Item 4A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

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