CC_Minutes_2013_0325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• 7-4,,-emu✓t- Memo To: Roseville City Council, City Manager, and Finance Director From: Jason Etten and Tammy McGehee Date: March 25, 2013 Re: Proposed Process with Proposed Rubric Attached is a format for a proposed ranking Jason and I discussed using his proposed rubric. Copying our"best practices" concept that we (the Council) should gain our information from the experts(our staff),the ranking process would begin with the staff from each department preparing and submitting a version of the attached form. Once completed,these would be forwarded to the Council for review together with a fmancial analysis of the whole by the Finance Director. Below are the definitions of the rankings. A sample, using the"Administration"data from the current packet ranking materials, is shown on the second page. Necessity: This is the staff's assessment of this item to the functioning of the city, i.e. health, safety,welfare, and general expectations. This would be ranked: 7. Critical to City Functioning 5. Essential 3. Important 1. Desirable Revenue: This is the staff assessment of whether or not more funding is needed, is stable at existing levels, or could be reduced. It would be ranked as follows: 5. Large increase needed 4. Increase needed* 3. Existing funding adequate 2. Reduction possible *This could be designated as an inflationary increase by designating an"I" following the rank. Personnel: This identifies any additional personnel required for the task. This category would simply list the number of positions. The types of individuals and the general salary category could be added in the"Special Notes" section. Budget Impact: This is for the total increase, decrease, or stable budget implication of the other items in the ranking. The total t hen becomes the predicted budget increase for the total department for the coming year. Page 1 of 1