My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2013_0325
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
CC_Minutes_2013_0325
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2013 1:26:28 PM
Creation date
4/25/2013 1:15:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
3/25/2013
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
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
• <br /> 7-4,,-emu✓t- <br /> Memo <br /> To: Roseville City Council, City Manager, and Finance Director <br /> From: Jason Etten and Tammy McGehee <br /> Date: March 25, 2013 <br /> Re: Proposed Process with Proposed Rubric <br /> Attached is a format for a proposed ranking Jason and I discussed using his proposed rubric. <br /> Copying our"best practices" concept that we (the Council) should gain our information from the <br /> experts(our staff),the ranking process would begin with the staff from each department <br /> preparing and submitting a version of the attached form. Once completed,these would be <br /> forwarded to the Council for review together with a fmancial analysis of the whole by the <br /> Finance Director. <br /> Below are the definitions of the rankings. A sample, using the"Administration"data from the <br /> current packet ranking materials, is shown on the second page. <br /> Necessity: This is the staff's assessment of this item to the functioning of the city, i.e. <br /> health, safety,welfare, and general expectations. This would be ranked: <br /> 7. Critical to City Functioning <br /> 5. Essential <br /> 3. Important <br /> 1. Desirable <br /> Revenue: This is the staff assessment of whether or not more funding is needed, is stable <br /> at existing levels, or could be reduced. It would be ranked as follows: <br /> 5. Large increase needed <br /> 4. Increase needed* <br /> 3. Existing funding adequate <br /> 2. Reduction possible <br /> *This could be designated as an inflationary increase by designating an"I" <br /> following the rank. <br /> Personnel: This identifies any additional personnel required for the task. This <br /> category would simply list the number of positions. The types of individuals and the <br /> general salary category could be added in the"Special Notes" section. <br /> Budget Impact: This is for the total increase, decrease, or stable budget implication of <br /> the other items in the ranking. The total t hen becomes the predicted budget increase <br /> for the total department for the coming year. <br /> Page 1 of 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.