Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/1990 Meeting e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall November 19, 1990 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Emily Schue, Roger Rutan, Ruth Bascom, Shawn Boles, Debra Ehrman, Bobby Green, Paul Nicholson, Kaye Robinette. The regular Eugene City Council meeting was called to order by His Honor Mayor Jeff Miller. I. WORK SESSION: STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS Mr. Gleason said he had four goals to ask the council to achieve at the meeting: 1) agreement to reprioritize and reorganize the council's goals and work plan; 2) adoption of a budget strategy for FY91-92; 3) adoption of a strategic plan proposal; and 4) agreement to conduct a performance audits. e Mr. Gleason said the purpose of the strategies proposed by staff was to buy the council the time necessary to engage the community in a conversation regarding the level of City services and revenues. He stressed that unless the council was able to make decisions in a timely manner, it would find itself in an argument rather than a dialogue with the community. Mr. Gleason cautioned the council against moving too quickly on the design of the strategic planning effort. He said the council had time to do the process correctly. However, he noted that the organization lacked the internal resources to complete the details of the design. Staff had prepared a preliminary broad process outline for the council to review. Mr. Gleason recommended that the council take time to secure the necessary external expertise in the design process. Mr. Gleason said the basic strategy developed by staff was to buy time and was divided into two directions. One direction linked the Ballot Measure 5 Response Program and the strategic planning process together into a strategy to build cornmunity consensus. That strategy would entail asking the community the question, "What do you want the organization to look like? What services do you want? What levels of service? What revenues will pay for that service?" Mr. Gleason said an internal task team headed by Barb Bellamy will support that effort. He said the second direction had an external focus in the Legislative Program. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 1990 Page 1 e Mr. Gleason noted that staff had distributed copies of a document entitled, "City of Eugene Compensation Report" to the council. He reminded the council that the document had been requested during the most recent budget cycle. He advised the council to schedule a work session to review the compensation document. Regarding the issue of performance audits, Mr. Gleason recommended that the council incorporate the review of the compensation document into a performance audit. He pointed out that the basic staff work had been done on the issue. He noted that Mr. Rutan and Mr. Boles had been assigned by the council to work on performance audits. He suggested the possibility of an audit of the City's compensation program. Mr. Gleason further suggested that administrative overhead might be the subject of another performance audit. A. Ballot Measure 5 Mr. Wong noted that staff had distributed copies of the overhead presentation he was to make to councilors. In addition, the packet material included a summary of the Attorney General's Office opinion regarding Ballot Measure 5; a paper prepared by Michael Newman of the City Attorney's Office regarding the legality of the City's user fees and charges relative to Ballot Measure 5; a report from bond counsel regarding the ballot measure and measuring its impacts (Mr. Wong noted that the report had been written prior to passage of the ballot measure); and notice from Public Financial Management that Moody's and Standard and Poors have all jurisdictions in the State of Oregon on a credit watch. Mr. Wong pointed out that the latter notice meant that e attempting to sell debt at this point in time would be difficult, if not impossible. He added that City staff is working with the State Treasurer's Office and Municipal Debt Advisory Commission to implement procedures that will make public debt marketable. Mr. Wong said the final item in the packet was a summary of the discussions of the Legislative Joint Interim Committee on Revenue and School Finance. Mr. Wong reviewed a series of overheads for the council. He said that the key provisions of the ballot measure included the following: 1. Limits operating property tax rate for non school government entities to $10 per $1,000 assessed valuation; tax base and serial levies. Mr. Wong observed that the combined Lane County/City of Eugene rate was $10.17 per $1,000, excluding general obligation debt service. 2. User fees and charges: May impact those that are imposed " . . . upon property or upon a property owner as a direct consequence of ownership of that property except for incurred charges and assessments for local improvements." Mr. Wong said the Downtown Development District's ad valorem rate was construed to be a property tax under the Attorney General's opinion, which e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 1990 Page 2 e would exacerbate nongovernmental rates within the district. Mr. Wong said staff was examining all the City's user fees. 3. General obligation bonded debt is excluded from $10 rate cap; must be voted on by the public. 