Laserfiche WebLink
Department Approval <br />�� ,�: �� <br />Item Description <br />BACKGROUND <br />l�'�, <br />Jy <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />Discuss 2011 Budgeting-for-Outcomes Process <br />Date: 1/25/2010 <br />Item No.: 13. d <br />City Manager Approval <br />� / <br />In 2010, the City Council committed to using a`Budgeting for Outcomes' (BFO) process, whereby budget <br />monies are allocated based on desired outcomes and priorities. With the initial undertaking, it was <br />acknowledged that the City was not positioned to fully implement this process as prescribed by industry <br />standards. In all likelihood, it would take 2-3 years of gradual phasing before the full benefits of this <br />process are realized. <br />During the past year, the City took the following BFO steps for the property tax-supported programs and <br />services: <br />1) <br />2) <br />3) <br />4) <br />5) <br />6) <br />Completed time-spent profiles <br />Calculated direct program costs <br />Identified mandatory vs. non-mandatory services <br />Categorized current service levels <br />Identified various outputs, service standards, and performance measures <br />Prioritized programs and services <br />City Staff recently met to discuss the merits of BFO. It was concluded that this new process was consistent <br />with industry-recommended budgeting practices and was preferred over the previous one. Staff <br />recommends the City continue using it for 2011. As part of this discussion, Staff discussed the strengths <br />and weaknesses of last year's BFO process, and identified potential improvements for the upcoming year. <br />A summary of Staff's assessment is included below. <br />Strengths <br />❖ Designed to ensure that high priority programs receive sufficient funding <br />❖ Greater transparency of program costs <br />•'• Emphasis on outcomes, not inputs <br />❖ Reject the premise that the current budget is the right budget <br />Page 1 of 2 <br />