Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS03 - Functional BudgetingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 3 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Homer L. Bludau, City Manager DATE: November 13, 2001 SUBJECT: "Functional Budgeting" — George Jeffries' Letter The following comments are made to address the September 30th letter from Mr. George Jeffries titled, "City Budget: Functional Budget Study Session ?" (see attached). First I would like to discuss budgeting practices generally and in Newport Beach, and then make specific comments in response to Mr. Jeffries' • letter. BUDGETING PRACTICES What Mr. Jeffries described as functional budgeting is usually called program budgeting in local government. The purpose of this type of budget is to show the City Council and the public the cost of each function performed or each program provided. This is distinguished from the more traditional "line- item" budget, which shows the cost for personnel, operations and maintenance, and capital items in detail by organizational unit (i.e. division or department). Each expenditure category, such as salaries, health benefits, dues and subscriptions, training and equipment, etc., has a line with a budget amount. Line -item budgets typically are organized to show totals by department or function within a given fund (e.g., the general fund). They do not show the cost of programs within departments, or programs that may have staff support from different departments or that may be funded from more than one source. Newport Beach uses a line -item budget with summaries by fund, by department and by major programs or organizational units within departments. In addition to the Budget Detail and Capital Improvements Program documents, we prepare a third budget document called the Resource Allocation Plan. This document includes much of the information typically found in a program budget, such as a • summary of expenditures from all funds for each department, mission statement and goals for each department, and staffing, expenditures and services provided City Hall 9 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92659 -1768 "Functional Budgeting" — George Jeffries' Letter Page 2 for each function within departments. In many instances the Resource Allocation • Plan also lists current and historical service indicators so the reader can see the functions performed by individual departments. A program budget does not replace a line -item budget. Rather, it is an additional product that presents budget information in a different way. The line -item information is still necessary for budget management, accounting and financial reporting. In some cities, the council is comfortable with reviewing only the program budget, and leaves the line -item detail to staff. Our experience with the Newport Beach City Council is that you are interested in the line -item detail, and would want to continue reviewing the budget at that level of detail. If at some future time the City Council wishes to pursue the implementation of a functional or program budget, it may require a major reorganization of our current account structure to allow for the budgeting and tracking of "program efforts" in addition to our traditional line -item budgeting and control function. The question the Council needs to address is if this type of budget would better measure the success and accountability of the services provided by the City of Newport Beach. I should add that the Government Finance Officer's Association (GFOA) is currently studying this issue in detail, and I expect a pronouncement from that organization within the next two years. RESPONSE TO LETTER • The following comments are directed separately to the four titled sections of Mr. Jeffries' letter. Summary: I do not agree the current line -item format "prevents" critical analysis of the performance of City personnel. I have been in enough line -item budget reviews with City Councils over the past 21 years to disagree with this statement. Understandably, the line -item budget does not focus on a critical analysis of City personnel performance; rather, it focuses on individual components which make up a department's requested and allocated resources. Oftentimes Council budget discussions do lead to critical review of programs, projects and cost effectiveness issues. Regardless of whether Newport Beach goes to a "functional budget" for one or more departments, a line -item budget would still have to be prepared for their departments. Mr. Jeffries' suggestion that departments be rotated to undergo functional budgets would mean that each year the two or three departments preparing functional budgets would be inexperienced in functional budgeting, therefore requiring a major effort on the part of Administrative Services personnel and the City Manager to assist in the functional budget preparation; this at the time when the workload of these staff people is at maximum capacity. • "Functional Budgeting" — George Jeffries' Letter Page 3 • The letter also states, "Such review would permit department heads, city administration, and Council Members to ask questions which can not even be asked, much less answered, on the basis of the existing budget format." I disagree with this statement. Budget review for the City Manager involves reviewing proposed department line- items, personnel (both existing and requested), reorganizations, department priorities, special projects, effectiveness issues, and anything else deemed pertinent to the City Manager, the Director and Deputy Director of Administrative Services and the Accounting (budget) Manager. This review is not merely a review of numbers. The line -item budget need not, and does not, foreclose having program and performance related issues thoroughly discussed. While these discussions are not attended by Council or the public, they do occur with the review of each department's budget. This information can be accommodated if that is the Council's desire, within the public review of the line -item budget. A Little History: Budget review involving City Councils or Library Trustees should be intended to provide these decision makers with the information that they, and not staff, need to develop a comfort level which results in an adopted budget. Good staffing involves giving the decision makers as much information as they need to vote on budgets. This may sound easy, but it is not. Five or seven decision makers want • different levels of detail, are interested in divergent programs and projects, some focus on the big picture, while others like detail, etc. Since a line -item budget has to be prepared, the City Manager or department head reporting to a Commission should ask that in addition to line -item detail, what information does the Council want to see during budget review? Line -item budgeting should not, and does not, close the door for other micro or macro discussions regarding budgetary issues. Departments should have the budget and personnel detail to answer the question Mr. Jeffries' letter raised due to their preparation of line -item budgets. This particular City Manager does not recognize any budgetary information as "the exclusive domain of staff'. If staff is reluctant to share budgetary information, the City Manager should address that issue when he is made aware of it. If he does not act, the City Council should take up the issue with the City Manager. The Current City Budget: Mr. Jeffries asked, "Wouldn't a responsible leader want to know what these 60 plus detectives are doing ?" The obvious answer is "yes', and as responsible leaders, the Detective Commander, the Police Chief and the City Manager are interested in the answer to this question everyday, and not just at budget time. Currently, the Council spends 6 hours (3 -two hour Study Sessions) on budget review. I do believe that doing the kind of critical review Mr. Jeffries is • suggesting could easily take 6 hours, just for the Police Department's functions! Does that mean that we should not do it? No, if that's what the Council wants "Functional Budgeting" —George Jeffries' Letter Page 4 and as long as it understands the trade -offs in staff time and effort, then we • should do it. But we should do so only if a majority of the Council really believes this kind of time and effort on their part and on the part of staff would be productive. Part of the normal routine with public sector budgets is answering questions about the cost of various activities, functions, projects, services, and so on. The primary difficulty in budgeting by program, especially at the municipal level, is that it requires that the programs be clearly identified and defined in advance. And no matter how carefully we do that, it will likely cause more difficulty than it eliminates. For example, there may be an interest in how much we are spending on detectives, or auto theft, or drug related crimes, so we will identify those as programs and build the budget to that end. The fact that they are overlapping is a bit problematic, but we can deal with it. The budget just gets thicker. But then, later, someone else might want to know how much we spend on police services (in general —and including detectives) in West Newport or some other sector of the City. And the next question will be about police and fire costs related to the fourth of July (of which one component is detective work). The point is that there is virtually an unlimited number of overlapping potential "programs" out there. There are a lot of different ways to slice the budgetary pie. • All of them have a purpose. But if we cut it too many ways at once, we end up with mush. MY REQUEST: As a City Manager in another City which transitioned to 2 year budgeting with a performance statistical basis (numbers of trees trimmed, sidewalks repaired, paramedic runs, traffic signs erected), I have learned that functional budgeting or any other type of budgeting is not in itself going to make any City more responsive or be an automatic budgeting improvement. If there was one budgeting technique that would do so, all governments would employ that budgeting method. Every budgeting method has its strengths and weaknesses. I would disagree with anyone who maintains that "functional budgeting" or any other method of budgeting eliminates empire building, waste, inefficiency, etc. When it comes right down to it, budgeting is only as effective as the people who create the budgets, oversee them, and adopt them. This is not to say that more program, cost efficiency, and productivity information should not accompany budgets. But the budgeting process and review should match the needs of the organization and the community. In my experience, having an organization with an administrative structure that is logical and most closely aligns with the functions routinely performed is most • helpful. Our City has that. A line item budget that fits with that structure is the "Functional Budgeting" — George Jeffries' Letter Page 5 • best tool I have come across to help identify the costs of the myriad of overlapping programs we perform. It doesn't keep us from identifying costs; it facilitates the effort. When cost questions are asked, it is our business to answer them, and in my opinion we do a pretty good job of that. Nothing is more important to our City Manager and Finance staff than providing the best information they can to help the City Council make optimum decisions regarding prioritization of our limited fiscal resources. The City Council is elected to establish priorities and levels of service; it does so through the adoption of its budget. Looking at a budget reveals the Council's priorities. The City Council should determine the type of information it needs to adopt its documented priorities and request that information of the City Manger. The City Manager and all staff are ready and willing to make whatever changes the Council decides will enable it to better fulfill this critical responsibility. • • September 30, 2001 GARY ADAMS, MAYOR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Date Copies Sent To: ayor uncil Member "Enanager ❑ Attorney Cl H■ City Budget: Functional Budget Study SessioW7� Dear Mayor Adams, Attachment 1 RECEIVED • 01 OCT -3 A 7 57 FFiCE OF T• E CITY CLERK 6EACH I was gratified to hear that you intend to conduct a study session regarding privatization of city functions. Privatization is one of two major areas, which should be studied further by the city. The other is a functional budget supplement, by department, to the city's line item budget. Summary: The city currently employs a traditional line item budget supplemented by a partial description of the application of funds. The existing format prevents critical analysis of the performance of city personnel. The city finance department has a staff member experienced in the use of functional budgets. A major change in the budget format would be unduly burdensome, but the city would benefit from a financial review of, say, two departments annually by function, on a rotating basis. Such review would permit department heads, city administration, and council members to ask questions which can not even be asked, much less answered, on the basis of the existing budget format. A little history: I had the privilege of serving on the Library Board for approximately three years ending approximately three years ago. I am trained as a business lawyer. At that time, another trustee was the former President of Northrup Corporation, and a third was a PI-Id. in business, teaching Entrepreneurship at UCI. In board meetings, we frequently laughed and threw up our hands at making any sense out of what should have been the meat of the library budget, namely personnel costs. (For example, only about 15% of the library budget goes to materials.) The city's line item library budget, like the rest of the city budget, fails to permit critical analysis of what city personnel are doing. Personnel costs represent the major item of library, and I believe, city expense. The library budget, at the time, told us only that here were 63 full time equivalent employees, for whom the city was paying a given amount, plus add -ons. It did not tell us how many employees, of a particular level of seniority, were doing what. We could not determine, for example, how many librarians were in administration, reference, circulation, purchasing, children's services, or other functions, so we could get a hand, much less a hold, on how library resources were being allocated to these functions. • • • This information was within the exclusive domain of the staff, and staff was extremely reluctant to share it. The staff told us it would take too much time to provide this information, and that they did not have people to do the job. Our response was, in part that, if this type of information was not at their disposal, it should be. The second problem we encountered, after overcoming initial staff resistance, was establishing the degree of detail required so that there was a balance between the burden on staff and benefit to the city. It took about two years and a lot of discussion until, working with staff, we simplified the functions to permit appropriate breakdown. When we got the breakdown, it revealed where the fat was (in my opinion.) The Current City Budget: The small library budget is a microcosm of the city budget, but the principle is the same. The city employs the traditional line item budget with an appendix summary containing a little additional detail. However, the details are too inadequate to permit critical review. There is still no functional breakdown of major expenses. For example, the summary tells us that the police department employs approximately sixty plus detectives. Wouldn't a responsible leader want to know what these 60 plus detectives are doing? What have they accomplished in their particular functions? How much is the city paying to close • a case? Does the council agree with how department heads are allocating personnel and other resources in response to public concerns? Are there duplications? Are there blind spots? Is anyone building an empire? Are portions of the department top heavy? Neither voters nor Councilpersons can even ask, much less answer these questions by reviewing the current budget. Many believe that department heads should have this information readily available and should not be resistant to disclosing it. The city should be concerned if they do not. We are not talking about micro - management. We are talking about disclosure and reasonable information for our leaders before they approve one hundred million dollar plus annual budgets. It could be counter - productive to ask every department head to provide this information annually. Dennis Danner, in finance, has had substantial experience with functional budgeting in connection with his military service. He suggested to me (at a SpeakUp Newport meeting on the city budget) that such information could, working with his department, be provided on a rotating department basis. (We found at the library that the prior year's functional budget pretty much was the same for the following year.) My Request: If I had the power to make one improvement to make city government more responsive, it would be for the council to include a functional • budget analysis of at least two or three departments annually, on a rotating basis. This change would expose a major component of the city budget to the light of day for the first time, and benefit the department heads, city management, • the council, and the voters (not necessarily in that order.) Please understand that I am very pleased with city personnel and the quality of services provided by the city. However, I am concerned about the large number of city employees, and I believe their performance should be reviewed by function and cost so that our leaders can confirm that our taxpayers are paying appropriately for the level of services provided. Could this issue be made the subject of a study session? r