MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL BUDGET WORK SESSION

Wednesday, March 24, 1999

Council Annex

Presiding Officer Monroe called the meeting to order at 2:07 PM.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF MARCH 10, 1999

2.  ORDINANCE NO. 99-793, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000, MAKING APPROPRIATIONS, LEVYING AD VALOREM TAXES, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BUDGET

John Houser, senior council analyst, reviewed the Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer’s memo with recommendations for the proposed Transportation Planning Department budget and identified some issues including the ratio of managerial and/or supervisory staff to other staff within the department, the potential long term costs of the “schools program”, potential changes in staffing and funding levels for the High Capacity Transit (HCT) program, and the impact of potentially significant federal funds on the scope and staffing of the I-5 Corridor study. (A copy of the Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer’s memo and recommendations can be found with the permanent record of this meeting.)

Mr. Houser proposed the following budget note:

Mr. Houser alerted the committee to other issues that could have some impact during the coming year:

1) The proposed schools program related to transportation system planning issues and how it relates to land use, growth management into the middle schools in the region. He reported that the preliminary work being done this year and proposed for next year was funded through outside foundations or grant monies. Next year’s proposal was for $45,000. He cautioned that if the program became wildly successful foundations or other outside sources may not wish to continue funding the program and that would leave us attempting to find internal sources of funding for it. The only one he could think of was the excise tax.

2) High capacity transit staffing and funding. He noted that staff had been cut by approximately 8.5 FTE due to the failure of South/North lightrail but added that there were discussions ongoing about the potential for a northern lightrail line as well as other types of system improvements in the south corridor and a potential that if all went well related to those studies, about 5 additional FTE could be sought for the HCT program in the coming year. Virtually all of that funding comes from the federal government so the added positions would not put any particular burden on the excise tax, for example,

3) The proposed I-5 trade corridor study for the next fiscal year. Oregon and Washington DOTs had applied for an additional $2 million in federal funding. If they receive those funds there was a potential for them to “purchase” work from Metro in support of the study. Mr. Cotugno had placed $185,000 in the budget to reflect what might come from that additional funding. It was not certain yet and might have minor staffing impacts.

Councilor McLain reiterated that the $185,000 had been put on the side of possible resources with a balance on the other side on how they would be utilized if they got the money. Mr. Cotugno answered that was correct, he had not assumed the $185,000 for staff.

Presiding Officer Monroe commented that Mr. Houser’s caution on the schools program was well taken and well thought out. He said there might be some point in the future where they would have to decide whether to continue it with Metro resources. He felt the only thing worse than dropping it would be not starting it in the first place.

Councilor McLain asked about MILT. She said a lot energy and staff time devoted to the bus.

Andy Cotugno, Transportation Director, said decisions regarding MILT needed to be made soon

Councilor McLain commented that the bus was very popular and noted that the Washington County Fair had already inquired if they wanted their “usual” space this year. She said the bus had more interaction with people than other outreaches.

Presiding Officer Monroe said there were a couple of ways to go with the bus: they could overrule the budget and fund the bus at some level or they could not fund it for this year and ask that the bus be mothballed to be available in future years.

Councilor McLain agreed the bus needed funding. She did not think they would have to put the bus in mothballs for a whole year if they could find private partners to help sponsor it and upgrade the outdated displays. Staffing needs should also be discussed.

Councilor Washington commented that the schools program would most likely be extremely successful and agreed it was the best way to get through to the parents. He did not feel the MILT bus should be mothballed because it was a prime educational tool for middle schoolers. He said perhaps it could be combined with the schools program curriculum somehow.

Councilor McLain agreed that combining MILT with the schools program would be a good thing. She said she had been told that the $45,000 was tied to staff so additional funds would be needed for the bus.

Councilor Atherton felt there was agreement, especially about the use of the bus as part of an educational program but was uncomfortable with council making the decision to use $45,000 to fix the bus. He felt the MILT folks should be aware that the resources were available and if they wanted to seek grants from private donors to help upgrade MILT, it was their call.

Councilor Bragdon commented that the ratios of the different departments was not necessarily a bad sign but could mean that good people were being retained.

Mr. Cotugno responded that trying to retain the best people while scaling back at the bottom end did make the ratios get worse. He noted a number of projects that were fairly small in terms of number of staff working on them but important as far as degree of complexity and significance of the program, i.e. congestion pricing and the TOD program.

Councilor Atherton asked if the auditor had reviewed this report and was told she had not.

