Item 4A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman remarked that the FY09 budget document would be completely different if the motion passed. She said it would require quite an investment of resources and staff time to change the budget document and the way services were provided. She felt the process would usurp the unions’ plan for addressing outsourc- ing and privatization. She had not had an opportunity to discuss the process with her constituents and elicit their opinions because of the short notice. She cited materials from the State of Iowa public employees that strongly objected to the consultant’s, Public Strategies Group, recommendations regarding privatization. Ms. Jones stated that she would have preferred more lead time to present the process to the council, but as city manager she had the authority to implement such a process without specific direction from the council. She did not want to proceed without making the council aware of the process because it would encompass a review of vision statements and alignment of resources around those statements. She felt compelled to involve the council at this point because she wanted confirmation that the statements accurately reflected the council’s vision before moving forward. Mr. Clark asked if it was correct that the budget and budget document would change radically as a result of the process. Ms. Murdoch replied that the service budget would look somewhat different, but the operating budget by department and the capital budget, statistical tables, financial summaries, financial forecast and appendix documents would still provide the same information. Mr. Clark asked if that meant the change would occur in the public process with respect to how the budget was presented and the activities of the Budget Committee. Ms. Murdoch said she was not aware of any planned changes in those areas. Mr. Clark said it appeared that the primary difference would be in the way the budget was developed, resulting in better alignment with outcomes and more information for the council to use in considering priorities. Ms. Murdoch agreed with Mr. Clark. She said the process was an attempt to make the budgeting process more transparent. Mr. Clark expressed concern with reaction from the unions and asked if they had been consulted at this point in the process. Ms. Jones replied that typically the unions would not be consulted until the budget was developed and that approach would not change; she was meeting with the unions beforehand to advise them that the process was changing and assure them that the City’s values remained the same. She said that financial constraints that were likely to get worse in the future demanded a different approach to use of resources. Mr. Clark asked Ms. Jones to advise the council if the unions raised any concerns during her discussions. He said he had some initial concern with the choice of consultant, but based on what he had seen so far he was favorably impressed. He said that budgeting for outcomes and prioritization of resources was an approach that any city manager should be able to embrace. Mr. Pryor indicated he was pleased with the discussion of the process. He recollected that the Budget Committee had begun a conversation about prioritization in anticipation of a budget deficit at some point in the future and there had to be a system in place to prioritize services and reflect that in the funding levels. He said the charge to staff was to find a way to examine each department from a functional perspective to MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 3 Work Session