Council splits over mid‑biennial amendment that would restructure council staffing and create an outside study
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
A late amendment to the mid‑biennial budget (C36894) proposing council office staffing changes and an outside study drew both support as a negotiated compromise and criticism as poorly timed and insufficiently detailed; council adopted the amendment after debate.
Council members extensively debated a 03:30 amendment to the mid‑biennial budget modification (C36894) on Nov. 24 that would change council office staffing and fund an outside study of council organization.
Council member Zippone and sponsors described the amendment as a compromise among Wilkerson, Dillon and Klitzke to rethink council operations and add accountability. Zippone said the change “strikes the goal of trying to rethink our operations” while Council member Dylan said the amendment provides an off‑ramp ahead of issuing an RFP and “give[s] us a buffer” for post‑legislative work and potential extensions.
Several council members objected to the late addition and to lack of explicit timelines or written budget lines. Council member McGabbard called the move “deeply disappointed” and said the amendment relies on trust rather than delineated timelines; Council member McCallarty said hiring an expensive consultant to advise on internal council structure would be “an irresponsible waste of money” and emphasized the need for fiscal oversight and budget preparation support instead. Concerns focused on whether the amendment would create a mid‑year staffing gap for council services and whether offsets in the budget adequately covered the proposal. Members referenced differing estimates for offsets and study length, with one participant saying a full outside study “could take up to 6 months” but that the likely timeline and funding needed might be shorter.
The council voted to suspend the rules and adopt the amendment (voice and roll calls recorded in the agenda review); the transcript shows the suspension vote recorded as passing (count given in discussion as 5 to 2 in one place during the meeting). Supporters said the amendment is a step toward accountability and offered to provide more detailed numbers between the meeting and final budget action.
What’s next: The amendment will be incorporated into the mid‑biennial package that comes before the council for final consideration. Council members asked administration and CFO staff for clearer, written accounting of offsets and a timeline for any outside study to avoid service gaps.