Embracing the decade of local govt 11-21-13 webinar

transcript

Embracing the Decadeof

Local Government

Jon Johnson & Chris Fabian

November 21, 2013

Alliance for Innovation

A Community Shaping the Future of Local Government

Go to Webinar ToolboxClicking the Double Arrows on your Go To Webinar Toolbox opens and closes your viewer. Clicking the Rectangle will

Place You in Full Screen Mode

Webinar Questions

Please ask your questions using your Go To Webinar Toolbox

Raise your hand to speak with the Organizers

A Brief Introduction

JON JOHNSON

CHRIS FABIAN

“…the next decade (for local government) will be a time in which the fiscal woes of federal and state governments will leave local and regional governments on their own, struggling to balance the need for innovation against the necessity of making touch choices.”

Robert O’Neill, Executive Director of ICMA

June 27, 2013

“Washington paralysis is already leading to a power inversion. As the federal government becomes less energetic, city governments become more so.”

Columnist David BrooksJune 6, 2013

Preparing for a Better Future… The Tools of Fiscal Health & Priority Based Budgeting

Achieving Fiscal Health & Wellness

2 Strategic Initiatives

Fiscal Health Long-term Fiscal Wellness

CPBB Publications on Fiscal Health & Wellness

ACHIEVING FISCAL HEALTH

Strategic Questions • How much do we have available to spend?

- (not “How much do you need”?)

“Spend Within Our Means”

• Why do we need to keep “money in the bank”?

Establish & Maintain Reserves

• What’s the “difference”?Understand Variances (Budget to Actual)

Strategic Questions “It costs how much”????????

Transparent About “True Cost of Doing Business”

“What’s the plan and what could cause it to

change?Economic Analysis & Long-Term Planning

What does the future look like? What if………..???

“Fiscal Health Diagnostic Tool”

Tools of Fiscal Heath

• “ONGOING vs. ONE-TIME” Sources and Uses Analysis

• Published “Revenue Manual”

• Inventory of Fund Balance Reserveso Supported by written Fund Balance Reserve Policies

• “Budget to Actual” Variance Analysis

• “Cost Allocation Plan” or “Program Cost Analysis”

• Long-range, Multi-year Financial Forecastso Supplemented by multi-year Five-Year One-Time Spending Plan (CIP)

• Graphic Depiction of “Picture of Fiscal Health”16

Differentiate Ongoing and One-

Published “Revenue Manual”

Fund Balance Reserve – the “Right”

Baseline recommendation (General Fund)– o 5% to 15% of operating revenueo 1 to 2 months operating expenditures

Adjust for:o Historic Events and Past Experienceo Government Sizeo Revenue Stabilityo Future Capital Needs

Types of Variance Analysis

• Revenues & ExpendituresoBudget to Actual oHistorical year to year actualsoCyclical trendsoOngoing vs. one-time occurrence

• Multi-year Capital ProjectsoEliminate Carry-forwardsoAvoid excessive “change orders”

How to Identify Program Costs

1) Associate Salary & Benefit Costs with your Personnel

2) Assign Personnel to the Programs they Provide

3) Associate Non-Personnel Costs with Programs

4) Line item Budget is now expressed as a Program Budget!

1) Associate Salary & Benefit Costs

with your Personnel

• Key is understanding how personnel line items are distributed (per FTE, on a percentage of salary basis, etc.)

2) Assign Personnel to the Programs they Provide

• Estimate for a given year (this is not a time study!)• Accuracy, not precision, is the goal • Can’t allocate an FTE over 100% (no matter how overworked they think

they are)

3) Associate Non-Personnel Costs

with Programs

• Choose a reasonable allocation methodology:• Divide costs by FTE (i.e. supplies line item)• Assign costs directly to program (i.e. annual audit)

Let’s Look through a Different

“FISCAL HEALTH DIAGNOSTIC TOOL” –

Tell the Story with a “Picture”

Live Demonstration of

“Fiscal Health Diagnostic Tool”

Achieving Long-Term Fiscal Wellness

Strategic Questions

• What are we in business to do?Determine Results

Clarify Results Definitions

• What exactly to we do?Identify Programs and Services

• What do we do that is of highest importance?Value Programs Against Results

• How do we allocate resources to Community Priorities?Look Through a “New Lens” that Leads to Better

Conversations

Tools of Fiscal Wellness • Identify Community “ RESULTS”

o Supplemented by Internal Organization’s “Governance” Results

• Communicate meaning of Results using “RESULTS MAPS”

