Laserfiche WebLink
Department Approval <br />� � <br />l�'�, <br />Jy <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />Date: 8/24/09 <br />Item No.: 10.c <br />City Manager Approval <br />Item Description: Continue Discussions on an Alternative Sudgeting Process for 2010 <br />BACKGROUND <br />Earlier this year, the City Council entertained discussions on using an alternative budgeting process for <br />2010. This process has oftentimes been referred to as `Sudgeting for Outcomes' but other descriptive <br />names have been used as well. In conjunction with this process, the City hired Springsted Financial <br />Advisors to calculate the costs associated with individual programs and services. A copy of the Scope of <br />Services outline is attached. The City Council authorized Springsted to perform only those duties outlined <br />in Option 1. <br />The analysis is nearly complete and we had originally expected a report to be made at the August 24, 2009 <br />City Council meeting. At the time this report was drafted, representatives at Springsted indicated that they <br />were not yet finished with the narrative piece of their report and have indicated that they will make their <br />presentation at the September 14, 2009 meeting. <br />However, City Staff has taken some general snapshots of the data portion of their report in an effort to <br />provide the Council with an advanced look and to prepare the Council as they begin prioritizing city <br />spending for next year. They are included in the attachment. <br />City Staff will be available for questions or comments regarding the attached information. <br />POLICY OBJECTIVE <br />Establishing a budget process that aligns resources with desired outcomes is consistent with governmental <br />best practices, provides greater transparency of program costs, and ensures that budget dollars are allocated <br />in the manner that creates the greatest value. <br />FINANCIAL IMPACTS <br />Not applicable. <br />STAFF RECOMMENDATION <br />Not applicable. <br />Page 1 of 2 <br />