Eugene council hears options for a service-evaluation framework to guide long-range financial planning

The Eugene City Council spent its May 20 work session reviewing options for a service-evaluation framework that staff and their consultants say will guide long-range financial planning ahead of a two-day budget workshop in June.

Twila Miller, the city’s chief financial officer, told councilors the sessions are designed to create a common understanding of financial policies and a service framework that will inform budget decisions, noting the city will use consultant support from Raftelis to develop and test options. “Tonight you’ll receive information on the city’s fiscal policies, from staff and an overview of a service framework structure consideration,” Miller said.

Consultants from Raftelis outlined three broad approaches: a simple legal/authority-based tier that separates mandated, core and value‑added services; a multi‑layer continuum that considers mandate source, the city’s delivery role and whether service levels meet industry standards; and a quantitative scoring model used in some cities that rates programs across multiple legal, operational and outcome criteria.

“Having clear criteria … gives staff, council and the community a shared language for talking about what the city does, why it does it, and at what level,” the Raftelis lead said. Jennifer Teal, who walked council through examples from other jurisdictions, emphasized trade-offs: simpler models are easier to use; more complex or quantitative models give precision but require more staff time and calibration.

Councilors spent most of the session probing how the framework would be implemented. Councilor Evans urged integrating qualitative input — surveys, interviews and focus groups — alongside numerical scoring to capture resident and staff perspectives. “How much of a qualitative frame are you looking to integrate into this process?” Evans asked.

Councilor Kaczynski raised the cost of implementing a complex scoring method and asked how services funded by dedicated or earmarked revenue would be treated in cross-service comparisons. “Sometimes it’s based on past decisions about what topics council wanted to target revenue towards,” she said, noting those funding structures affect perceived service levels.

Councilor Groves said she favors a model similar to Toronto’s that balances detail and usability and urged the council to consider a future zero‑based budgeting exercise to avoid incremental decisions that “nibble at the edges.”

Several councilors, including Keating and Clark, pressed for clarity about who would provide scoring data for equity, environmental, and performance criteria and how the council’s strategic goals would be operationalized in any rubric. Consultants responded that a Salt Lake City–style quantitative approach requires the council’s strategic goals and operational definitions to be set in advance so staff can score programs consistently.

Staff and consultants recommended starting with a foundational model and iterating over budget cycles rather than adopting the most complex option immediately. They said a move to a biennial budget cycle should create space to test, reflect and refine the framework between cycles.

The council did not take formal votes or make binding decisions at the session. The presentation and council feedback are intended to shape the June workshop, where the city will continue developing the framework and identify any specific policy updates staff should draft for later review and possible adoption.

The council adjourned after the single agenda item. The long-range financial planning process will continue in subsequent meetings leading into the June workshop and later budget committee reviews.