Absurd Fiscal Note on Government Reform

I hope the $3M price tag assigned to the Task Force on Government Structure Report  doesn’t prevent the easy and doable things from happening, and soon!

FISCAL NOTE

WHEW!  This is just crazy.  Seems like this is really just pulling numbers out of the air.

Fiscal Note
The final report of the Task Force on the Structure of City Government proposes a number of significant changes to the operations of city government. Many of these changes, if adopted, will result in a fiscal effect. Changes with the greatest fiscal impact include:

1. Transitioning to a full-time Council with ten members with higher salaries (Estimated Impact: approximately $2m);
2. Creating a temporary Administrative Services Team to be replaced later by an Office of Resident Engagement and Neighborhood Services ($400,000), which would support the Boards, Commissions and Committees (Estimated Impact: Approximately $400,000); and
3. Implementing measures to improve and facilitate resident engagement and participation through technology, including Council meetings outside of the City County Building and Municipal Building and resident participation support and incentives ($320,000).

In total, the recommendations in the TFOG report are estimated to cost approximately $3.04m annually, a $2.2 million increase over related current annual expenditures. If fully implemented, these recommendations are estimated to increase the City’s overall position count by anywhere between 21 to 34 positions.

The attached methodology provides a matrix of recommendations offered by the report along with a summary of the methodology used to determine the cost.

No appropriation is available to support these recommendations at this time.

COST ANALYSIS

The format of this is kind of wonky and hard to follow.  I’ll try to piece it back together and have it make more sense.  The bolded sentences indicate where there are items that cost money.

Mayor’s Office Recommendations

E. 1 – Retain the mayor-council form of government.

• • No change

E. 2 – Do not pursue first-class city status.

• • No Change

E. 2 – Review attractive characteristics of first-class city status and consider petitioning the legislature to apply those characteristics to second-class cities.

• • Can be achieved with existing staff in the Mayor’s Office.

E. 3. – Retain current form of mayoral veto power.

• • No change

E. 4. – Review the Mayor’s administrative span of power and take steps to ensure that mayors can effectively supervise all direct reports.

• • Can be achieved with existing staff within the Mayor’s Office and other City agencies.

Total Cost = $0

D. 5. – Create an Office of Resident Engagement and Neighborhood Support (“ORENS”) to support BCC system staffing, training, and resident engagement.

• • Staff salary and benefits, including CG 21 and several CG 18 0 in beginning
  • As low as 3 staff to as high as 16 per Appendix C, Exhibit E of report
  • Cost to engage with public (listening sessions, incentives, food, etc.) is included in recommendations below
  • Costs of establishing new office (technology, supplies, etc.)

3 – 16 FTES, currently costs $0, would add $400,00.  Method used to determine cost – Compared to EAP; EAP has 4 FTE, a program manager, off- site facility rental, and $36,000 consultant services budgeted line item.

D. 6. – Create an Administrative Services Team to help BCCs develop systems for engaging residents most impacted by city decision making and providing feedback to residents on decisions made.

• • System development for resident engagement may be done 0 without adding new positions, resulting in a lower implmentation cost
  • Creating the team, as recommended, removes current staff in City agencies and puts them into Common Council, causing vacancies in other agencies
  • Salary and benefits for Administrative Services Staff
  • Costs of establishing new team (technology, supplies, etc.)

Currently costs $0, would add 4 FTE at a cost of $320,000.  Methodolgy for coming up with the cost is “1 FTE estimated salary, benefits, supplies, and space multiplied by four. -Assumption is there are currently no staff positions filling this role.”

D. 7. – Retain Mayoral authority to appoint resident and alder members to BCCs, except that if the City transitions to a full-time Common Council, then the Common Council Executive Committee should appoint alder members to BCCs.

• • No Change

D. 7. – Create clear processes where mayoral nominations for BCC members are reviewed and commented on by the Common Council Executive Committee.

• • No Change

D. 9. – Retain rule that Common Council members not serve as chairs of BCCs with resident members.

• • No Change

BCC Procedural Recommendations

?? – Train BCC members, chairs, and staff on BCC jurisdiction, purpose, and procedures.

• • Can be achieved with existing Common Council and other City staff. Can be done concurrently or before reorganization of BCCs.

D. 10 – Simplify city processes and procedures applicable to all BCCs, including time and location of meetings, rules of procedure, and methods for providing input.

• • Main recommendation was to suspend Robert’s Rules to allow for public discussion and engagement of any agenda item.
  • Review of processes, prodedures, and locations of meetings can be achieved with existing Common Council and other City staff.

D. 11. – Implement a robust technology plan to improve representation and engagement on BCCs.

• • Would need to determine allowable types of video submissions; System and/or staff time for receiving submissions
  • Video conferencing equipment for conference rooms to allow for remote interaction
  • Advertisements to raise resident awareness of opportunities to engage
  • Software for feedback submission/”agenda commenting”
  • IT costs related to section F: video testimony, agenda notification system, public input via Legistar, public assistance via “chat” with City employee, subscription list maintenance for Council and BCC, potential acquisition of customer relations software

No staffing, just equipment.  Adds $250,000 to the capital budget. “Cost estimate reflects implementation, not annual maintenance, and is based on the capital budgets for the legislative management system, property assessment system, and digital accessibility and engagement.”

?? – Pursue concrete common sense initiatives to improve resident engagement and participation as detailed in Section F of the Final Report.

• • Childcare at meetings ($75 per childcare worker based on TFOG expense in MUNIS)
  • Parking validation
  • Possible rental costs with using different locations -Legistar training for the public

No staffing, just equipment.  Adds $70,000 to the budget.  Methodology = “$75 mulitplied by the estimated number of meetings (919) shown in the Legislative Information Center for all BCCs in 2019.”

WHY DO YOU CALL THIS ABSURD KONKEL?

A.  You can’t read this document.

B.  It mixes operating costs and capital costs.

C.  The staff positions measured in FTE don’t add up.  It seems like they either added 4 staff to the council office for a total of 8 staff with 10 alders, or they miscounted the 4 staff currently in the office.

D. The “methodology” is bonkers.  Estimating a $400,000 budget item is 3 – 16 staff is absurd.  They’d be making between $25,000 and $133,000 ant that would have to include their costs?  Meanwhile 4 staff will make $320,000 or budgeted for $80,000 for salaires, benefits, supplies, space, etc.

E.  The Current Cost is $881,000.  Total cost is $3,040,000.  The actual increase isn’t $3M – it’s $2,159,000.