HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/17/07 Work Session
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room – City Hall
777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon
October 17, 2007
Noon
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling,
Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka (by telephone).
ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order.
A. WORK SESSION: Fiscal Year 2009 Service and Budget Alignment Process
City Manager Angel Jones reviewed the council's allocation of $100,000 to hire a consultant to develop a
process that would better inform budget development. She said she was responding to that direction instead
of leaving the task to a new city manager and embarking on a process that would result in informed
decisions based on outcomes based on the council's vision and goals and community values. She felt the
budget development tool would help clarify policy direction, streamline processes and keep the focus on
highest priorities. She acknowledged concerns about the prospect of change without adequate process;
however, the change was primarily about staff culture and would have little impact on the Budget
Committee and City Council. She said the new process would evaluate services from an organizational
instead of department perspective and was confident of a successful outcome.
Ms. Bettman stated that the council did not endorse the proposal; it had agreed to a prioritization process.
She said the consultant did work across the country and in every article she has read, they are all about
privatization and outsourcing. She asked if budgeting for outcomes had been discussed with the unions.
Ms. Jones said she had a meeting scheduled with the unions.
Ms. Bettman quoted the interim city manager of Fort Collins, Colorado, who cautioned that cities should not
begin such a process without first committing to systemic long-term changes in the organization. She said
she was willing to consider systemic changes, but the proposed process had not been subjected to public
comment and City employees were mostly unaware of the possibility of change. She characterized the
process as structural re-engineering of the City's service provision and budget, and expressed concern that it
was precipitous and could adversely impact recruitment of a new city manager.
Mr. Pryor commented that the intent of the change was honorable and based on a desire to budget in a way
that was better aligned with goals. He did not perceive it as working toward some other agenda. He said the
City currently had budget and goal setting processes that were not in alignment. He said the State required
by statute certain safeguards that would remain in place regardless of changes in the process. He antici-
pated a budget document that would be very similar to the current one, but with the additional step that
would identify the outcomes and goals related to expenditures. He saw the process as making the current
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 1
Work Session
system more focused, appropriate and relevant and was in complete support of the first phase. He was
excited and encouraged by the staff's proposal, which demonstrated a desire to be accountable in terms of
outcomes. He did not see any intent to work against the unions.
Mr. Clark remarked that a council goal was to increase police staffing and that had been deferred until the
reprioritization process was completed. He said he would be concerned about postponing other things,
including the reprioritization process, until a new city manager was hired. He echoed Mr. Pryor's comments
and did not see the new process as a threat. He saw it as a response by the city manager to council direction
to develop a systemic approach to setting priorities and achieving outcomes. He was very pleased with the
creative and innovative approach Ms. Jones had taken. He credited her for taking a bold step.
Mr. Poling commented that the council had endorsed moving forward to establish a reprioritization process,
but not the specific proposal in the agenda item summary. He agreed with Mr. Pryor about aligning the
budget and goals and felt Ms. Jones was following council direction to accomplish that. He said the new
city manager would need to accept and work with whatever process the council wished to pursue and noted
that the council could always decide not to continue with the new process if it was not effective.
Ms. Taylor did not feel the process was what the council had agreed to with respect to examining priorities.
She said there were many reasons not to move forward with change, particularly because the city manager
recruitment was under way. She felt that no action should be taken until feedback had been received from
the unions, City employees and the general public. She also wanted more time for the council to consider all
aspects of the proposal. She was not prepared to vote on the matter.
Mr. Zelenka stated that the City would be facing a $1 million deficit and needed to develop a balanced
budget. He said that would require some difficult choices that should be informed by a prioritization
process and input from the city manager, City employees, the public and councilors. He said the process
needed better input and participation from the public and the City Council.
Budget Manger Kitty Murdoch agreed with Mr. Zelenka that the public and the council should be involved,
but said that staff had intended the initial year of the process to be primarily an internal review of current
service levels and how well those supported council goals. She said it was not envisioned as a reduction
process and the council would still be presented with a General Fund forecast and projected expenditure
levels for FY09.
Mr. Zelenka commented that it was likely reductions would be necessary in FY09 and he wanted to hear
from the council and the public before staff formulated a budget.
