02/25/1986 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e - III. DISCUSSION/FURTHER DIRECTION Ms. Erhman asked for discussion and questions. Ms. Wooten asked if the $2,136,195 total in the left column of Table III was inclusive of all numbers in that column, and she received an affirmative answer from staff. Mr. Rutan asked if the FY87 reductions list represented people being laid off. Mr. Whitlow answered no, that the phasing out of positions is over a three-year period in order to work around vacancies. Mr. Gleason added that he has instructed all departments that there are to be no layoffs. Mr. Rutan continued by asking how much of the reductions represented actual cuts versus positions not filled through attrition. Mr. Gleason replied that the total service package as carried forward is essentially $1 million smaller. This is accomplished by deauthorizing positions and reorganizations. The cost of service systems was drawn down over 24 months, changing the quality and reducing the output of those systems. Ms. Ehrman asked about Municipal Court trial delays, and Mr. Whitlow responded that the cuts represented about one staff position and would, therefore, add about 30 to 60 days to trial dates. Ms. Wooten expressed appreciation for the information provided by the City Manager, as requested. She perceived that Table II identified some nondepart- mental cuts that can occur as incremental adjustments to the budget and com- bined with non-traumatic user fee options. She suggested that the City Coun- cil look at the user fees and try to save $200,000 to $300,000 in non-departmental cuts, which seem the least injurious to the service delivery system. Ms. Ehrman asked for clarification of the capital improvement figures agreed upon at the last meeting. Mr. Whitlow referred to the actual numbers in the handout. Ms. Schue summarized that the budget does not balance because of the increase in the capital funding amount. How to proceed was discussed. Ms. Wooten suggested taking a balanced approach by considering both revenue sources and cuts at the same time. Mr. Holmer and Mr. Rutan preferred to look at the cut side first. Mr. Rutan was especially in favor of looking at each of the cuts suggested in Table II, plus some others that might be suggested. Ms. Ehrman reviewed the process by which the cuts in Table II were chosen. Mr. Gleason reiterated that the cuts suggested represent both reductions in service and an impact on productivity. The org- anization is making about a one-percent increase in productivity a year, but this does not represent $1 million in savings. It is is not his prerogative to make recommendations for cuts; the list in Table II would have the least impact on the organization. It was agreed that the council would discuss each item in Table II. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session February 25, 1986 Page 2