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