• Inventory of Programs and Serviceso Supported by associated Program Costs; Program Revenues

and FTE

• Evaluate “what we do” against “what we are in business to do”

• Allocate resources based on Community Prioritieso Looking through the “NEW LENS” of the “Resource

Alignment Diagnostic Tool” 35

What are “Results”• High-level and over-arching reasons the

organization exists in the eyes of the community

• Remain consistent and unchanged over time

• Comprehensive

• Distinguished from (i.e. “Results” are not…)o Vision or Mission Statementso Organizational Values

• How we want to achieve our resultso “Marketing” statements

• Look and feel of the communityo Specific short-term, projects, goals or initiatives

and FTE

Clarify Result Definitions (Result Maps)

City of Boulder, CO Results

• Accessible & Connected Community

• Economically Vital Community

• Healthy Environment & Community

• Inclusive & Socially Thriving Community

• Safe Community

The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado

SAFE COMMUNI

Offers and supports a variety of safe activities

and facilities that provide for the physical health and social well-being of

the community Fosters a feeling of personal safety throughout the community by

establishing a visible, accessible presence that proactively provides for

prevention, intervention, safety education, and

community involvement

Offers protection, enforces the law and is

well-prepared to promptly and effectively respond to emergencies and calls for

serviceCreates a secure, well-

regulated, well-maintained community that is healthy, clean, well-lit and visually

attractive

Provides for a safe transportation network that is well-maintained,

accessible, enhances traffic flow and offers safe

mobility to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians

Provides for the protection and

sustainability of the environment through

regulatory compliance, planning and effective

stormwater management

The Town of Christiansburg, Virginia

GOOD GOVERNANCE (Sound Financial

Entity)

Provides assurance of regulatory and

policy compliance to minimize and mitigate risk

Protects and prudently manages its financial, human,

physical and technology resources

Enables and enhances

transparency, accountability,

integrity, efficiency and innovation in all

operationsResponsive,

accessible and courteous to its

customers

Supports decision-making with timely and accurate short-

term and long-range analysis

Attracts, motivates and develops a

high-quality workforce,

dedicated to public service

and FTE

Identify “Programs” within Departments/ Divisions

Departments develop their own “program” inventories

Comprehensive list of “what we do”

Comparing relative value of programs, not relative value of departments

Goldilocks & the Three Bears: Not too big, not too small, just right!TOO BIG =

Departments/DivisionsTOO SMALL = Tasks JUST RIGHT = Measure relative

size based on costs/people associated with program to more discretely demonstrate how resources are used

CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADODepartment Program Inventory

Fund No.

Department Providing Program Program Name

010 Community Planning & Sustainability General Business Assistance010 Community Planning & Sustainability Business Retention and Expansion010 Community Planning & Sustainability Business Incentive Programs

010 Community Planning & SustainabilityBusiness Partnerships and Sponsorships

140 Community Planning & Sustainability Energy Decarbonization140 Community Planning & Sustainability Green Job Creation140 Community Planning & Sustainability Climate Adaptation Planning

112 Community Planning & Sustainability Comprehensive Planning112 Community Planning & Sustainability Intergovernmental Relations112 Community Planning & Sustainability Historic Preservation112 Community Planning & Sustainability Ecological Planning

Directions: For all of the programs and services in your department, identify the program name. When completed, please e-mail the Program Inventory back to Jim Reasor

Monday, July 26, 2010

City of Boulder, Colorado

and FTE

Score Programs Against Results & Attributes

City of Boulder’s ResultsBasic Program Attributes

• Accessible & Connected Community

• Economically Vital Community

• Healthy Environment & Community

• Inclusive & Socially Thriving Community

• Safe Community

Mandated to Provide the Program

Reliance on the City to Provide the Program

Cost Recovery of the Program

Change in Demand for the Program

Size of Population ServedAnd/or any other criteria

that is relevant to your community

Identify “Value” of Program Based on their Influence on

Results

Individual Department Program Scorecard

Mandated to Provide Program

Cost Recovery of Program

Change in Demand for

Service

Reliance on City to Provide

ServiceSafe City

Prosperous Economy

Green, Sustainable

Attractive, Vibrant

Community

Reliable, Well-

Maintained Infrastructur

0-4 Scale (4=State/Federal

Mandate; 2=Charter; 1=Ordinance/Resolution; 0=No Mandate)

