My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2012_0130
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
CC_Minutes_2012_0130
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2012 9:44:01 AM
Creation date
2/27/2012 9:42:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/30/2012
Meeting Type
Special
Keywords
Special Strategic Planning Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City Council Strategic Planning Meeting <br /> Monday,January 30,2012 <br /> Page 7 <br /> mately 33,000, the City of Roseville would be considered a fairly small city by compari- <br /> son. <br /> Mayor Roe refocused discussion specific to strategic planning; and suggested Coun- <br /> cilmembers contact Mr. St. Amour off-line for more information on how the survey <br /> worked. <br /> Mr. St. Amour noted that those benchmarks indicating that the City was outperforming <br /> other communities should not indicate that the City could sit back and relax; but by ana- <br /> lyzing city-specific services and programs rated by satisfaction and priority of im- <br /> portance, it could guide resource decisions and strategies for specific services, and link <br /> perception data with internal data. As to why operational metrics mattered, Mr. St. <br /> Amour noted that through tracking financial data and managing processes, it offered <br /> "lead indicators" of future perceptions and other outcomes, and would serve to measure <br /> support efforts to manage quality, compliance, safety, awareness and cost before prob- <br /> lems become public problems. Mr. St. Amour noted that it could also identify areas <br /> where training was indicated; and process and/or resource gaps, often ultimately indicat- <br /> ed best by election results and lawsuits. <br /> As key questions for expanded discussions, Mr. St. Amour suggested several options: <br /> 1) Ask line staff and residents: "What is missing from the list?" and "What makes the <br /> most sense on the ground?" <br /> Mr. St. Amour noted the need to improve performance to improve outcomes: and when <br /> the measurement was completed: <br /> 2) Use internal teams to further analyze results and form ideas; and <br /> 3) Validate ideas and potential action steps. <br /> Councilmember McGehee asked Mr. St. Amour to clarify his view on how best to utilize <br /> the survey data through bringing in focus groups or the general public seeking their sup- <br /> port to obtain additional information and assistance. Mr. St. Amour suggested that staff <br /> and the City Council d delve into the metrics of those areas in which they wanted to im- <br /> prove perceptions and/or performance, before inviting public participation. <br /> Councilmember Johnson questioned how the public perceived Local Government Man- <br /> agement that they would rate it so low; or whether their perception of the management of <br /> the services they ranked so high was more important than the actual services. <br /> Mr. St. Amour noted that Local Government Management was a specific category, and <br /> while those services were extremely important, he likened it to purchasing a car based on <br /> safety and styling, but not necessarily based on the mechanics, even though those were <br /> vitally important as well. Mr. St. Amour noted that the chart displayed showed what dif- <br /> ferentiates Roseville, not the core services and programs, but the perception. Mr. St. <br /> Amour advised that he would send an e-mail better explaining this concept for the City <br /> Council and staff. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.