Ms. Ortiz asked if Ms. Jones had selected the process. Ms. Jones replied that she had chosen the process
based on her understanding of discussions during the spring Budget Committee meeting.
Ms. Ortiz said it would be difficult for her to support the proposal without sufficient background informa-
tion to understand the implications.
Ms. Bettman remarked that the FY09 budget document would be completely different if the motion passed.
She said it would require quite an investment of resources and staff time to change the budget document and
the way services were provided. She felt the process would usurp the unions’ plan for addressing outsourc-
ing and privatization. She had not had an opportunity to discuss the process with her constituents and elicit
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 2
Work Session
their opinions because of the short notice. She cited materials from the State of Iowa public employees that
strongly objected to the consultant’s, Public Strategies Group, recommendations regarding privatization.
Ms. Jones stated that she would have preferred more lead time to present the process to the council, but as
city manager she had the authority to implement such a process without specific direction from the council.
She did not want to proceed without making the council aware of the process because it would encompass a
review of vision statements and alignment of resources around those statements. She felt compelled to
involve the council at this point because she wanted confirmation that the statements accurately reflected the
council’s vision before moving forward.
Mr. Clark asked if it was correct that the budget and budget document would change radically as a result of
the process. Ms. Murdoch replied that the service budget would look somewhat different, but the operating
budget by department and the capital budget, statistical tables, financial summaries, financial forecast and
appendix documents would still provide the same information.
Mr. Clark asked if that meant the change would occur in the public process with respect to how the budget
was presented and the activities of the Budget Committee. Ms. Murdoch said she was not aware of any
planned changes in those areas.
Mr. Clark said it appeared that the primary difference would be in the way the budget was developed,
resulting in better alignment with outcomes and more information for the council to use in considering
priorities. Ms. Murdoch agreed with Mr. Clark. She said the process was an attempt to make the budgeting
process more transparent.
Mr. Clark expressed concern with reaction from the unions and asked if they had been consulted at this point
in the process. Ms. Jones replied that typically the unions would not be consulted until the budget was
developed and that approach would not change; she was meeting with the unions beforehand to advise them
that the process was changing and assure them that the City’s values remained the same. She said that
financial constraints that were likely to get worse in the future demanded a different approach to use of
resources.
Mr. Clark asked Ms. Jones to advise the council if the unions raised any concerns during her discussions.
He said he had some initial concern with the choice of consultant, but based on what he had seen so far he
was favorably impressed. He said that budgeting for outcomes and prioritization of resources was an
approach that any city manager should be able to embrace.
Mr. Pryor indicated he was pleased with the discussion of the process. He recollected that the Budget
Committee had begun a conversation about prioritization in anticipation of a budget deficit at some point in
the future and there had to be a system in place to prioritize services and reflect that in the funding levels.
He said the charge to staff was to find a way to examine each department from a functional perspective to
facilitate service prioritization. He felt the process presented by the city manager was responsive to the
council’s direction and added the element of alignment of resources with goals.
Ms. Piercy asked for clarification of how council priorities would relate to alignment of resources with
vision statements and goals. Ms. Jones said staff would be given direction regarding budgeting process
parameters that would include allocating funds to address council goal implementation as a first step,
followed by service alignment around visions.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 3
Work Session
Ms. Bettman pointed out that the suggested motion indicated the budget document would not contain the
same information as previous documents. She said she was not opposed to considering new ways to budget,
but objected to the precipitous way it was presented to the council. She required more feedback, including
from other jurisdictions, before moving forward. She stated that the council created the goals and the public
had no input. She preferred to delay implementation of a major change to the service provision and
budgeting process.
Ms. Taylor said she did not understand why $100,000 was being spent if the process was the same. Ms.
Murdoch replied that a different internal process would be used and the consultant would help design that
process.
Ms. Taylor said she had heard from some people that it would be ridiculous to start a new process before a
new city manager was hired and she did not want to proceed.
Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to approve using the Limited Budgeting
for Outcomes Process to develop the FY09 Proposed Budget by 1) endorsing the
use of the five vision statements as the foundation for aligning services and allocat-
ing resources; 2) acknowledging that the City Council and Budget Committee will
function as the citizen input in the first phase of this effort by reviewing goal maps
designed to identify the significant factors that contribute to achieving the desired
outcomes of the vision statements; 3) participating in a review of the process at the
completion of the FY09 budget cycle, and if warranted, committing to a full budg-
eting for outcomes approach using additional public input to build the FY10
budget; 4) acknowledging that the budget document will reflect this new approach
and will not contain the same information as presented in previous documents.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to postpone consideration of this
matter until the council had hired a new city manager and proceed with FY09
budget process using the traditional process previously employed.
Mr. Clark said he had been concerned during the last budget cycle about a council majority taking actions,
such as holding library services harmless, in advance of the budgeting process, which created a dilemma by
over-emphasizing the priority of particular items at the expense of other budget priorities. He said it was a
systemic change in how budgeting was done that created the conflict and he was concerned that using that
same process again would, in the absence of any prioritization work, create false priorities. He welcomed
any effort to establish priorities in advance of the budgeting process.
Ms. Ortiz said she could not support delaying action until a new city manager was hired, but would favor
allowing more time for outreach to the unions and the public. She also wanted Ms. Solomon to have the
opportunity to comment and vote on the matter.
Ms. Taylor stated she would support the motion to postpone. She agreed that priorities should be examined
and that could be accomplished in work sessions without changing the entire process.
Mr. Clark agreed that the issue was being presented to the council with little lead time and while he was in
favor of taking a different look at the budgeting process, he wanted Ms. Solomon at the table and therefore
would support a motion to table, but not to delay action until a new city manager was hired.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 4
Work Session
Ms. Taylor asserted that any significant change in how the City did business should be delayed until a new
city manager was hired.
Ms. Bettman spoke in support of her motion, stating that a complete restructuring of service provision and
budget should wait until the leadership chosen by the council was able to take the organization into the
future.
The motion to postpone consideration of the matter failed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and
Ms. Taylor voting in favor.
Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to table the item and direct the mayor
and the city manager to schedule it for further discussion by the council in a timely
manner before the council’s winter break. The motion passed, 5:2; Mr. Pryor and
Mr. Poling voting in opposition.
Mr. Zelenka left the meeting at 12:50 p.m.
B. WORK SESSION: City Council Priority Issue: City Hall Complex
Ms. Jones introduced Jonah Cohen of Thomas Hacker Architects to present the subject.
Mr. Cohen introduced Becca Cavell, who would be replacing Dana Ing-Crawford on the project. He
reviewed the previous phases of the police patrol facility site selection process. He asked Mike Penwell,
Facilities Project Manager, to provide an update on his research into the availability and suitability of sites
D, E and F.
Mr. Penwell stated that the owner of site D was not interested in selling. He said the owner of site F would
not be available until next week and there were more improvements on that site than on the others, which
would likely mean a higher cost. He said site E was owned by Lane Transit District (LTD) and the
RideSource facility was located on the north portion of the site. He indicated that LTD was willing to make
three to three and a half acres of the site available for development; that would be suitable for the patrol
facility and the suggested motion was written to focus on site E for those reasons.
Ms. Taylor asked if site R was investigated. Mr. Penwell reviewed the positive and negative aspects of the
site as discussed at the previous meeting. Mr. Cohen added that the proximity of the railroad and volume of
rail traffic could present access problems to the site, particularly if there was a rail accident near the site.
He noted that 8th Avenue was identified as a "great street" and a patrol facility might not be a compatible
use.
In response to a question from Ms. Piercy, Mr. Penwell said that site R was not considered one of the top
sites because the City owned the site and there could be potential loss of revenue from a future sale, the
concept for a "courthouse district" did not include a police facility and the site was farther away from those
areas that generated the most police trips. He said the Police Commission had discussed at length the issue
of whether oversight required the patrol facility to be in or close to downtown and concluded that was not
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 5
Work Session
necessary. He referred to the police patrol facility site selection criteria set forth in agenda item summary
Attachment A.
Ms. Ortiz commented that she supported a separate patrol facility and preferred that it was located in an
area of the community with a higher crime rate.
