CC Minutes - 09/23/02 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayor Torrey said he did not believe that the City Manager was not trying to stall the process. He said he had severe reservations on the issue. As an example, he cited the characterization that the ordinance was for those least compensated in the City staff. He believed the underlying concern behind the proposal was fears of privatization. He said it was a desire on the part of people in various unions that the City make things so expensive that private organizations would not be able to provide a service to the City. He stressed his desire to have that topic discussed before the final decision was made. He opined that it could be one of the unintended consequences that Councilor Nathanson had mentioned could occur. He added that the question was not so easy that a report could be completed in a month that would completely explain the matter. City Manager Carlson stressed that he had gone to budget/finance staff to make decisions on a time line for decisions on a living wage ordinance that could be included in the fiscal year 2004 budget. He said staff came back with a list of things the budget committee was expected to do such as setting service priorities, public safety funding, capital improvement plans, etc. He said staff had proposed a work session on December 11, and another in January if necessary, and had proposed putting the matter before the Budget Committee in January. He said this would give the City Council time to continue to provide direction in February. He noted that the council did not need to finally adopt an ordinance prior to the budget process. He said the idea was to influence the budget-building process. City Manager Carlson suggested that the difference of opinion was around what the critical date for the budget-building process was. He acknowledged that Councilor Kelly perceived that date as November 18, 2002, whereas budget staff had proposed a time line that allowed for time to develop the data, take the matter to the Budget Citizen Subcommittee, and return the matter to the City Council/Budget Committee. He said there would be time, through February, to incorporate those changes/elements into the proposed budget. Councilor Farr stressed the importance of going through a thoroughly deliberative process. He expressed his agreement with the City Manager. He said he believed that the City Manager would get back to the council in time for the matter to be considered in the next budget cycle. He said he would vote against the motion. Councilor Meisner said he would vote against the motion for the same reasons stated by Councilor Farr. He added that it was important not to consider the issue outside of the context of the service prioritization annually done by the budget subcommittee. Councilor Kelly said the motion was a simple timing matter. He reiterated that he thought the council had already settled the matter unanimously in a previous motion. He said he never meant to imply that the City Manager was stalling the issue but noted that there was a difference in interpretation. He said his intent on the original motion was to have policy direction ready by November 18. Councilor Bettman said she would support the motion. Ms. Taylor said there was no need to send the matter before the citizen members of the Budget Committee and expressed her belief that to do so was a delaying action. She said she would support the motion. City Manager Carlson said August 12 was the first time there had been any discussion about the living wage. He noted that the issue was not on the council work plan and was not a council goal. He said staff had no indication until August 12 what the interest of the council was in pursuing the MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 23, 2002 Page 6 Regular Meeting