Councilor Washington urged the council to be very protective of the needs of the transportation department. He said the skill level and expertise of that staff was important and he wanted everyone to be aware of the transportation needs.

Presiding Officer Monroe felt the downsizing would be fairly temporary.

Mr. Cotugno clarified that this was a baseline placeholder budget because they needed to be seeking federal funding for some projects in this region. He expected the budget would need amending to add resources in all fronts if they received any of the grant money.

Presiding Officer Monroe asked if he had concerns about the proposed budget note.

Mr. Cotugno said the issue of having a position that better recognized budget responsibility could be a partial solution but did not deal with field people or responsibility of project managers to supervise consultants or staffs from other jurisdictions or the issue that the low end had been cut back to retain expertise at the high end. He noted built in situations that would still have a bad ratio as compared to other departments.

Councilor Bragdon did not want the budget note to perpetuate the idea that there were too many chiefs and not enough Indians. He did not feel it was so in reality. Presiding Officer Monroe said that was not the note’s intent and Mr. Cotugno said he had no objection to having the different classification tool available if necessary.

Michael Morrissey, senior council analyst, said the recommendation was not meant to cut or cast aspersions but to look into making a better fit.

Councilor Park asked about fiscal impact. He was concerned about a possible liability problem with Labor and Industries in regard to overtime.

Mr. Cotugno explained the exempt and non-exempt stratification between overtime eligible and non-overtime eligible. He said all planners were under the exempt from overtime status and added that the overtime vs. not overtime eligible issue was actually not relevant to this discussion..

Kathy Rutkowski, ASD Financial Planning, commented that every position was looked at for specific duties to determine that exempt status and it was not necessarily tied to classification. She cited an example with an upper level secretary.

Richard Brandman clarified that there were no supervisors in the department that were not actually supervising anyone. He said they had the authority to initiate the hire/fire process through performance reviews.

Councilor McLain said, in response to a question from Councilor Park, that the transportation curriculum was modeled after one recycling used with large visual aids full of information front and back with activities and units which dealt with specific elements. A summer intern developed the units for specific junior high level classes that had been approved by the districts in which they were used. She said it encompassed a wide variety of transportation issues.

Mr. Cotugno added that there were about 20 different lesson plans to pick from and it was being used in approximately 100 schools at this time. He said the fear was that it would take off like a rocket and they would not be able to fund it.

Councilor McLain asked if council would be comfortable giving direction to Mr. Cotugno and/or transportation staff asking to look at possible opportunities for grants so they would not lose the MILT bus.

Presiding Officer Monroe said there had been a lot of support from council for the MILT program and they would like to see it continue in spite of the budgetary constraints.

Mr. Cotugno suggested that while they originated the MILT bus, the consolidated Metro communications and outreach program rested in the Executive Office. He felt Bruce Warner should be consulted and there should be a joint response to council. He said they also needed to be involved because they knew the history of the possibilities.

Councilor Washington urged Mr. Cotugno to relate the high degree of interest in this project from the council to Mr. Warner.

GROWTH MANAGEMENT BUDGET

Mr. Morrissey briefed the committee on the growth management budget which was down about 15% or $4.5 million. He reviewed elimination of some planning and planning-related outreach grants and the amendment for $26,614 related to membership in the Regional Water Providers Consortium. (A copy of the budget summary is attached to the permanent record of this meeting.) He pointed out some cuts in expenses that were dangerously close to inadequate, i.e. supplies and staff training money.

He reviewed recommendations including local planning grants and public involvement support which had no known source for funds at this time, a Measure 15 issue that would require Metro to pay for notification of land use issues, and a study by ASD relative to revenues and mission of the DRC as well as staff training money for the department.

Elaine Wilkerson, director of growth management, said she had asked her staff to check on the postage issue of ballot measure 56. She said the department needed to get more information out and small post cards would not work as well as larger ones. She added there were 339,000 properties that needed noticing.

Sherry Oeser, growth management administration, in response to a question from Councilor McLain, said the cost of the last mailing, bulk to approximately 35,000 homes and posted to resident and not individuals, cost about $112,000.

Ms. Wilkerson added that first class would cost more and they were assuming bulk rate to get the cost down a little. She agreed there was very little in the budget for staff training but when it came down to cutting postage or training, and the postage was needed more. She was uncomfortable that training funding had to be cut.

Councilor Bragdon asked, regarding the City of Portland’s resolution, how much staffing resources it would take to play a coordinating role with MPAC.

