but that the committee did its best within its current constraints.

Chair Burkholder agreed to carry the resolution to the full Council.

4.  Councilor Communications

Chair Burkholder noted that there would be another public hearing on the FY 2002-03 budget at the April 11, 2002 Council Meeting in Forest Grove.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Burkholder adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m.

Prepared by,

Claudia Wilton

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 9, 2002