CC_Minutes_2009_0207S - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special City Council Strategic Planning Meeting Saturday, February 7, 2009 Page 24 functions and traditional services and practices; and to determine if such a method would prove cost-effective and serve to break the City out of the current path which was not sustainable. Councilmember Pust opined that her position was that budgeting for outcomes was great process when not working with astaff-driven model; noted the need to look to the experience of other local units of government in providing their services and programs, and expressed her lack of interest in having this discussion again at the same level, that the City Council needed to "fish or cut bait." Community Development Director Trudgeon opined that while he had no strong opinion as to whether the budgeting for outcomes process be done in-house or with outside consultants; he emphasized the reason for today's discussion: 1) Lack of resources; and what are levels of service we should provide, no matte which process is used; and 2) The current staff frustrations due to the many uncertainties. Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff would make adjustments when they knew what was required of them. Mr. Trudgeon opined that, when cuts were made at the last meeting of the year at the Council level, it put all departments in a tough position to respond effectively. Mr. Trudgeon asked that a process be designed with a defined target, providing for some continuity, and to address what was important to the community for programs and services. Mr. Trudgeon advised that, while staff may not like every decision, at a minimum that would provide more certainties and would better serve staff and the community. Finance Director Miller opined that, from his perspective, Department Heads acknowledged that they couldn't be great at everything they did; however, they wanted the City Council to tell them what they should be great at. Mr. Miller opined that, in his seven (7) years with the City, the City Council had never defined their priorities for the community or for staff to pursue. Ms. Gourlay summarized some of the consensus items, including: the need for community input and dialogue; need to determine what process to pursue and the timing for when to pursue it, whether immediately or for next year's budget; and how to address long-term decision-making and planning. Councilmember Johnson opined that the short-term approach identified itself; and that the Council consensus supported budgeting for outcomes in the long-term, with the need to identify an appropriate vehicle to get community input. Councilmember Johnson opined that this community input part of the process needed to be the area in which the City Council and staff excelled in order to productively and concisely identify their expectations.