12/09/1991 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e vide a means for measuring enhancement. Mr. Nicholson requested analysis which would present a picture of how controversial the service is. B. Scheduling A brief discussion was held regarding the January 8 meeting. Ms. Bellamy said that the initial analysis may not be available until the day of the meeting. Mayor Miller said that it is difficult to have a meaningful discus- sion on data that are not available before the meeting. Mr. Weeks said that the data presented and the analyses conducted will be sound, but that the team will not have much time for "digestion" of the material. Consequently, the team will not be providing many conclusive comments, but will provide meaningful summary tables and text. Ms. Bellamy added that there is too much raw data to present in the January 8 report. Ms. Ehrman expressed a prefer- ence for waiting a week for the report in order to receive a more meaningful report. Mr. Boles disagreed, stating that if the council falls a week behind at this point in the process, it loses a week later in the process. Mr. Weeks thought that it more important for the City Council to have time to think about the data than for the team to think about it. He said that after the initial analysis and discussion, additional analyses could follow. Mr. Boles suggested that the team provide the summary by January 6, if possible, and that the council discuss the data on January 8, if it feels that discus- sion would be meaningful. Ms. Ehrman suggested that between January 6 and 8, the team could be doing further interpretive analysis. The council and the team agreed, by consensus. e C. Did the Second Round of Public Input Accomplish its Goals? Mr. Nicholson said that that he was generally pleased with the second round of public input. He expressed a desire for the council to attend to how the city could "do things differently" as opposed to merely changing what is already in place. Mr. Boles agreed, stating that the second round of public input did not address how things would be done differently in the future, but only asked about the past. He added that the third round may address long- range strategies, such as volunteerism, privatization, consolidation, or efficiency. Mr. Nicholson said that the council has not asked the public for ideas or strategies, but only about revenue and services. He said that, in terms of the current process, open ended questions are not likely to produce meaningful answers. He recommended that the council consider systematic strategies by which operations can be examined, in search of improvements. Mr. Gleason agreed, stating that a concrete focus on the future is desired. He said that the committee could focus on volunteerism, consolidation, privatization, and efficiency, developing strategies by which those compo- nents can be measured. Mayor Miller pointed out that the City has begun to do things differently. Mr. Nicholson commented that the public wants the City to examine strategies which will increase efficiency and will result in less cost to the public. He expressed a desire to begin identifying concrete opportunities to apply strategies that will yield results in the long-run. Ms. Bascom pointed out that staff can assist in identification of strategies. It was agreed that the committee would identify steps that have been taken in e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 9, 1991 Page 3