CC_Minutes_2013_0325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 25,2013 Page 29 Councilmember McGehee opined that, in the proposed process, the specific pro- grams within each department were not being evaluated on their own merit, but should be the first assessment, including a section for special notes. Coun- cilmember McGehee opined that this allowed staff an opportunity to highlight specific items in their departments. Mayor Roe noted, from his past history with the process, emphasized the process and its design purposely developed to provide the prioritization exercise by all parties, allowing the City Manager and Department Heads the information they need to make recommendations to the City Council as related to personnel and budget from 2013 moving forward. Mayor Roe suggested that the City Council complete their ranking prior to receiving a lot of recommendations from staff, opining that staff needed that direction and priority ranking from the City Council before proceeding with their recommendations. Mayor Roe concurred that De- partment Head feedback on their priorities for their programs was vital for the City Council to reflect upon as they provided their priorities back to staff. Mayor Roe noted the information provided in August of 2012, and updated last week on potential department-specific strategic plans providing the outside picture. Mayor Roe opined that he remained hesitant for staff to return with more detailed infor- mation until the City Council provided input and ranked community values. As to the specific recommendation to do ranking, Mayor Roe agreed with that process, as long as previous year rankings could be converted to provide continui- ty and consistency. At the request of Councilmember Etten as to whether the previous year's rankings were vital, Mayor Roe responded that while not necessarily so, the way the nu- merical assignment from #1 through#7 was used (staff report,page 3) was critical versus desirable to function. Mayor Roe suggested that those numbers be blended with Councilmember Etten's proposed system (staff report, page 2) and ranked by importance. Mayor Roe recommended #1 be those items critical to the City's as- pirations/goals; and #7 be those desirable to City aspirations/goals. In order to make the prioritization process work, Mayor Roe suggested the following se- quence: determine the rubric, then prioritization, then staff's specific recommen- dations for budget/personnel. Discussion ensued regarding the ranking process and how to identify those criti- cal, significant, and desirable functions. City Manager Malinen advised that, following the previous City Council meeting, Department Heads had discussed the merits and their preferences in ranking by department versus as a composite. Mr. Malinen advised that their consensus was to keep the aggregate system to provide input to the City Council for all 160 pro- grams. At this stage of the process, Mr. Malinen advised that departments would provide that form of input for the City Councilmember's individual ranking de-