Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> e its approach in terms of a response to Ballot Measure 5, the financial <br /> planning process would have negative overtones. Mr. Boles agreed with Mr. <br /> Rutan. He said the only option before the council, to hold the line for the <br /> strategic planning process to go forward, assumed the community would come to <br /> a consensus regarding resolution of financial difficulties by employing <br /> measures similar to those used in the past. He was unsure that the community <br /> shared those values and was uncomfortable with assuming it did as a precursor <br /> to the planning process. Mr. Boles expressed the hope that the council could <br /> consider smoothing the path of the planning process when it further discusses <br /> a mix of options. Ms. Bascom observed that incorporating strategies to <br /> respond to Ballot Measure 5 in the strategic planning process was a <br /> recognition of reality. She did not detect any negativity in acknowledging <br /> that reality. <br /> The meeting recessed at 7 p.m. and reconvened at 7:15 p.m. <br /> The council discussed the staff recommendation to address the strategic <br /> planning process period. <br /> Mr. Rutan suggested that, given the magnitude of the problem, the council <br /> take a different approach than that proposed. He suggested that, for each <br /> key area identified by the council, such as new revenues, small teams <br /> analysing Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats ("SWOT"), <br /> composed of councilors and/or Budget Committee lay members, be formed. Each <br /> team would act as a liaison working with key management staff to help process <br /> the issues identified and move the planning along. A SWOT team could serve <br /> e as the policy-making group working with staff on Ballot Measure 5 issues <br /> legislatively. Mr. Rutan said SWOT teams would have no authority to make <br /> decisions. He believed that if the organization attempted to go through the <br /> process with the full councilor Budget Committee, it would be cumbersome and <br /> time-consuming. <br /> Ms. Ehrman asked how long Mr. Rutan believed his proposed process would take. <br /> Mr. Rutan anticipated that the Ballot Measure 5 SWOT team and SWOT team for <br /> the FY91-92 budget review would take no longer than three months to process <br /> identified issues. The strategic planning SWOT group would take longer. <br /> After the planning was done, the public input process could take place. <br /> Mr. Robinette said he liked Mr. Rutan's suggestion, but he was unsure of the <br /> proposal as a first step. However, he proposed that the council accept the <br /> staff recommendation to avoid going "deeper into a hole." <br /> Ms. Schue said it was her perception that important policy decisions need to <br /> be rnade by the entire group in order to avoid processing issues over and <br /> over. Mr. Rutan agreed, and said that was not the intention of his proposal. <br /> Mr. Boles said he was not comfortable with Mr. Rutan's small-group approach. <br /> He said Ballot Measure 5 resulted in additional lost revenues. The council <br /> had already intended to address service levels and funding mechanisms in the <br /> proposed strategic planning level. He expressed the hope that the council <br /> would not attempt to have a public discussion about service levels and <br /> e <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 1990 Page 8 <br />