• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

City of Cleveland Management & Efficiency Study November 2009 In Conjunction with: Public Financial Management Two Logan Square, Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Enterprising Results 215 567 6100 www.pfm.com Table of Contents I. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 II. Overview of Findings and Recommendations ...................................................... 5 III. Focus Areas ....................................................................................................... 11 1 Structure of Government 2 Intergovernmental 3 Revenue 4 Capital Improvement Plan 5 Workforce & Collective Bargaining IV. Departments ....................................................................................................... 71 a. Department of Public Service ........................................................... 73 1. Division of Architecture 2. Division of Streets 3. Division of Waste Collection and Disposal 4. Division of Traffic Engineering 5. Division of Engineering and Construction 6. Division of Motor Vehicle Maintenance b. Department of Parks, Recreation and Properties .......................... 129 1. Division of Convention Center and West Side Market 2. Division of Park Maintenance and Properties 3. Division of Property Management 4. Division of Recreation 5. Division of Parking Facilities 6. Research, Planning and Development c. Department of Public Safety ........................................................... 181 1. Division of Police 2. Division of Fire 3. Emergency Medical Services 4. Division of Correction 5. Division of Animal Control 6. Public Safety Administration d. Department of Finance ................................................................... 227 1. Finance 2. Division of Information Technology and Services e. Human Services ............................................................................. 255 1. Department of Public Health 2. Department of Aging 3. Office of Consumer Affairs f. Urban Planning and Development ................................................. 269 1. Department of Community Development 2. Department of Economic Development 3. City Planning Commission 4. Department of Building and Housing g. Other Departments and Divisions .................................................. 303 1. Department of Law 2. Department of Personnel and Human Resources 3. Workman’s Compensation & Safety 4. Civil Service Commission V. Appendices .................................................................................................. 325 1. Initiative Codes and Summary of Initiatives 2. List of Properties I. Introduction Page 1 Page 2 Introduction Over the past three years, the City of Cleveland has embarked on an ambitious and extensive self- evaluation to make its government more efficient and effective. Beginning with two rounds of departmental and divisional reviews – the Operations Efficiency Task Force (OETF) – and continuing through the Mayor’s recent Sustainability Summit, the City has challenged its managers and workforce to find new ways to do business, and has asked local leaders and citizens to help provide ideas, too. To build on this process of improvement, the City retained a team of local government professionals to provide an independent look at its progress and provide recommendations on where to focus next to meet the tremendous financial challenges it faces in 2009, 2010 and beyond. The team, led by Public Financial Management and including experts from RNR Consulting, TechSolve and Enterprising Results, has met with senior managers in all City departments, reviewed progress on recommendations from the OETF, and analyzed the City’s budget and operations. This report contains the team’s initial recommendations on how the City of Cleveland can further improve the management of public resources and the delivery of services to citizens. Coincidentally, this report has been prepared during the deepest U.S. economic downturn in generations. Cleveland is not exempt from the impact the current recession has had on local and state government revenues across the country, and the City projects a significant budget deficit in 2010 if current spending is not adjusted to match the new revenue reality. Accordingly, this report focuses specifically on the options the City has to bring spending into balance with revenues next year. Many of these recommendations will likely be unpopular – in order to live within its new, diminished means, the City will have to scale back services to which Clevelanders have become accustomed. Becoming more efficient and effective in the current economy will not just mean eliminating waste, it will require the City to think creatively about sharing services with its suburban neighbors, changing long- standing assumptions and rules, and even ending some cherished programs for the public. However, the report also includes a variety of common-sense recommendations for working more effectively and efficiently that would be appropriate regardless of the larger economic context and the need to reduce City spending. The recommendations in this report are meant to be a starting point for preparation of the FY2010 City budget and for discussions about how to meet continuing financial challenges into 2011 and 2012. They are not limited by instances where local or state law might have to be changed, especially given the work the Jackson Administration and City Council have completed to make necessary legislative changes to enact OETF initiatives. Also, in some sections different options are provided for service alternatives, and might be mutually exclusive. It is assumed that the City will not choose to implement all of these recommendations, but it is also clear that these or some similar initiatives will have to be enacted to balance the City’s budget. Accordingly, the recommendations are far-reaching. While there are some recommendations that touch on different City funds, the focus of the report is on the City’s General Fund operating budget, and departments and divisions in that rely on the General Fund or grants for support (subsequent reports will focus specifically on the City’s utilities and airport). Finally, in most cases, estimates of savings are based on the 2009 budget, meaning that potential savings or costs in 2010 and subsequent years might be slightly different once possible growth factors are applied. In general, cost estimates are conservative, providing potential additional incremental savings. The consultant team appreciates the cooperation, time and support it has received from staff in departments and divisions across the government of the City of Cleveland, and from the day-to-day project sponsors in the Finance Department. Management & Efficiency Study –Cleveland, Ohio Introduction November 2009 Page 3 Page 4 II. Overview of Findings and Recommendations Page 5 Page 6 Overview of Findings & Recommendations The City of Cleveland is one of the largest municipal governments in the United States, with a 2009 all funds expenditure budget of over $1.2 billion, and a General Fund expenditure budget of $541.5 million. The City provides comprehensive services ranging from public safety – police patrol, fire protection, and emergency medical transportation – to daily operations from trash collection to recreation activities. This report includes over 175 recommendations for potential management improvements and cost- savings in Cleveland city government. The report is organized by department, with each division covered in a separate sub-chapter. While the consulting team of local government experts that prepared this report found a sound, competently-run government, the focus of this document is on areas where the City can move to the next level, improving service delivery in a new environment of severely-limited revenues. While the departmental and divisional chapters go into detail about specific operational initiatives, this section presents the consultant team’s broad findings, providing context for the more detailed suggestions that follow. The team’s recommendations can be grouped into several areas, including: Opportunities to improve service delivery and eliminate overlap by reorganizing functions; Opportunities to change traditional ways of providing services, or to modify or eliminate services; Opportunities to collect new revenues, or increase collection of existing revenues; and Opportunities to operate more efficiently and less expensively by modifying the organization, deployment and compensation/benefit structure of the City’s workforce. These major themes are discussed in greater detail below. Reorganize City Agencies to Improve Service Delivery The current alignment of City departments and divisions is in part related to the City Code and City Charter, and in part a reflection of the evolution of City operations over years and even decades. The consultant team found that divisions responsible for front-line service delivery and those with support responsibilities were grouped together, sometimes leading to overlapping public services and back office functions. Accordingly, the report recommends reorganizing operating departments and divisions to align internal and external services. Specifically, the report recommends creation of a citywide General Services Department with elements from Parks, Public Service, Finance, and the subsequent combination of architectural, engineering and property maintenance functions within the new agency.

Load more

  344

Copy Link