Laserfiche WebLink
system more focused, appropriate and relevant and was in complete support of the first phase. He was <br />excited and encouraged by the staff's proposal, which demonstrated a desire to be accountable in terms of <br />outcomes. He did not see any intent to work against the unions. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark remarked that a council goal was to increase police staffing and that had been deferred until the <br />reprioritization process was completed. He said he would be concerned about postponing other things, <br />including the reprioritization process, until a new city manager was hired. He echoed Mr. Pryor's comments <br />and did not see the new process as a threat. He saw it as a response by the city manager to council direction <br />to develop a systemic approach to setting priorities and achieving outcomes. He was very pleased with the <br />creative and innovative approach Ms. Jones had taken. He credited her for taking a bold step. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling commented that the council had endorsed moving forward to establish a reprioritization process, <br />but not the specific proposal in the agenda item summary. He agreed with Mr. Pryor about aligning the <br />budget and goals and felt Ms. Jones was following council direction to accomplish that. He said the new <br />city manager would need to accept and work with whatever process the council wished to pursue and noted <br />that the council could always decide not to continue with the new process if it was not effective. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor did not feel the process was what the council had agreed to with respect to examining priorities. <br />She said there were many reasons not to move forward with change, particularly because the city manager <br />recruitment was under way. She felt that no action should be taken until feedback had been received from <br />the unions, City employees and the general public. She also wanted more time for the council to consider all <br />aspects of the proposal. She was not prepared to vote on the matter. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka stated that the City would be facing a $1 million deficit and needed to develop a balanced <br />budget. He said that would require some difficult choices that should be informed by a prioritization <br />process and input from the city manager, City employees, the public and councilors. He said the process <br />needed better input and participation from the public and the City Council. <br /> <br />Budget Manger Kitty Murdoch agreed with Mr. Zelenka that the public and the council should be involved, <br />but said that staff had intended the initial year of the process to be primarily an internal review of current <br />service levels and how well those supported council goals. She said it was not envisioned as a reduction <br />process and the council would still be presented with a General Fund forecast and projected expenditure <br />levels for FY09. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka commented that it was likely reductions would be necessary in FY09 and he wanted to hear <br />from the council and the public before staff formulated a budget. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz asked if Ms. Jones had selected the process. Ms. Jones replied that she had chosen the process <br />based on her understanding of discussions during the spring Budget Committee meeting. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said it would be difficult for her to support the proposal without sufficient background informa- <br />tion to understand the implications. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman remarked that the FY09 budget document would be completely different if the motion passed. <br />She said it would require quite an investment of resources and staff time to change the budget document and <br />the way services were provided. She felt the process would usurp the unions’ plan for addressing outsourc- <br />ing and privatization. She had not had an opportunity to discuss the process with her constituents and elicit <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />