Laserfiche WebLink
Rf- <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />*ate: 04/25/201 1 <br />Item No.: 13. a <br />City Manager Approval <br />Item Description.- Receive City Staff Budget Program Rankings <br />BACKGROUND <br />2 As part of the Council's 2012 Budget process,, the Council indicated a desire to have City Staff review and <br />3 rank the various budget program categories assigned to their area. As a means of guiding this ranking <br />4 process, the City Council developed criteria that would be used not only by Staff, but eventually by the <br />Council as well. <br />'7 The criteria developed by the Council are is shown below <br />9 Budget Program Ranking Criteria <br />4-7 <br />On a scale of I (lowest), to 5 (highest)l,, each program/function should be rated based on how <br />12 important or effective it is in achieving the community's vision and goals as expressed in <br />13 Imagine Roseville 2025, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and the Parks & Recreation Master Plan. <br />14 <br />In assigning the ratings, the following should be considered.- <br />+ How does the program/function establish and maintain our community's overall high quality <br />of life,, ensure the health and well-being of our citizens, and/or contribute to the economic <br />'19 and environmental well-being of Roseville? <br />20 <br />21 How does the program/function help to ensure that city services meet industry best practice <br />22 standards which contribute to the achievement of the community vision and goals? <br />24 How does the program/function ensure that city services are provided in the most cost- <br />25 effective manner Possible,, while still producing measurable results toward achieving the <br />26 community vision and goals? <br />27 <br />28 The Council subsequently asked Staff to rank only their own programs. As Staff began this ranking process <br />29 it became evident that the ranking criteria shown above were not easily adaptable to an actual budget <br />30 prioritization process. Long-term planning processes such as IR2025 asked people to envision an ideal <br />31 future. However,, at no time did we ask participants to prioritize those ideals. As a result, the initial Staff <br />32 ranking iteration became problematic because it is implausible to achieve ALL of the stated ideals. <br />33 Given these circumstances,, Staff performed a second ranking iteration that incorporated not only the <br />zm� <br />