0-4 Scale based on Percentage

(4=75-100%; 3=50-74%; 2=25-49%; 1=1-

-4 to 4 Scale ('-4=demand

significantly decreasing; 4=demand

significantly increasing)'

0 to 4 Scale (4=Only City can provide service; 2=Only public

entities can provide service; '0=other

entities can provide service)'

Department Program Enter Score Below Enter Score Below Enter Score Below Enter Score Below Enter Score Below Enter Score Below Enter Score Below Enter Score Below Enter Score BelowOffi ce of Economic

DevelopmentBusiness Attraction/ Expansion Assistance

4 2 4 4 2 4 3 2 0

Offi ce of Economic Development

International Business Relations/Sister City

0 1 2 2 0 2 1 1 0

Economic Strategy, Policy and Analysis

1 2 4 2 0 3 3 2 0

Downtown Management 1 2 4 4 3 2 0 3 4

Arts / Festival Grants and Assistance

1 1 3 0 1 3 1 4 1

K-12 Arts Education 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 4 0

Cultural Planning, Policy and Initiatives / Arts

Commission

1 0 2 4 1 3 1 4 1

Public Art Project Management

1 1 2 0 1 2 2 4 3

Public Art Master Plan Implementation and

Interagency Coordination

1 1 3 0 1 2 1 4 2

On a scale of 0 to 4 points, 0 = program has no influence on achieving the Result; 1 = program has some influence, though minimal; 2 = program

influences the Result; 3 = program has a strong influence on the Result; 4 = program is essential to achieving the Results

Directions: For all the programs in your department, please rate how these programs score in the four Basic Attributes and they influence the City’s ability to achieve its Priority Results. When completed, please email the Program Scorecard back to mariah.dabel@sanjoseca.gov

Thursday, January 28, 2010 Evaluation CriteriaBasic Program Attributes Priority Results

and FTE

“Looking Through the “New Lens”

• Which programs are of the highest priority in terms of achieving what is expected by the community? o And which are of lesser importance?

• Which programs are truly mandated for us to provideo And how much does it cost to provide them?

• Which programs are offered because they are “self-imposed” ?

• Which programs are offered for which there are no other service providers?

• Are there programs might lend themselves to public/private partnerships?

“Looking Through the “New Lens”

• Who in the private sector is offering programs that are similar in nature?o And should we consider” getting out of that business”?

• Which programs are experiencing an increasing level of demand from the community? o And which are experiencing a decreasing need?

• Are there programs offered that are not helping us achieve our intended “Results”?

• What are we spending to achieve our “Results”?

“Resource Alignment Diagnostic Tool”City of Boulder, CO

Quartile Ranking Programs in ArrayQrt 1 88

Qrt 2 116

Qrt 3 1102-10%Qrt 4 54

TOTALS 368

October 30, 2012

Community-Oriented Programs

All Departments

Funding Source: (Est. Budget, Gen Gov Revenue,

Program Revenues)

Total Estimated BudgetCity-wide

Prioritization Perspective: (City-wide, Fund, Funds)

Choose Department: (All Departments, Specific)

Program Type: (All Programs, Governance,

Community-oriented)

$00.00%

$85,915,772

$21,505,297

$51,726,155

$0 $85,915,772

$51,726,155 0.00%

$0 $166,646,067 0.00% $0 $166,646,067

2012-13 Proposed Budget Increase (Reduce) % Impact 2012-13 Target Budget

2011 Budget

$7,498,842

$21,505,297

$7,498,842

$85,915,772

$51,726,155

$21,505,297

$7,498,842

$- $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 $70,000,000 $80,000,000 $90,000,000 $100,000,000

tile R

tile 4

Priority Based Budgeting: Spending Array Perspectives

Live Demonstration of

“Resource Alignment

Diagnostic Tool”

Thank You !

Jon Johnson, Co-Founder Chris Fabian, Co-Founder303-909-9052 (cell) 303-520-1356 (cell)jjohnson@pbbcenter.org cfabian@pbbcenter.org

www.pbbcenter.org

Denver, Colorado.

Webinar ResourcesTo Receive Copies Contact tshope@transformgov.org

20 Years of Transformation – Inside Out

Free to Members/$49 for Non-Members

12/12 Partnering with Your Community on

Code Enforcement

Calendar

www.transformgov.org

Thank You for Joining Us!