New Search
if changes are required to be more efficient and effective in serving <br /> our customer base. The discussion in the latter part of this memorandum <br /> on the PW /PARCS merger is an example of this effort. <br /> 3. Reductions and Efficiencies in Administrative Systems -- This effort <br /> revolves around a review of the Central Business Management functions <br /> and other internal administrative support systems and functions. For <br /> example, we are currently reviewing our centralized text processing <br /> service and how employee work -time is entered into the Payroll and Job <br /> Costing systems. Other examples include the current analysis on consol- <br /> idating the County and City Print Shops and discussions with EWEB on <br /> potential shared software systems for certain business management func- <br /> tions. <br /> 4. Reductions in Personnel Costs -- Under this category, we will review our <br /> compensation and benefits policies and practices, as discussed with you <br /> at your April 29 meeting. Council is currently discussing policy issues <br /> regarding compensation and benefits; and, this issue is scheduled for <br /> your May 20 meeting. Sustainable reductions in personnel costs will <br /> come from reducing services and eliminating positions associated with <br /> those services. Compensation issues for retained services are largely <br /> associated with bargaining agreements and state mandates. <br /> 5. Other Guidelines and Considerations: <br /> a. While the adjustments are focused on the internal organization, <br /> there may be some impact on the public. In my initial discussion <br /> of this issue, I had indicated we would accomplish this action with <br /> minimal impact on services to the public. Our organization is so <br /> close to the "margin" that almost any internal adjustment results <br /> is some impact on the public. For example, one change we may make <br /> in maintaining parks is to expand the areas in which we use rough <br /> mowing, and to mow less frequently. While these changes may not <br /> impact the public at large, people living next to those areas may <br /> notice the difference in the service level. We will certainly <br /> attempt to minimize the impact, with the clear demarkation that any <br /> adjustment resulting in significant impact to the public will be <br /> facilitated as part of the Eugene Decision process and not the <br /> $800,000 Organizational Efficiencies. <br /> b. All areas, regardless of whether in the General Fund or Non - General <br /> Funds, will be subject to review. <br /> c. Dollar savings may result from reducing the cost of a service; <br /> avoiding future costs; shifting qualifying costs out of the General <br /> Fund; or, possibly, adding a user fee. <br /> d. Dollars will be indexed to FY94 amounts. <br /> e. Savings must be quantifiable and sustainable, although this does <br /> not eliminate the need or desire to make "one- time" reductions in <br /> items such as capital expenditures. <br /> f. All departments will be affected, but departments will not be as- <br /> signed specific targets. <br /> g. Front -end Investment -- In some situations, funds must first be <br /> expended on equipment, capital facilities or automation to realize <br /> the operation savings. <br />