Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> e idea of council consensus, because if it chooses another direction, the work <br /> program will change dramatically. Mr. Gleason pointed out that he had set up <br /> internal committees to handle controls to administrative decisions not yet in <br /> place. If the council choses another direction, the focus of any discussion <br /> will be at the Budget Committee review level. Mr. Green said that approving <br /> the concept seemed to preclude further discussion regarding the items on the <br /> capital projects list. He asked about the commitment the council would be <br /> making in accepting the staff recommendation. Mr. Gleason said it would be a <br /> policy commitment establishing the basic direction in which the organization <br /> is going. He said if the council does not rnove forward quickly, the support <br /> it will need for the strategic planning process will dissipate. <br /> Mr. Wong reviewed a list of projects subject to reduction. The list included <br /> the downtown redesign, new library building, alternative transportation <br /> modes, housing planning and programming, wetlands mitigation, FY91/FY92 <br /> General Fund capital budget, public access ("electronic City Hall"), and fire <br /> redeployment. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Wong said the <br /> items on the list were projects the council would be completing over the next <br /> six months to one year. In many cases, preliminary work has been done on <br /> these projects. Staff believes that if the council will be undertaking the <br /> strategic plan, it must modify its work plan. Mr. Gleason said he was not <br /> proposing eliminating these items completely and some of the components of <br /> each would continue. He said he was asking the City Council to make Ballot <br /> Measure 5 and the strategic plan its primary work program item. <br /> C. Strategic Planning Process <br /> e Ms. Bellamy reviewed a memorandum from Mr. Gleason outlining the proposed <br /> work plan program and time line developed by staff for the strategic planning <br /> process. Ms. Bellamy reviewed the direction requested from the council: 1) <br /> define outcome; 2) begin planning process; 3) inform the public. <br /> Ms. Bellamy estimated that the planning stage of the process would take three <br /> months. A consultant would be hired and stakeholder groups identified. She <br /> noted that the memorandum described the framework for the prograrn: <br /> Phase 1: Where are we? Where are we going? (90+ days) <br /> Phase 2: Where do we want to go? (60-90 days) <br /> Phase 3: How do we get there? (90 days) <br /> Phase 4: What are the next steps? (90 days) <br /> Mr. Rutan asked why staff used the phrase "Ballot Measure 5 Response." Mr. <br /> Gleason said he had made the decision to recommend that the council combine <br /> its efforts regarding Ballot Measure 5 and the strategic planning program as <br /> he could not envision the organization being able to accommodate two parallel <br /> public input processes. Mr. Rutan said that Ballot Measure 5 had merely <br /> moved up in importance the strategic planning process and was another factor <br /> to consider in that process. He was concerned that if the council couched <br /> e November 19, 1990 <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council Page 7 <br />