My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/04/2014
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2014
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/04/2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:21:44 AM
Creation date
12/5/2014 9:51:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
12/04/2014
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
291
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
Strategies to Improve Communities <br />A Case Study in Strategic Budgeting <br />Livermore, California <br />Quickly, let me outline the budget process as we <br />developed it in Livermore. I see the various parts of <br />it as a "mosaic'; which when put altogether create <br />an overall, coherent picture. <br />"First, we conduct The NCS every other year to use <br />as a basic "report card" to gauge how residents feel <br />about city services." <br />"Next staff prepares proposed work plans around <br />services which take into consideration the results of <br />The NCS. These two elements, the results of The <br />NCS and the proposed work plans, are then sent to <br />the City Council as background input for the annual <br />City Council Goal Setting session as they develop <br />priorities for the two-year budget. The Council then <br />lists the proposed priorities (their own, ones from <br />the proposed work plan which could be modified by <br />the Council) on big newspaper sheets. Each Council <br />member is given five colored dots to stick on their <br />favorite items. The 5 items getting the most "votes" <br />become the City Council priorities for the next two <br />years. Obviously, this does not mean that other <br />matters would not come up or be addressed during <br />the two years, but does give clear FOCUS on what <br />the staff and Council want to accomplish over the <br />next two years. It is also helpful in avoiding leaping <br />onto some big, new idea during the two years, <br />because staff outline for the Council how assigning <br />resources to the work on the "new idea" would <br />delay or eliminate work on the Council's major Two <br />Year Goals." <br />"Next, The NCS results, the newly minted Council <br />goals, and the subsequently revised work plan are <br />then used by the CM and Department Heads, along <br />with their own professional views, to prepare a <br />Preliminary Budget. The City Manager and <br />Assistant City Manager meet in a Department Head <br />Team meeting to hammer out a budget - this is a <br />true team meeting where every Department Head <br />hears, presents, and considers their budget request <br />to every other Department (this is quite different <br />than the traditional approach where the CM and <br />ACM would meet with each Department Head <br />separately). The Team approach means that the <br />Police Chief has to "defend" the PD requests to the <br />likes of the Library Director and Human Services <br />Director! Although the CM has ultimate veto power <br />(which we have never once had to actually use), the <br />Team works until it develops a plan that everyone <br />can support (in fact the Budget Transmittal letter <br />sent to the Council is always signed not only by the <br />CM but every Department Head!)." <br />"Next the Preliminary Budget is sent to the Council <br />for presentation, review, public comment, and <br />eventual Council adoption. So the "mosaic" is <br />created from the following pieces: The NCS results, <br />the staff proposed work plan, the Council Goal <br />Setting Session, the Council approved revised work <br />plan, the staff proposed Preliminary Budget, public <br />hearings, and finally Council adoption." <br />A Case Study in Strategic Budgeting <br />Peoria, Arizona <br />Another example of local government altering <br />services based on resident preferences as stated in <br />The National Citizen Survey is Peoria, Arizona. As <br />the recession was biting into Peoria's dwindling <br />budget, the idea to close city operations one day a <br />week and to consolidate 4o hours into 4 days was <br />tested among staff and council. Before moving <br />forward on the idea, leaders wanted to assess the <br />interest of residents in four io hour days instead of <br />five 8 hour days. The 2009 citizen survey for Peoria <br />had this question: <br />To save money, the City of Peoria is considering <br />closing City Hall on Fridays, but extending the <br />hours of service counters (for utility payments, <br />building permits, etc.) from 7a.m. to 6 p.m. <br />Monday through Thursday. Other city services, <br />such as libraries, Rio Vista Recreation Center, fire <br />and police would not be impacted by this change. <br />To what extent would you support or oppose this <br />change? <br />Percent <br />Strongly support <br />Somewhat support <br />Somewhat oppose <br />Strongly oppose <br />Total <br />54% <br />37% <br />3% <br />5% <br />— 100% <br />Support for the shift was extensive, so in 2010, the <br />government shifted its hours of operation to help <br />offset revenue shortfalls. <br />© 2014, National Research Center, Inc. Page 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.