Mr. Clark said he was inclined to support site E, although he thought the facility should be located in
downtown to better address public safety problems in the downtown area. He hoped that eventually a
precinct model would be adopted and site E could represent a step in that direction. He wanted to see a
substation north of the river at some point in the next few years. He supported site E because it was the
police chief's recommendation and appeared to be the most financially prudent choice.
Mr. Pryor said he would favor a site the City already owned, such as site R, but the need for a patrol
presence in downtown could be met by a precinct facility; a patrol facility had a more logistical use and it
made sense to locate it on site E near support services. He thought that site R, which was near the river,
could be put to better use than a police patrol facility.
Ms. Piercy pointed out that there was a police substation at the downtown LTD station. Mr. Penwell added
that the new city hall was planned to include a substation as well.
Mr. Cohen noted that patrol represented about a third of police functions; the remaining two-thirds would
remain in City Hall.
Ms. Taylor stated that the police chief should be in the same facility as patrol. She did not feel the patrol
facility needed to be close to the City's fuel and maintenance facility. She did not understand why the Police
Commission was providing advice on the matter and wanted the council to discuss during the next budget
cycle whether the commission was still necessary.
Ms. Bettman asked what would happen to the two-thirds of the police department located in City Hall when
the bond measure failed and there was no new City Hall. Mr. Penwell said it would be up to the council; the
patrol facility and City Hall had been considered together in a single project and any new direction would be
a policy decision of the council.
Ms. Bettman objected to removing the patrol presence from downtown. She said that any type of develop-
ment in downtown, including a patrol facility, would be more expensive. She encouraged consideration of
sites P, T and R, especially sites P and T. She said sites D, E and F might be better suited to redevelopment.
She asked what the plan was for paying for a site. Mr. Penwell reiterated that the plan for financing
acquisition and construction was entirely a policy level decision for the council. Mr. Cohen said as options
evolved, estimated costs of all components of the city hall complex, including patrol, would be presented to
the council for discussion, along with funding options.
Ms. Bettman asked if any polling had been done to determine if a bond measure for a separate patrol facility
outside of downtown would pass. Mr. Penwell replied that the council had approved a scope of work for the
current project phase that included polling and that issue would be included.
Mr. Clark asked if site E had adequate space for a facility that could house all police functions. Mr.
Penwell said that had not been analyzed because direction from council had been to explore issues related to
a separate patrol facility. He said based on previous analyses conducted when a bond measure of a full
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 6
Work Session
police headquarters was being considered, site E would probably need structured parking and a multi-story
building to accommodate all police functions.
Ms. Ortiz commented that another reason she had heard for rejecting site R was that the system of steam
pipes in downtown could make the streets impassable in a catastrophic event.
Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed
with development of a patrol facility concept design for site E, and continue to ex-
plore the acquisition of potential sites D, E and F.
Mr. Poling offered a friendly amendment to change the language as follows:
"…concept design for site E, and continue to explore the acquisition of potential
sites D, E and F continue to explore acquisition of sites E and F." Ms. Ortiz and
Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amendment.
Ms. Bettman said she could not support removing patrol from downtown and thought that sites T and P
were viable sites.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by including
acquisition of sites T and P.
Mr. Clark said he would not support the amendment, as he did not want the City to plan to build a public
facility in the middle of what could potentially be a wonderful park.
Ms. Taylor stated that her preferred location was still site R.
Mr. Pryor did not like either site T or site P as both had potential problems related to unwilling sellers or
unsuitable use of the site and could not support the amendment.
Ms. Bettman said she was adding site R to her motion.
Mr. Penwell reminded the council that a patrol facility could not be built on sites P and T and meet current
planning and zoning requirements, although a variance could be requested.
Mr. Clark said that voting against Ms. Bettman's amendment did not mean he was voting against a
downtown facility; he was voting against sites that were not suitable for a patrol facility.
The motion to amend failed, 4:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in favor.
The main motion passed, 4:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition.
The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Angel Jones
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 7
Work Session
Interim City Manager
(Recorded by Lynn Taylor)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 8
Work Session