4. Bancroft bonds--bonds for local public improvement districts must be voted on to receive general obligation pledge. Mr. Wong reminded the council that under former State law, the primary source of repayment for Bancroft bonds was the assessment payments from property owners; the secondary source was the ability to levy a property tax without a vote. Ballot Measure 5 takes away that authority. Mr. Wong said that the City had intended to finance current assessment projects with Bancroft Bonds sold in spring 1991 and now the City cannot sell the bonds. Staff is assessing the City's position regarding outstanding projects and has issued short-term notes as interim financing. Mr. Wong said the City could finance its projects through revenue bonds backed by assessment payments but that would not satisfy the credit market. In order to finance the projects, the City will have to pledge additional revenue streams or create additional security. Ms. Bascom asked for further detail regarding the projects that were to have been funded through the sale of Bancroft bonds. Mr. Wong said the projects were located throughout the community and included sidewalks, sewers, and road improvements. Mr. Miller asked if the River Road/Santa Clara project e was included. Mr. Wong said that project was to be financed through assessment bonds. The City had pledged as secondary security any remaining resources in the Sewer Fund and its good faith effort to look for other financing if assessments were insufficient. He noted that the result of the measure was that it will cost property owners more money for local improvement districts. 5. General obligation bonds can only be used for "capital construction or improvements." Mr. Wong said that the effect of this provision was unclear and may not be resolved until the Legislature meets or there was litigation. The provision might mean that City would be unable to buy open space as it had ten years previous when the City sold the parklands acquisition bond. Mr. Wong reviewed an overhead detailing the Attorney General's opinion as to what constitutes property taxes and what user fees and charges might be considered property taxes. He said every department will inventory its user fees and charges for further review. Mr. Wong noted that the systems development ordinance developed by the Council Committee on Infrastructure and drafted by the City Attorney's Office was written to avoid the effects of Ballot Measure 5. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Wong said that State Motor Vehicle registration fees were considered a tax under the measure. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 1990 Page 3 e Mr. Wong reviewed an overhead outlining the fiscal effects of Ballot Measure 5 on FY92. He estimated a loss of revenue of $1.8 million in FY92 and anticipated that the loss would escalate in future years. Mr. Wong clarified that the loss was dependent upon the assessed valuation and the tax levies of the jurisdictions competing for the $10 per $1,000 rate. In the metropolitan area, the City and County compete for the $10. Mr. Nicholson asked how the partition was determined. Mr. Wong said that, given a $10 cap, Eugene levied $9 and Lane County levied $2. Any amount over the $10 was pro-rated on a 2/11, 9/11 proportion. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Wong said that in many jurisdictions the assessed valuation is not equal to real market values, which is what the constitutional amendment calls for. In theory, if the real assessed valuation were moved closer to real market, the impact on property taxes might be mitigated. Mr. Boles asked if staff had any idea of the difference to be realized if the City used real market value as the basis of the tax. Mr. Wong said he would attend a meeting with the County Assessor the following week to discuss the issue. Responding to a further question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Wong confirmed that if the assessed valuation increased, the rate would move down under the cap. Mr. Wong said staff had included State shared revenues on the list as a potential loss due to the mandate given the State by the measure to make up the shortfall for schools. He anticipated the State would look to these revenues, realized by taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, to make up the e shortfall. Regarding the impact of the measure on the downtown Urban Renewal District, Mr. Wong said that the City can continue most activities and pay for debt service and certificates of participation on the Conference Center but will not be able to do many projects in the district, given the increment flow anticipated by staff. Mr. Wong said the impact of the measure on the user fees and charges, agreements with Lane County, and State grants and agreements were unknown. He said that the City could lose $1 million to $1.5 million if the Urban Transition Agreement is adversely affected. Mr. Boles asked if the airport debt service and subvention moneys would be eliminated. Mr. Wong said yes. He added that if the City loses State shared revenues, it would need to determine how to pay the general obligation bonds on the airport. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Wong anticipated considerable legal research into the issue of tax-increment financing. B. Recommended Actions for FY91-FY92 Mr. Wong said that prior to the passage of Ballot Measure 5, staff had projected an FY92 General Fund operating deficit of $297,000. Assuming the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) was funded at the proposed $2.5 million level, the projected total deficit for FY92 would be $2.75 million. Mr. Wong e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 1990 Page 4 e noted that the Budget Committee had not funded the CIP at its full amount for several years, so the deficit was overstated by about $1 million. Mr. Wong combined the projected deficit and anticipated revenue loss from Ballot Measure 5 on the General Fund at $5.35 million. Responding to a question from Mr. Rutan, Mr. Wong did not anticipate that the City would lose more than $2.6 million from the State. He added that the property tax revenues could be adversely affected by a recession. Mr. Wong said that it was his opinion that State shared revenues would be lost to the City. Mr. Gleason believed that the loss in revenues could be higher over time if the State chose to fund schools with Gas Tax Trust Fund dollars or changed the allocation of County timber receipts. Responding to a further question from Mr. Rutan, Mr. Gleason said that there are Federal guidelines covering timber tax expenditures that stipulate the states allocate the money to school districts and counties on a 25-75-percent ratio. Mr. Wong described strategies developed by staff to mitigate the impact of the measure. He said it was staff's goal to carry forward additional resources into FY92 to enable the council to complete the strategic plan, making FY92 a transition year. Mr. Wong believed the operating budget strategies could realize approximately $800,000. In response to a question from Mr. Rutan regarding the relationship between the $800,000 goal identified by staff and the operating deficit of $297,000, Mr. Gleason said the items being cut included such items as materials and supplies, holding positions vacant, and travel and training. Staff is trying e to avoid impacting community services. Mr. Gleason said that, however, before the deficit had been calculated, there had been considerable discussion regarding anticipated baseline cuts. Mr. Gleason said that those cuts will affect the ability of the organization to respond to community demand. He said that staff will attempt to keep such service cuts to a minimum in order to avoid starting an argument with the community before the council can start a conversation. Mr. Wong said as a further method to realize savings, staff was proposing cuts of $1,328,365 to the current capital budget. He showed the council an overhead listing the cuts and clarified that they were projects for which funds are currently appropriated. In some cases, the projects are ready to be started or might already be contracted. Mr. Gleason added that the total was not precise because of uncertainty over the status of all the projects and their relationship to other projects. He recommended acceptance of the concept to deauthorize the capital projects on the list. Mr. Gleason said that the action would give the council needed time and flexibility to process the strategic plan. He said that if the State does not take away revenues as anticipated, it would be possible to add the items back to the budget in the future. Mr. Boles asked if the staff recommendation was predicated on the concept that no new revenues would be sought. Mr. Gleason said staff would present the council with options for new revenues. Mr. Boles questioned whether the organization could afford to make such cuts, noting that they included an e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 1990 Page 5 e HVAC upgrade and building rehabilitation and maintenance. Mr. Gleason said he had sought further information from Public Works Department staff regarding the items included in the items cited by Mr. Boles. He had not yet received that information and could not respond to Mr. Boles. He asked the council to accept the concept and promised to bring back more details on the cuts. The council reviewed an overhead listing options for new revenue sources and anticipated revenues shown in millions of dollars. Mr. Wong used a series of overheads to illustrate options for one-time resources and program cuts. Mr. Gleason said staff recommended a cornbined approach: the administrative spending control/revenue enhancements, cutting both the General Fund Capital Budgets for FY91 and FY92, one-time resources not yet defined, and revenue enhancements and service adjustments to the FY92 budget. Referring to the options for new revenue, Ms. Ehrman asked if legal analysis had been made of the utility tax or real estate transfer tax. Mr. Wong said the utility tax, if designed correctly, could be imposed. There is a moratorium on imposition of a real estate transfer tax until 1993. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Wong said the City has the authority to impose any user fee, charge, or tax not prohibited by State statute or the State Constitution. Mr. Boles asked about the possibility of examining a solution to the impacts of Ballot Measure 5 in conjunction with Springfield and Lane County. Mr. Wong said staff is still attempting to determine the impacts of the measure. e Mr. Gleason said that he has talked to other administrators throughout the state. The effect of the measure on each jurisdiction was mixed. Mr. Gleason said that the measure most strongly affects major metropolitan areas. Due to the difference in effect, there has been a variety of responses to the passage of the measure. Mr. Gleason said that he did not want to recommend revenue additions or cuts to programs outside the capital program if those options preclude the council from having a discussion about services with the community. The effects of the measure must be gauged and the strategic planning process in place before such action could be taken. Mr. Boles suggested that, alternately, the council carry forward its current service base and examine a time-limited revenue source to support that base. Referring to the list of one-time resources, Mr. Nicholson asked about the effect of using the unappropriated ending fund balance. Mr. Wong said the purpose of those funds was to cover City expenses until property tax revenues are received in November and December. If the City does not have those resources available, it must go to the lending market and borrow. Mr. Gleason said that the use of those funds would be the last item on that list he would recommend. Mr. Robinette asked about the possibility of approving the staff recommendation while pursuing Mr. Boles' suggestion and legislative remedies. Mr. Gleason said that could be done. He said he would like to have a clear e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 1990 Page 6 e idea of council consensus, because if it chooses another direction, the work program will change dramatically. Mr. Gleason pointed out that he had set up internal committees to handle controls to administrative decisions not yet in place. If the council choses another direction, the focus of any discussion will be at the Budget Committee review level. Mr. Green said that approving the concept seemed to preclude further discussion regarding the items on the capital projects list. He asked about the commitment the council would be making in accepting the staff recommendation. Mr. Gleason said it would be a policy commitment establishing the basic direction in which the organization is going. He said if the council does not rnove forward quickly, the support it will need for the strategic planning process will dissipate. Mr. Wong reviewed a list of projects subject to reduction. The list included the downtown redesign, new library building, alternative transportation modes, housing planning and programming, wetlands mitigation, FY91/FY92 General Fund capital budget, public access ("electronic City Hall"), and fire redeployment. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Wong said the items on the list were projects the council would be completing over the next six months to one year. In many cases, preliminary work has been done on these projects. Staff believes that if the council will be undertaking the strategic plan, it must modify its work plan. Mr. Gleason said he was not proposing eliminating these items completely and some of the components of each would continue. He said he was asking the City Council to make Ballot Measure 5 and the strategic plan its primary work program item. C. Strategic Planning Process e Ms. Bellamy reviewed a memorandum from Mr. Gleason outlining the proposed work plan program and time line developed by staff for the strategic planning process. Ms. Bellamy reviewed the direction requested from the council: 1) define outcome; 2) begin planning process; 3) inform the public. Ms. Bellamy estimated that the planning stage of the process would take three months. A consultant would be hired and stakeholder groups identified. She noted that the memorandum described the framework for the prograrn: Phase 1: Where are we? Where are we going? (90+ days) Phase 2: Where do we want to go? (60-90 days) Phase 3: How do we get there? (90 days) Phase 4: What are the next steps? (90 days) Mr. Rutan asked why staff used the phrase "Ballot Measure 5 Response." Mr. Gleason said he had made the decision to recommend that the council combine its efforts regarding Ballot Measure 5 and the strategic planning program as he could not envision the organization being able to accommodate two parallel public input processes. Mr. Rutan said that Ballot Measure 5 had merely moved up in importance the strategic planning process and was another factor to consider in that process. He was concerned that if the council couched e November 19, 1990 MINUTES--Eugene City Council Page 7 e its approach in terms of a response to Ballot Measure 5, the financial planning process would have negative overtones. Mr. Boles agreed with Mr. Rutan. He said the only option before the council, to hold the line for the strategic planning process to go forward, assumed the community would come to a consensus regarding resolution of financial difficulties by employing measures similar to those used in the past. He was unsure that the community shared those values and was uncomfortable with assuming it did as a precursor to the planning process. Mr. Boles expressed the hope that the council could consider smoothing the path of the planning process when it further discusses a mix of options. Ms. Bascom observed that incorporating strategies to respond to Ballot Measure 5 in the strategic planning process was a recognition of reality. She did not detect any negativity in acknowledging that reality. The meeting recessed at 7 p.m. and reconvened at 7:15 p.m. The council discussed the staff recommendation to address the strategic planning process period. Mr. Rutan suggested that, given the magnitude of the problem, the council take a different approach than that proposed. He suggested that, for each key area identified by the council, such as new revenues, small teams analysing Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats ("SWOT"), composed of councilors and/or Budget Committee lay members, be formed. Each team would act as a liaison working with key management staff to help process the issues identified and move the planning along. A SWOT team could serve e as the policy-making group working with staff on Ballot Measure 5 issues legislatively. Mr. Rutan said SWOT teams would have no authority to make decisions. He believed that if the organization attempted to go through the process with the full councilor Budget Committee, it would be cumbersome and time-consuming. Ms. Ehrman asked how long Mr. Rutan believed his proposed process would take. Mr. Rutan anticipated that the Ballot Measure 5 SWOT team and SWOT team for the FY91-92 budget review would take no longer than three months to process identified issues. The strategic planning SWOT group would take longer. After the planning was done, the public input process could take place. Mr. Robinette said he liked Mr. Rutan's suggestion, but he was unsure of the proposal as a first step. However, he proposed that the council accept the staff recommendation to avoid going "deeper into a hole." Ms. Schue said it was her perception that important policy decisions need to be rnade by the entire group in order to avoid processing issues over and over. Mr. Rutan agreed, and said that was not the intention of his proposal. Mr. Boles said he was not comfortable with Mr. Rutan's small-group approach. He said Ballot Measure 5 resulted in additional lost revenues. The council had already intended to address service levels and funding mechanisms in the proposed strategic planning level. He expressed the hope that the council would not attempt to have a public discussion about service levels and e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 1990 Page 8 e revenue sources following cuts in the capital budget. Mr. Boles said that the City had been balancing its operating budget by taking from the capital budget for too long. He pointed out that 73 percent of the citizens are satisfied with the level of services received from the City. He did not believe the council had a mandate from the community telling it to cut services, yet that was the recommendation before the council. Mr. Boles suggested that, alternatively, the council accept the recommendation of the staff, excluding the capital budget. While the council goes through the strategic planning process, it could establish a time-limited revenue source to fund the capital budget. Mr. Boles suggested that the revenue source could be a utility tax, a percentage of the State income tax, or a mixture of sources. Mr. Miller summarized the three proposals before the council: 1) the staff recommendation; 2) Mr. Boles' suggestion for a time-limited revenue source for the capital budget; and 3) Mr. Rutan's suggestion for a small-group team approach to key issues identified by the council. Ms. Bascom asked Mr. Boles if he wished to wrap a discussion of new revenues into the strategic plan process. Mr. Boles said yes. He said he wished to discuss service and capital cuts as well, and he did not see how that could be done if the decision to cut capital was the approach already selected. Ms. Bascom reminded Mr. Rutan that the council had tried processing issues in a small-group setting. She pointed to the Council Committee on Economic Diversification as an example where a council committee had worked hard on a e specific proposal yet had been unable to convince the rest of the council of the proposal's merits. Ms. Bascom said that while Mr. Rutan's proposal might seem more efficient, she questioned whether the issues could be processed through small groups. Ms. Schue wondered if the energy that should be directed toward the strategic plan might not be diverted by a fight over a new tax. Mr. Boles believed that a more important issue was the loss of the capital budget. Mr. Robinette pointed out that Eugene voters had not supported Ballot Measure 5 and might be amenable to funding capital construction outside the cap. He said that acceptance of the staff recommendation did not mean that the capital projects on the list would never occur. Rather, the council would go to the citizens and ask them if they will support the capital budget. Ms. Ehrman supported the staff recommendation as an immediate response to the situation facing City government. Mr. Rutan urged the council not to take the list of eliminated capital projects literally. He said the council's goal was to balance FY92 assuming the maximum impact of Ballot Measure 5. He did not see the list as being final or the only option available to the council. Mr. Rutan reminded the council that there were many unknowns. Mr. Boles expressed the hope that the council would be able to see a list of projects that included detail on cost and timing. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 1990 Page 9 e Responding to a question from Mr. Boles, Mr. Gleason said about 60 percent of the property tax relief would be realized by business. About one-quarter to one-half of property tax relief would go to out-of-state businesses. Mr. Boles supported postponing action on the staff recommendation until an alternative recommendation including a "tax-neutral" option. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to accept the staff recommendation labeled "Option--Combined" as a system to balance the budget while the strategic planning process goes on. Mr. Boles offered an amendment to the motion. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Green, to amend the motion to indicate that the council delay action until November 28, 1990, on the staff recommendation labeled "Option A" until an alternative scenario that includes appropriate revenue to address items B ("Cut FY91 Capital Projects) and C (Cut FY92 Capital Budget), that revenue to be tax-neutral with respect to the citizens of Eugene. Ms. Schue said she had no objection to examining tax proposals but she wished to make a decision on the staff recommendation immediately. e Mr. Nicholson questioned how an alternative revenue method would be developed. Mr. Boles said staff would develop the alternative for the council review. Ms. Bascom said as the situation becomes more clear, the council will discuss the capital budget again. She believed that the council needed to address the worst case scenario. Mr. Miller said he was sympathetic to Mr. Boles' concerns but felt that the public would perceive his proposal as the City asking for more and more money. Mr. Nicholson asked how passage of the main motion would affect the strategic planning process. Mr. Gleason anticipated that, were the motion passed, the Budget Committee would examine a budget in April that would reflect staff's best estimate of revenues. If, in April, staff has confidence that the State would not withdraw shared revenues, that would be reflected in the budget. In terms of the strategic planning process, Mr. Gleason anticipated that the dialogue between the community and Budget Committee will have begun in April. Responding to a further question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Gleason said that the planning process does not preclude further discussion of new revenue sources. He said that as the committee begins the dialogue with the community, it would be hard-pressed to reach an independent decision. However, if the council makes a decision now regarding new revenue sources, Mr. Gleason feared that decision would dominate the debate. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 1990 Page 10 e Mr. Green asked Mr. Gleason at what point the committee would discuss new revenues with the community. Mr. Gleason said that discussion would be part of the strategic plan, which would begin the latter part of February. Ms. Schue said it was her belief that when the community begins to understand what the budget figures mean, people will begin to say that there must be more money. However, she believed it would be more effective if that realization came from the community rather than from the council. Mr. Nicholson asked staff to identify the earliest point at which a discussion of revenues could affect the capital budget. Mr. Gleason said that the debate must occur first; then the committee will test the debate with the community to gauge consensus. He estimated that could take place in June or July. Following that consensus, the community would develop a strategy. Implementation of the strategy would take some time. In the meantime, the State Legislature will be grappling with the issue. Mr. Gleason felt it was reasonable to assume that the council would be revisiting the list of capital projects between September and November 1991. The council voted on the amendment to the motion. The amendment failed, 5:3; councilors Boles, Nicholson, and Green voting aye. The council voted on the main motion. It passed, 7: 1; Councilor Boles voting no. e The council discussed the staff recornmendation for the strategic planning process. Mr. Gleason said that as policy reference, he hoped to call for assistance from the executive group of the council: president, vice president, and mayor. Responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Green, Mr. Gleason said any decisions would be made by the full council. He wished to work with the smaller group in the early stages of the process for pol icy input. Mr. Miller said that before January, the involved parties would be Mr. Rutan, Ms. Schue, and himself; if council tradition continues, after January 1 the parties will be Mr. Rutan, Mr. Boles, and himself. The council agreed to Mr. Gleason's proposal. Ms. Bellamy reviewed an overhead entitled, "Council Direction Requested." Mr. Rutan modified the overhead by suggesting that the phrase "role of City as community service provider" instead read, "role of City as public service provider." Ms. Ehrman said she was concerned about the public input process. She said the council needed to hear from new people rather than from the people it generally hears from. She questioned how that could be done. Ms. Ehrman said she would like to see innovative ways developed to reach out to the community. Ms. Bellamy agreed. She said it was important to the success of the process that all interests are represented. Mr. Gleason said that was a reason staff was reluctant to bring the council a detailed design. A large e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 1990 Page 11 e part of the up-front work in the process was to ensure bringing in those people who generally do not participate in resolution of public issues. Mr. Boles supported a contract with a consultant that was contingent upon the success of the public input process and the quality of the product. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to accept the staff recommendation for the strategic planning process. The motion passed, 8:0. Mr. Gleason discussed the topic of performance audits. He said the council had initiated a program of performance audits and had assigned Mr. Boles and Mr. Rutan to work with staff. He recommended that Mr. Boles and Mr. Rutan focus on the compensation document and administrative overhead. Mr. Rutan asked if an independent auditor would be involved. Mr. Gleason said yes. The council agreed to Mr. Gleason's proposal. Ms. Bellamy reviewed an overhead outlining the public involvement process. The council approved the public involvement process proposed by staff. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, e ?:7~~~ ~lD.l Micheal Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MNCC 111990 e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 1990 Page 12