CC Minutes - 04/18/11 Work Session

Home Browse Search

be addressed in a sustainable budget over a reasonable period of time. Putting the budget onto a path that allowed all those needs to be met would be sustainable. (Zelenka) • We go about budgeting backwards. Creating a sustainable budget was fundamentally different than creating a stable budget. Need to reorder our thinking about budgeting process to achieve sustainability. We make long -term commitments about services or organization size and then ask how we can afford them. A sustainable budget means we ask first what we can afford, what we can expect in terms of revenues, what are our highest priorities, and what can we achieve with the funding available. (Clark) • Two ways of thinking about it —what do we want to be and what do we want to have and how do we fund those things, or do we say this is how much money we have and how much can we fund. (Zelenka) • How you work a business —you envision what you want and figure out how to get it. Would not go the other way (look at what you have and what you can do with it) and expect to run a business that is sustainable. (Funk) • Perhaps the answer was in the middle —what you want versus what you can get, because you cannot always get what you want. (Farr) • Need to consider fire services and examine service district concept so users can support. Unsure it would help or hurt bottom line, but think we need to have that conversation to see if that approach was feasible. (Ortiz) • Believe the budget was a balance of what you can afford versus what you want, which is why we use the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) analysis. Need to do the complete analysis and recognize there are tradeoffs. (Piercy) • Particularly with finite resources—if you have finite resources and only funded police and fire, not many people would want to live here. The reason we embraced the TBL approach was because it made one think of aspects to issues beyond the dollars and cents aspect. (Zelenka) City Manager Ruiz then asked the council how it would like to involve the Budget Committee in the discussion for the next several months and beyond. • Useful to have the input of citizen members, who will be more helpful if they know where council is going. (Piercy) • Hope citizens members could be brought up to speed. Always appreciate their input. Hope they are aware of this conversation given their influence. Maybe it would be more beneficial to bring the committee in to talk to the council on a more regular basis. (Ortiz) • The Budget Committee was a thoughtful group of people who give advice but do not make final decisions. The committee's approach varied greatly depending on its membership. The committee gave the council some different perspectives. Think we meet far too much as the Budget Committee already. (Taylor) • Budget Committee lay members had an opportunity to focus on a relatively narrow aspect of what the City does, similar to Planning Commission, and appreciate that focus. They bring up issues that councilors might not have time to consider. Appreciate the input of Mr. Barofsky and past Budget Committee members such as Mr. Zelenka and Mr. Gaydos. (Farr) • Value Budget Committee —its added voices enhance the conversation and bring in other points of view the council had not thought about. Plus the lay members could do leg work the council could not do because of its work load, e.g., oversight of service improvement budgeting shift. Think future budget will be a mix of efficiencies and revenues and perhaps lay members could look into those areas in more depth. Committee adds to a more robust conversation. (Zelenka) • Agree with Mr. Zelenka about latter point. Structurally speaking, like and value committee, and think it was good to have committee's voices at the table before decisions were made. The MINUTES — Eugene City Council April 18, 2010 Page 4 Work Session