Laserfiche WebLink
Responding to a question from Mr. Fart regarding the impact of the motion on the staff work load, Mr. <br />Johnson said that the motion complicated the issue somewhat but he agreed with Mr. Kelly that the concept <br />was a good one. He thought that Finance staff would have to do further analysis to determine how to <br />implement the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart liked the concept in the motion and asked if broadening its scope would detract from the importance <br />of ensuring the City moved forward with community policing. Mr. Johnson said yes. He noted that the City <br />already had the work load analysis for the Police Department; a similar work load analysis did not exist for <br />other services at this time. Mr. Fart suggested the council could prioritize the services so the Police <br />Department came first. Mr. Johnson said that would be a policy choice of the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Papd also liked the concept behind the motion but questioned whether it would create public expectations <br />about service delivery that the City would not have the resources to support. Mr. Johnson said that staff was <br />suggesting with an index system that the City was so far behind in a certain program area that the City should <br />apply the indexing system to certain services to ensure a regular, steady supply of resources to address the <br />inadequacy. He pointed out that the work plan item stated the City would determine the feasibility of such an <br />approach. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson hoped the City did not apply the same type of indexing system to all services. She did not <br />think the City had addressed the funding shortfall in policing successfully, and for that reason would have <br />supported the item as a standalone item in this section. Ms. Nathanson said the nature of the problem was <br />different from other services because it was an issue of catching up with a continued budget shortfall. Mr. <br />Johnson indicated the indexing systems for different City services would be different given the different nature <br />of those services. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thought Ms. Nathanson's points were well-taken. The motion would broaden the potential indexes <br />to be used. He did not want to imply in his motion that the indexing process would be applied to all services in <br />all departments, but that the executives would identify the services within each department that were furthest <br />behind. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner agreed with the remarks of Mr. Kelly. He thought a budget indexing system linked to community <br />growth far too unsophisticated a model. He said if the item was moved and broadened to encompass other <br />programs, it might be a way to integrate the City's service profiles into the council goals work plan, with <br />factors that measure not only how well the City is doing but also the needs involved. Mr. Meisner suggested <br />staff was trying to tell the council that one of its work plan items needs to be responsive to the Hobson Report; <br />if so, that should be explicit. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor agreed with the comments made by other councilors. She supported the motion and agreed the <br />item should be revised and moved. <br /> <br /> The motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked if the City really knew where it wanted to go with community policing. Mr. Johnson said staff <br />had the same question, and referred Mr. Pap~ to the description of the role of the mayor and council as it <br />related to the work plan item: Review the updated strategic plan including the vision, mission, and staff <br />analysis of gaps in community policing services in a council work session. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />