Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Nlc pbb presentation

493 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Nlc pbb presentation

  1. 1. PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING (Part II) Looking at the Budget through a “NEW LENS” Kathie Novak, Jon Johnson & Chris Fabian November 14, 2013 1
  2. 2. A Brief Introduction JON JOHNSON CHRIS FABIAN 2
  3. 3. 3
  4. 4. The BUDGET …. From an Elected Officials Perspective 4
  5. 5. 5
  6. 6. 6
  7. 7. 7
  8. 8. 8
  9. 9. What are your Elected Officials really thinking? • What does all this financial information really tell me? o Are you saying everything is fine ? o Are you saying we need to make cuts ? o Are you saying we need to raise taxes ? o Are you saying we have more money to spend ? • What are you asking me to decide ? OR • Are you just wanting my “rubber stamp” of approval ? 9
  10. 10. The Beginnings …. Fiscal Health & Priority Based Budgeting 10
  11. 11. DOES THIS LOOK FAMILIAR ????? $300,000,000 Fund Balance Uses of Funding $250,000,000 $200,000,000 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 2010-2011 Budget Forecast 2009-2010 Projected Budget Sources of Funding $50,000,000 $2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $(50,000,000) $(100,000,000) $(150,000,000) 11
  12. 12. “Over the Counter” Treatments Treatment Options: • Fees for Service = Cost of Delivery • Freeze Vacant Positions (Temporaries?) • Across the Board “Cuts” • Defer/Delay Capital Projects • “Sharpen” Revenue Billing/Collection • Consolidated Purchasing/Contracting • Sell Underutilized Assets • Cost Allocation/Overhead Transfers • Freeze Salaries/Overtime Treatment Considerations: • Only a Short-Term “Fix” to Relieve Pain • Safe to apply with minimal diagnosis • Must have follow up diagnosis 12
  13. 13. “Emergency-Room” Treatments Treatment Options: • Across the Board Budget “Amputation” • Hiring Freeze/Furloughs • Reduction in Workforce • 4-Day work weeks • Reduce Services • Spend “Savings” Reserves • Early Retirement Incentives • Outsourcing/Shared Services • Resize or Restructure Treatment Considerations: • Don’t apply without diagnosis • Don’t be guilty of malpractice • Only to “Stop the Bleeding” 13
  14. 14. “Cosmetic” Treatments (Not a Solution!!!)  Accounting Gimmicks  Shifting Operational Costs to Capital Budgets  Deferring Compensation  Underfund Accrued Liabilities  Short –term borrowing  “Distort” estimates or projections 14
  15. 15. Achieving Fiscal Health & Wellness 2 Strategic Initiatives Fiscal Health Long-term Fiscal Wellness 15
  16. 16. BRINGING VISION INTO FOCUS WITH A NEW “LENS” 16
  17. 17. 17
  18. 18. 18
  19. 19. 19
  20. 20. From 2007 Across the Board Cuts Address $14.5 Billion Shortfall  California Governor’s Office: “Across-the-board approach spreads reductions as evenly as possible so no single program gets singled out.”  Reaction: “the governor’s approach would be like a family deciding to cuts its monthly mortgage payment, dining-out tab and Netflix subscription each by 10%, rather than eliminating the restaurant and DVD spending in order to keep up the house payments.” 20
  21. 21. According to Moody’s:  Across-the-Board versus Targeted Budget Cuts  “Across-the-board cuts can be a way to avoid tough decisions”  “Targeted cuts require a serious discussion of community values, relative benefits of different services, and long-term implications”  Moody's wants to see how local governments plan for and respond to financial challenges over the long term  “Making targeted cuts can demonstrate a more strategic approach to managing the fiscal crisis” 21
  22. 22. “Across the board cuts spreads the pain evenly and also evenly spreads the mediocrity” - Budget Director for the State of Louisiana 22
  23. 23. Achieving Long-Term Fiscal Wellness 23
  24. 24. STEPS to SUCCESS – Priority Based Budgeting 1. Determine Results  Accurate prioritization of programs, reflecting the organization’s stated objectives, depends on the comprehensive identification of the Results it is in business to achieve 2. Clarify Result Definitions  Precision in prioritization depends on the articulation of the cause and effect relationship between a program and a Result  Using clearly defined “Result Maps”, detailing the factors that influence the way Results are achieved, the organization can minimize subjectivity in the process of linking programs with its Results 3. Identify Programs and Services  Comparing individual programs and services as opposed to comparing departments that provide those services allows for better prioritization 4. Value Programs Based on Results  With the right Results that are clearly defined, the organization can more accurately “value” a program relative to its influence on achieving Results 5. Allocate Resources Based on Priorities  Using “Resource Alignment Diagnostic Tool” 24
  25. 25. Strategic Questions 1. What are we in “business” to do? 25
  26. 26. 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 Statements o Organizational Values • How we want to achieve our results o “Marketing” statements • Look and feel of the community o Specific short-term, projects, goals or initiatives 26
  27. 27. Step 1: Determine Results City of Grand Island, Nebraska Community Results Stewardship of the Environment Safe Community Strategic, Sustainable and Maintained Development Mobility Options Efficient Services Transparent Services Financial Stewardship High-quality Workforce Regulatory Compliance • Used to Differentiate Programs Offered to the Community • Not All Programs Achieve these Results • Programs that Achieve Many Results, with a High Degree of Influence, Achieve Highly in Prioritization (demonstrate high degree of relevance) Quality Service Results • Every Program Should Achieve these Results (though potentially, not every program does) • Not Used to Differentiate the Relevance of Programs in Prioritization Governance Results • Used to Differentiate Programs Designed to Support Governance 27
  28. 28. 28
  29. 29. 29
  30. 30. Validating Results 30
  31. 31. Step 2: 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 31
  32. 32. Defining Results Result Mapping Exercise 32
  33. 33. Creating Result Maps 33
  34. 34. City of Grand Island, Nebraska des for the wal of the ment through ng and reuse regulates erly and balanced nity Identify and Define Results Manages and mitigates factors that impact environmental quality and sustainability Stewardship of the Environment Manages and mitigates factors that impact environmental Encourages energy quality and conservation and efficiency through sustainability education, incentives and the provision of alternative solutions Controls and abates threats to the environment caused by Provides for the nature renewal of the environment through recycling and reuse STEWARDSHIP of the ENVIRONMENT Promotes and regulates a clean, orderly and ecologically balanced community Encourages energy conservation and efficiency through education, incentives and the provision of alternative solutions Controls and abates threats to the environment cased by nature 34
  35. 35. The City of Chandler, Arizona Protects the Community by justly enforcing the law, promptly responding to calls for service and being prepared for all emergency situations Ensures regulatory compliance in order to protect property, the environment and the lives of its residents and visitors Offers a variety of safe activities and safety education to engage with youth and families SAFE COMMUNIT Y Provides safe traffic flow, safe roads and a wellmaintained transportation system Fosters a feeling of personal safety through a visible and approachable presence that ensures proactive prevention and responds to community concerns 35
  36. 36. The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado Offers and supports a variety of safe activities and facilities that provide for the physical health and social well-being of the community Provides for the protection and sustainability of the environment through regulatory compliance, planning and effective stormwater management SAFE COMMUNITY Provides for a safe transportation network that is well-maintained, accessible, enhances traffic flow and offers safe mobility to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike 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 service Creates a secure, wellregulated, well-maintained community that is healthy, clean, well-lit and visually attractive 36
  37. 37. The Town of Christiansburg, Virginia Provides assurance of regulatory and policy compliance to minimize and mitigate risk Attracts, motivates and develops a high-quality workforce, dedicated to public service Protects and prudently manages its financial, human, physical and technology resources GOOD GOVERNANCE (Sound Financial Entity) Enables and enhances transparency, accountability, integrity, efficiency and innovation in all operations Supports decisionmaking with timely and accurate short-term and long-range analysis Responsive, accessible and courteous to its customers 37
  38. 38. Role of the Council/Board • Have transparent access to listing of all programs offered along with associated costs and FTE • Educate themselves on the variety and diversity of programs offered Role of the Citizens • Have transparent access to listing of all programs offered along with associated costs and FTE • Be informed about the nature of the programs offered to residents businesses and visitors 38
  39. 39. Strategic Questions 1. What are we in “business” to do? 2. What exactly do we do? 39
  40. 40. 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 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO Department Program Inventory Monday, July 26, 2010 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 Fund No. Department Providing Program Program Name 010  Goldilocks & the Three Bears: Not too big, not too small, just right!  TOO BIG = Departments/Divisions  TOO SMALL = Tasks  JUST RIGHT = Measure relative size based on costs/people associated with program to more discretely demonstrate how resources are used Community Planning & Sustainability General Business Assistance 010 Community Planning & Sustainability Business Retention and Expansion 010 Community Planning & Sustainability 010 Community Planning & Sustainability Business Incentive Programs Business Partnerships and Sponsorships 140 Community Planning & Sustainability Energy Decarbonization 140 Community Planning & Sustainability Green Job Creation 140 Community Planning & Sustainability Climate Adaptation Planning 112 Community Planning & Sustainability Comprehensive Planning 112 Community Planning & Sustainability Intergovernmental Relations 112 Community Planning & Sustainability Historic Preservation 112 Community Planning & Sustainability Ecological Planning City of Boulder, Colorado 40
  41. 41. OBJECTIVES for Developing Program Inventories  Create a comprehensive listing of all services offered by each operating division (to both “external” and “internal” users)  Provide a better understanding of “what we do” to staff, administration, elected officials and citizens  Provide a framework to better understand how resources are used to support “what we do”  Provide a valuable tool for staff, management and elected officials to use when faced with budgetary “choices” about how funds are distributed.  Allow for the preparation and discussion of a “program budget” rather than a “line-item budget” 41
  42. 42. Defining Programs  To determine “just right”, look for “differences” that might help determine if an activity can be defined as a “stand-alone” program  “Who” are you doing the activity for?  Does it benefit a specific demographic group or population?  “What” are you doing the service to?  Does it affect a specific property or asset (infrastructure, facility, etc.)  “How” is it funded? – Is there someone paying for it?  Are there revenue sources associated directly with the program (“Program Revenues”)  What “type” of service are you providing?  Preventative, Replacement; Repair/Maintenance; Instruction; Protection; Informative; etc. 42
  43. 43. Defining Programs  Has someone told us we “have to do it?”  Are there statutes, ordinances, resolutions, or other legislative documents that require us to provide the service?  Is there an “End Product” as a result of doing it?  Does the external or internal user get something tangible when the service is delivered?  “Is there someone outside the organization that “does the same thing”?  Does a private business offer a similar service (“Yellow Pages test”)  Do we “advertise” that we do it?  Is there a separate phone directory or website reference to the service? 43
  44. 44. 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! 44
  45. 45. 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.) 45
  46. 46. 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) 46
  47. 47. 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) 47
  48. 48. Role of the Council/Board • Have transparent access to listing of all programs offered along with associated costs and FTE • Educate themselves on the variety and diversity of programs offered Role of the Citizens • Have transparent access to listing of all programs offered along with associated costs and FTE • Be informed about the nature of the programs offered to residents businesses and visitors 48
  49. 49. Strategic Questions 1. What are we in “business” to do? 2. What exactly do we do? 3. How do we figure out what is “core” OR What is of the highest importance? 49
  50. 50. Step 4: Score Programs against Results & Attributes City of Boulder’s Results Basic Program Attributes  Accessible & Connected  Mandated to Provide the     Community Economically Vital Community Healthy Environment & Community Inclusive & Socially Thriving Community Safe Community      Program Reliance on the City to Provide the Program Cost Recovery of the Program Change in Demand for the Program Size of Population Served And/or any other criteria that is relevant to your community 50
  51. 51. Simple Scoring Scale – “Degree” of Relevance to a Result 4 = Program has an essential or critical role in achieving Result 3 = Program has a strong influence on “High Degree” of Relevance achieving Result 2 = Program has some degree of influence on achieving Result 1 = Program has minimal (but some) influence on achieving Result 0 = Program has no influence on achieving Result “Lower Degree” of Relevance (still a clear connection) No Clear Connection 51
  52. 52. Basic Program Attributes: Mandated to Provide Program • Programs that are mandated by another level of government (i.e. federal, state or county) will receive a higher score for this attribute compared to programs that are mandated solely by the City or have no mandate whatsoever. • The grading criterion established to score programs, on a 0 to 4 scale is as follows: o 4 = Required by Federal, State or County legislation o 3 = Required by Charter or incorporation documents OR to comply with regulatory agency standards o 2 = Required by Code, ordinance, resolution or policy OR to fulfill executed franchise or contractual agreement o 1 = Recommended by national professional organization to meet published standards, other best practice o 0 = No requirement or mandate exists 52
  53. 53. Basic Program Attributes: Reliance on City to Provide Program • Programs for which residents, businesses and visitors can look only to the City to obtain the service will receive a higher score for this attribute compared to programs that may be similarly obtained from another intergovernmental agency or a private business. • The grading criterion established to score programs, on a 0 to 4 scale is as follows: o 4 = City is the sole provider of the program and there are no other public or private entities that provide this type of service o 3 = City is currently the sole provider of the program but there are other public or private entities that could be contracted to provide a similar service o 2 = Program is only offered by another governmental, non-profit or civic agency o 1 = Program is offered by other private businesses but none are located within the City limits o 0 = Program is offered by other private businesses located within the City limits 53
  54. 54. Basic Program Attributes: Change in Demand for Program • • Programs demonstrating an increase in demand or utilization will receive a higher score for this attribute compared to programs that show no growth in demand for the program. Programs demonstrating a decrease in demand or utilization will actually receive a negative score for this attribute. The grading criterion established to score programs, on a -4 to 4 scale is as follows: o 4 = Program experiencing a SUBSTANTIAL increase in demand of 25% or more o 3 = Program experiencing a SIGNIFICANT increase in demand of 15% to 24% o 2 = Program experiencing a MODEST increase in demand of 5% to 14% o 1 = Program experiencing a MINIMAL increase in demand of 1% to 4% o 0 = Program experiencing NO change in demand o -1 = Program experiencing a MINIMAL decrease in demand of 1% to 4% o -2 =Program experiencing a MODEST decrease in demand of 5% to 14% o -3 =Program experiencing a SIGNIFICANT decrease in demand of 15% to 24% o -4 =Program experiencing a SUBSTANTIAL decrease in demand of 25% or more 54
  55. 55. Basic Program Attributes: Cost Recovery of Program • • Programs that demonstrate the ability to “pay for themselves” through user fees, intergovernmental grants or other user-based charges for services will receive a higher score for this attribute compared to programs that generate limited or no funding to cover their cost. The grading criterion established to score programs, on a 0 to 4 scale is as follows: o 4 = Fees generated cover 75% to 100% of the cost to provide the program o 3 = Fees generated cover 50% to 74% of the cost to provide the program o 2 = Fees generated cover 25% to 49% of the cost to provide the program o 1 = Fees generated cover 1% to 24% of the cost to provide the program o 0 = No fees are generated that cover the cost to provide the program 55
  56. 56. Basic Program Attributes: Portion of Community Served by Program • Programs that benefit or serve a larger segment of the City’s residents, businesses and/or visitors will receive a higher score for this attribute compared to programs that benefit or serve only a small segment of these populations. • The grading criterion established to score programs, on a 0 to 4 scale is as follows: o 4 = Program benefits/serves the ENTIRE community (100%) o 3 = Program benefits/serves a SUBSTANTIAL portion of the community (at least 75%) o 2 = Program benefits/serves a SIGNIFICANT portion of the community (at least 50%) o 1 = Program benefits/serves SOME portion of the community (at least 10%) o 0 = Program benefits/serves only a SMALL portion of the community (less than 10%) 56
  57. 57. Identify “Value” of Program Based on their Influence on Results Individual Department Program Scorecard Evaluation Criteria Thursday, January 28, 2010 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 Basic Program Attributes Mandated to Cost Recovery Provide of Program Program Change in Demand for Service -4 to 4 Scale ('4=demand 0-4 Scale 0-4 Scale significantly (4=State/Federal based on Percentage decreasing; Mandate; 2=Charter; (4=75-100%; 3=504=demand 1=Ordinance/Resolut 74%; 2=25-49%; 1=1significantly ion; 0=No Mandate) 24%) increasing)' Department Office of Economic Development Office of Economic Development Office of Economic Development Office of Economic Development Office of Economic Development Office of Economic Development Office of Economic Development Office of Economic Development Office of Economic Development Program Business Attraction/ Expansion Assistance International Business Relations/Sister City Economic Strategy, Policy and Analysis Priority Results Reliance on City to Provide Service 0 to 4 Scale (4=Only City can provide service; 2=Only public entities can provide service; '0=other entities can provide service)' Safe City Prosperous Economy Green, Sustainable City Attractive, Vibrant Community Reliable, WellMaintained Infrastructur e 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 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 Below 4 2 4 4 2 4 3 2 0 0 1 2 2 0 2 1 1 0 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 1 0 2 4 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 4 3 1 1 3 0 1 2 1 4 2 Cultural Planning, Policy and Initiatives / Arts Commission Public Art Project Management Public Art Master Plan Implementation and Interagency Coordination 57
  58. 58. Not all Results are of Equal Relevance: Result “Weighting Factor” *Result “Weighting Factor” applied to program scores for each Result 58
  59. 59. Strategic Questions 1. What are we in “business” to do? 2. What exactly do we do? 3. How do we figure out what is “core” OR What is of the highest importance? 4. How do we know we are successful? 59
  60. 60. Peer Review (Quality Control) Process 60
  61. 61. Role of the Council/Board • Have transparent access to listing of all programs offered along with associated costs and FTE • Educate themselves on the variety and diversity of programs offered Role of the Citizens • Have transparent access to listing of all programs offered along with associated costs and FTE • Be informed about the nature of the programs offered to residents businesses and visitors 61
  62. 62. Strategic Questions 1. What are we in “business” to do? 2. What exactly do we do? 3. How do we figure out what is “core” OR What is of the highest importance? 4. How do we know we are successful? 5. How do we ask “better” questions that lead to “better” decisions about “what we do” and “why we do it”? 62
  63. 63. Defining Quartile Groupings Q4 Total Number of Programs 0.0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 100 103 Q3 Q2 Q1 Total Score for Community Oriented Programs 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 Quartile 4: 58 Programs Quartile 1 Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4 Quartile 1: 79 Programs Quartile 3: 103 Programs Quartile 2: 103 Programs Key: Programs are grouped into Quartiles (not ranked, one versus the other) City of Boulder, Colorado 63
  64. 64. Step 5: Allocate Resources Based on Prioritization Quartile Ranking (Quartile 1: Highest Rated Programs; Quartile 4: Lowest Rated Programs) Prioritization Array: Combined City-wide Programs 1 $85,915,772 2 $51,726,155 3 $21,505,297 4 $7,498,842 $- 79 Programs 103 Programs 103 Programs 58 Programs $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 City of Boulder, Colorado 64
  65. 65. “Resource Alignment Diagnostic Tool” City of Boulder, CO Program Type: Funding Source: Prioritization Perspective: (City-wide, Fund, Funds) (All Departments, Specific) (Est. Budget, Gen Gov Revenue, Program Revenues) City-wide (All Programs, Governance, Community-oriented) Choose Department: All Departments Total Estimated Budget Community-Oriented Programs October 30, 2012 Quartile Ranking (Qua rti l e 1: Hi ghest Rated Progra ms; Qua rti l e 4: Lowes t Rated Progra ms) Priority Based Budgeting: Spending Array Perspectives 1 $85,915,772 2 $51,726,155 3 $21,505,297 4 $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 Quartile Ranking 2011 Budget 2012-13 Proposed Budget Increase (Reduce) % Impact 2012-13 Target Budget Programs in Array Qrt 1 $0 $85,915,772 0.00% $0 $85,915,772 88 Qrt 2 $0 $51,726,155 0.00% $0 $51,726,155 116 Qrt 3 $0 $21,505,297 $21,505,297 110 Qrt 4 $7,498,842 0.00% 2-10% 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $7,498,842 54 $0 $166,646,067 0.00% $0 $166,646,067 368 TOTALS 65
  66. 66. 66
  67. 67. Role of the Council/Board • Have transparent access to listing of all programs offered along with associated costs and FTE • Educate themselves on the variety and diversity of programs offered Role of the Citizens • Have transparent access to listing of all programs offered along with associated costs and FTE • Be informed about the nature of the programs offered to residents businesses and visitors 67
  68. 68. “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 provide o And how much does it cost to provide them? • Which programs are offered because they are “selfimposed” ? • Which programs are offered for which there are no other service providers? • Are there programs might lend themselves to public/private partnerships? 68
  69. 69. “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”? 69
  70. 70. Strategic Questions 1. What are we in “business” to do? 2. What exactly do we do? 3. How do we figure out what is “core” OR What is of the highest importance? 4. How do we know we are successful? 5. How do we ask “better” questions that lead to “better” decisions about “what we do” and “why we do it”? 6. What do you want to “keep” (not “What do you want to cut”) – THE ROLE OF CITIZENS 70
  71. 71. Keys to Public Engagement  1.) Determine objective for engaging the Public  Is it a “Means to an End” or an “End in and of Itself”?  2.) Design the role of the Public so it will have a meaningful influence  3.) Ensure higher participation – GO TO THEM  Use the Web  Mail enclosures with Newsletters or Utility Bills  Attend Community Meetings (i.e. Chamber of Commerce; Civic Groups; School Board; HOA Meetings)  Set up kiosks at Library, Rec Center, Senior Center, etc. 71
  72. 72. Many Challenges Inherent to Engaging Public  Level of discussion too “Big Picture”  Conversation is framed contentiously (and possibly with “fear”)  Unclear about “how” citizens will be able to participate 72
  73. 73. Engaging Public in New Discussion About “What They Want to Keep” 73
  74. 74. Valuing the Results of Government Invest $100 in Results, according to their relative importance Valuing the Results of Government Thursday, February 04, 2010 Giving Emphasis to the Priorities of Government Directions: The results that our Government strives to achieve are identified in the table below. As a citizen, your job is to help the City understand clearly the results that you value most. For this exercise, you are to imagine having $100 to invest in achieving the City's results. Where would you invest your money? You can distribute the funds evenly to all results, you can invest all of your money in one single result, or you can invest your money toward the achievement of various results emphasizing those which are most important to you. Spend the $100 until it's gone by typing the amount you intend to invest in a result into the empty box to the "right" of the Result Statement. Money You Started With $100 Money You Have Invested $100 Money You Have Left $0 (When this box reads "$0" you have completed Step 1.) Results of Government Amount of Money Citizen Intends to Invest in Result A Safe Community $ 30 Strong Neighborhoods and a Sense of Community $ 5 Economic Vitality $ 20 Culture, Recreation and Learning Opportunities $ 15 Stewardship of the Environment $ 10 Effective Transportation and M obility Options $ 20 74
  75. 75. On-Line Town Forum 75
  76. 76. Thank You ! www.pbbcenter.org Jon Johnson, Co-Founder 303-909-9052 (cell) jjohnson@pbbcenter.org Chris Fabian, Co-Founder 303-520-1356 (cell) cfabian@pbbcenter.org Kathie Novak, Senior Advisor 720-339-5845 (cell) the.kathie.novak@gmail.com Copyright ©2009 by Chris Fabian and Jon Johnson d/b/a the Center for Priority Based Budgeting, Denver, Colorado. 76

×