Ms. Wilkerson said the current year had 1.5 FTE committed to water and/or fish related things, for the existing Goal 5. Next year’s budget, anticipating that they would need to move into stormwater and watershed management, increased the FTE to 2.78. She said there was $50,000 excise tax money available for professional services to support the next phases of that work and they had been pursuing grants vigorously. She said they would move more aggressively into the watershed management issue if the funds were available. She noted they were in the race for $500,000 in urban reserve planning which was significant.

Councilor McLain commented that they were losing that resource in transportation and hopefully would regain it in another department.

Ms. Wilkerson said they were very actively involved in that and the key was how to plan the transportation system in an environmentally conscious way.

Councilor Washington asked about the Measure 56 mailer. Ms. Wilkerson responded that there was a House Bill regarding notice that passed last November that said you had to give notice of any changes that would affect property values, up or down.

Councilor Washington felt a district wide mailing was a good opportunity for councilors to individually get out a message to their constituents. He hoped the communication teams would work together to get more than just councilors names and phone numbers out to citizens in each district.

Councilor Park asked if there was a fiscal impact study done on that bill. Presiding Officer Monroe answered that he did not know.

Councilor Atherton commented that this was a complex issue that could be approached in “chunks” or manageable units, in this case by watersheds. He wondered if or how they could blend in the other resources if they were to say this was the direction they wanted to set.

Councilor McLain was pleased with Ms. Wilkerson’s comments and that they had tried to step up resources under a very constrained budget. She added that another ray of hope was the Executive Office had used one of their bodies to put in a “fish guy” in addition to the watershed planning they were doing. She noted lots of documentation, including the Regional Framework Plan, that talked about this issue from the watershed level.

Councilor Park felt the only thing missing from the dialog was the end goal which was the blessing from DEQ that Title 3 would satisfy the streamside restoration. He was concerned that they needed to establish the end goal in order to satisfy the water quality issue that would get them to the next step.

Councilor Atherton said that was a good example of what he meant because if they looked at what they knew they had to do on Tryon Creek as opposed to the action they would need to take on Johnson Creek, it was different. If it was chunked based on watersheds, they could approach them all differently.

Councilor McLain pointed out there would be an update on watershed planning for Title 3 and Goal 5 and this conversation would fit in nicely there. She proposed the following budget amendment which was supported by Presiding Officer Monroe and the Executive’s office.

Presiding Officer Monroe said the Executive had readily admitted that this was an oversight on his part and that the amendment was needed. He asked for questions or concerns.

Councilor Atherton said he did not have the confidence in that operation or its direction to give his approval to the amendment.

Presiding Officer Monroe asked of there were other objections to the amendment. There were none.

ZOO BUDGET

Mr. Morrissey summarized the zoo budget. He said the revenue sources were looking positive and they were on target with the Great Northwest project.

Presiding Officer Monroe asked about the property tax for the zoo and Craig Prosser answered from the audience that everyone paid the same rate now.

Mr. Morrissey said there were no proposed amendments for the zoo budget but there would be an ordinance having to do with the admissions rate.

Councilor Washington asked about that rate increase and if there had been feedback. He was told when an article appeared in the Oregonian there were very few calls.

Mr. Morrissey said based on past history there were a whole lot fewer calls on the admission increase than there were about a proposed parking increase.

The committee discussed pros and cons of charging for park and ride parking at the zoo and whether there was a large enough space to even bother to think about it.

Mr. Morrissey reminded them that the lot was not entirely under Metro’s control and was in fact owned by the City of Portland and managed by a consortium.

Councilor McLain wanted more information for the discussion of admission increases. She asked for an update of the 1995 Zoo Master Plan for 1996 - 1998. She thought it would be a good tool to show that even with good management there needed to be an increase in admission.

Mr. Vecchio said he would update the Master Plan for her.

Councilor Atherton asked if the revenues from admissions covered maintenance and operations. He was told the zoo budget came 40% from property tax and 60% was earned.

Mike Burton, Executive Officer, said the zoo was the only facility that had a region wide tax base. The 40% comes from that tax base and was voter approved for the cost of operations. The additional revenues pays for operations and other things.

There being no further business before the committee, at approximately 3:45 PM Presiding Officer Monroe recessed the meeting until April 14, 1999 at 2:00 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Cheryl Grant

Council Assistant

I:minutes\1999\budget\03249bdm.doc