Laserfiche WebLink
vices within the General Fund rather than through a local option levy by FY08. <br />The Budget Committee shall do a comprehensive review of youth services in the <br />current levy and in the General Fund for purposes of their recommendation.” <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said her intent was for the Budget Committee to review the amount spent on youth services and <br />priorities, whether funded through the levy or General Fund. She said that comprehensive look was needed <br />in order to make decisions about service cuts. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed with the idea of a comprehensive review of what services were funded from the levy and <br />General Fund, regardless of whether cuts were necessary. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said the question for him was the degree to which the review process would dictate what services <br />were provided or cut. He said it appeared that the Budget Committee would be deciding what recreation <br />services were provided instead of the City’s professional staff making those recommendations. He was not <br />opposed to the Budget Committee’s review from a budgetary or financial standpoint but was reluctant to <br />have a body not trained in recreation services or familiar with the integration of those services start <br />prioritizing those services. He did not think he could support the amendment as proposed. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon concurred with Mr. Pryor’s concerns. She was also concerned about the other expectations of <br />the Budget Committee and assigning another large project. She referred to her experience on the Budget <br />Committee when the issue of transportation was examined and encouraged a larger discussion of the Budget <br />Committee’s responsibilities during the interim. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly remarked that the transportation review was a good example of what the Budget Committee could <br />accomplish beyond just budgetary matters and offer reassurance that both staff and the Budget Committee <br />only made recommendations; it was the council that made the decisions. He noted that the proposed <br />amendment specifically stated that the Budget Committee would make a recommendation. He felt that the <br />citizen members of the committee represented the closest proxy to the person in the street and could provide <br />the council with recommendations on both fiscal and nonfiscal issues which the council in consultation with <br />staff could decide upon. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that prioritization was part of the purview of the Budget Committee as everything could <br />not be funded. She said the committee was established to make recommendations to the council on matters <br />such as shifting services to the General Fund. She said that the citizen members of the Budget Committee <br />would work closely with staff and had indicated during the last budget cycle a desire to take a comprehen- <br />sive look at the budget. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said he appreciated the points raised by the previous speakers but preferred recommendations <br />from professional staff with input from other sources. He did not see a compelling value to the additional <br />step proposed in the amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé said he would likely support the motion because the recommendations from an earlier Budget <br />Committee on transportation issues were healthy for the community. He felt it was likely that committee <br />members would advocate for sustained funding for programs and services. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor commented that his only hesitation about the assignment with regard to the citizen <br />members was how it would fit in to the existing work program in terms of time and resources. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />