Laserfiche WebLink
W e�aknesses <br />❖ B i gger I e�arni ng curve compared to tradi ti onal budg�i ng process <br />❖ M ore chal I engi ng to ref I ect i ntangi bl e benef i ts of programs <br />❖ Sometimesdifficultto defineor identify outcomesand levelsof service <br />❖ Resi stance to { any} reform movements <br />❖ Program categori es may not have been appropri atel y sel ected <br />2011 �gg�ted Proc�ess I mpravements <br />❖ Ref i ne program categori es and sub-categori es <br />❖ Establ i sh performance me�asures <br />❖ Quantify varying levelsof service <br />❖ Establ i sh a uni form program ranki ng process <br />❖ N eed to use total Program costs; i.e. we w i I I no I onger separatel y i denti fy i nf I ati onary costs <br />❖ Establ i sh I i nks to I R2025 and Counci I Goal s <br />The i tems noted above are not meant to represent the compl �e I i st. I t i s eacpected that the Counci I w i I I hol d <br />a di scussi on to d�ermi ne what i mprovements are needed. Ci ty Staff wi I I be avai I abl e to answer any <br />Counci I i nqui ri es. <br />POLICY OBJECTIVE <br />Establ i shi ng a budget process that al i gns resourceswi th desi red outcomes i s consi stent wi th governmental <br />best practi ces, provi des gre�ater transparency of program costs, and ensures that budg� dol I ars are al I ocated <br />i n the manner that creates the gre�atest val ue. <br />FI NANCIAL I M PACTS <br />N ot appl i cabl e. <br />S�AFF RECOM M ENDATI ON <br />N ot appl i cabl e. <br />REQUESTED COUNCI L ACTION <br />No Counci I acti on i s requested. The presentati on i s submi tted for i nformati onal and di scussi on purposes. <br />Prepared by: Chris M i I ler, Fi nance Di rector <br />Attachments: A: Exampl es of Changes to Program Categori es <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />