My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2006 Performance Based Budget
sbend
>
Public
>
Finance
>
Budgets
>
2006
>
2006 Performance Based Budget
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/14/2014 10:58:02 AM
Creation date
12/19/2007 10:33:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
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.
/
532
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
budget process, the City was in the initial stages of establishing the City' mission, broad <br />goals and rudimentary growth objectives. The Technical Advisory Committee was beginning <br />its review of growth objectives completed by the City Management Team. Many of the <br />growth objectives did not include measurable benchmarks or targets, reliable data sources, <br />and related information. <br />1996 Budget -The 1996 City Budget was our first attempt at a program based, performance <br />driven strategic budget document. Line item information was provided by the administration <br />to the City Council and to the general public in separate back-up work books while the main <br />budget effort went into crafting the City=s first program budget For the first time, an <br />overarching mission, broad goals and growth objectives were included. In addition to the <br />citywide aspects, each department and division was asked to develop missions, goals, growth <br />objectives and performance indicators. The Technical Advisory Committee continued to <br />refine and define citywide growth objectives. A number of growth objectives were <br />downgraded from citywide to department and division levels. Same citywide growth <br />objectives were defined with measurable data. However, the growth objectives section was <br />incomplete with a number of unclear and unassigned objectives. <br />• 1997 Budget -The 1997 City Budget was our second program based budget. Several <br />improvements were made in both the format and information provided. A number of <br />citywide training sessions were held far the City Management Team to highlight the <br />cornlection between the strategic plan and the program budget. in addition, each <br />department's management team made progress in completing individual department strategic <br />plans and continued refinement of performance indicators. On a citywide basis the Technical <br />Advisory Committee and the City Management Team further refined citywide growth <br />objectives by identifying the following: <br />• Scope of ResponsibilityCeach growth objective was identified as either a City <br />government or community growth objective. <br />• City's Role-each growth objective was defined in terms of a specific city role <br />ranging from direct city service ar product to a partnership role (with a <br />community partner), to a community leadership, advocate or a monitor's role. <br />Each role was defined in detail. <br />• Lead City Agency-each growth objective was assigned an internal lead agency <br />(or agencies) with responsibility to assume the City role as identified above. <br />• Key Community Partners-each growth objective was assigned a series of key <br />community partners (necessary far a strategic alliance) to achieve the growth <br />objective. <br />• Schedule-a timetable of specific action was developed and assigned to each <br />growth objective. Actions that were included were ongoing performance, <br />project or program completion, evaluation or monitor activities. <br />A-7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.