Laserfiche WebLink
To be meaningful, redesign of governmental <br />entities and services should: <br />a) save money where feasible; <br />b) deliver improved services; <br />c) serve essential needs; and <br />d) be equitably structured. <br />Cities have and will continue to re-evaluate <br />city programs and services, pursue the use of <br />cooperative agreements, and consider <br />organizational changes that provide greater <br />government efficiency and result in better <br />service to citizens. Citizen input and <br />participation should be gathered and taken <br />into account as decisions about service <br />delivery are being made and implemented. <br />All levels of government are encouraged to: <br />a) Ensure that in redesigning, reinventing <br />or reassigning government services and <br />programs, the appropriate level of <br />service to citizens is evaluated and <br />citizen demands and expectations are <br />adequately addressed. <br />b) Engage as many citizens as possible, <br />from diverse backgrounds and interests, <br />to determine what services matter most <br />to citizens and how the delivery of those <br />services can be changed to increase <br />efficiency and lower cost. <br />c) Educate citizens about what services <br />government delivers, how they are <br />delivered, and how those services are <br />funded. <br />d) Engage in traditional and nontraditional <br />partnerships to make service changes <br />and do things in new ways. <br />e) Identify and repeal programs or <br />discontinue services that are no longer <br />necessary, and evaluate which services <br />can readily and fairly be provided by the <br />private sector. <br />Response: Federal, state, and county <br />governments should: <br />a) Promote and support local redesign <br />efforts through incentives rather than <br />mandates. <br />b) Communicate and establish a process <br />of negotiation before shifting <br />responsibility for delivering services <br />from one level of government to <br />another, or seeking to reduce service <br />duplication. <br />c) Utilize government entities with <br />proven track records in redesign <br />efforts. <br />SD-4. State Government Shutdowns <br />Issue: Twice in less than one decade, the <br />state Legislature and governor failed to <br />reach a global agreement on the state budget <br />by the end of the fiscal biennium (June 30 of <br />odd -numbered years). As a result of these <br />impasses, portions of state government were <br />shut down. The shutdowns, particularly the <br />shutdown in 2011, created a range of <br />challenges for cities, as well as for the <br />state's courts, residents, businesses, licensed <br />professionals, state employees and others. <br />For cities, the most pronounced challenges <br />related to the shutdowns were as follows: <br />a) Uncertainty about the timing and amount <br />of aid and credit reimbursement payments <br />and the distribution of local sales tax <br />revenues. <br />b) Inability of licensed city professionals <br />such as peace officers and water treatment <br />facility operators to renew licenses. <br />c) Loss of access to critical information such <br />as the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension <br />database and state -mandated reports. <br />d) The shutdown of transportation projects <br />on the trunk highway and state aid system. <br />e) Interruption of local economic <br />development due to the state having sole <br />authority to inspect, review and approve <br />various plans and types of projects. <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2015 City Policies Page 2 <br />