Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman pointed out that the suggested motion indicated the budget document would not contain the <br />same information as previous documents. She said she was not opposed to considering new ways to budget, <br />but objected to the precipitous way it was presented to the council. She required more feedback, including <br />from other jurisdictions, before moving forward. She stated that the council created the goals and the public <br />had no input. She preferred to delay implementation of a major change to the service provision and <br />budgeting process. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she did not understand why $100,000 was being spent if the process was the same. Ms. <br />Murdoch replied that a different internal process would be used and the consultant would help design that <br />process. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she had heard from some people that it would be ridiculous to start a new process before a <br />new city manager was hired and she did not want to proceed. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to approve using the Limited Budgeting <br />for Outcomes Process to develop the FY09 Proposed Budget by 1) endorsing the <br />use of the five vision statements as the foundation for aligning services and allocat- <br />ing resources; 2) acknowledging that the City Council and Budget Committee will <br />function as the citizen input in the first phase of this effort by reviewing goal maps <br />designed to identify the significant factors that contribute to achieving the desired <br />outcomes of the vision statements; 3) participating in a review of the process at the <br />completion of the FY09 budget cycle, and if warranted, committing to a full budg- <br />eting for outcomes approach using additional public input to build the FY10 <br />budget; 4) acknowledging that the budget document will reflect this new approach <br />and will not contain the same information as presented in previous documents. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to postpone consideration of this <br />matter until the council had hired a new city manager and proceed with FY09 <br />budget process using the traditional process previously employed. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said he had been concerned during the last budget cycle about a council majority taking actions, <br />such as holding library services harmless, in advance of the budgeting process, which created a dilemma by <br />over-emphasizing the priority of particular items at the expense of other budget priorities. He said it was a <br />systemic change in how budgeting was done that created the conflict and he was concerned that using that <br />same process again would, in the absence of any prioritization work, create false priorities. He welcomed <br />any effort to establish priorities in advance of the budgeting process. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said she could not support delaying action until a new city manager was hired, but would favor <br />allowing more time for outreach to the unions and the public. She also wanted Ms. Solomon to have the <br />opportunity to comment and vote on the matter. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor stated she would support the motion to postpone. She agreed that priorities should be examined <br />and that could be accomplished in work sessions without changing the entire process. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark agreed that the issue was being presented to the council with little lead time and while he was in <br />favor of taking a different look at the budgeting process, he wanted Ms. Solomon at the table and therefore <br />would support a motion to table, but not to delay action until a new city manager was hired. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />