Breakthrough Change Breakthrough Change Recommendations Recommendations Part 2 Part 2 Jim Walton Jim Walton
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Hey! Someone, wake up It’s a Workin’ Day
Why Breakthrough Change? Structural Deficit The Growing Gap without Planned Intervention $410,000,000 $400 M $400,000,000 $390,000,000 $379 M $380,000,000 General Fund Expenditures $377 M $370,000,000 General Fund Revenues $ 365 M $360,000,000 $356 M $350,000,000 2005-2006 2007-2008 2009-2010
Why Breakthrough Change? 2003-2004 Biennial Budget was balanced by: • Cuts to Metro Parks • New revenues • Department reductions • One-time adjustments and cash reserves There were no permanent reductions to service levels to mitigate future deficits. 2005-2006 Biennial Budget was balanced by: • $10 million in cash reserves • Department reductions • Real estate sales If we continue in 2006 with unfunded Council priorities for Police, Fire and the Family Justice Center, there will be a $2.35 million budget gap.
Breakthrough Change - Process Phase I A: Jan - March Clarify Scope, Goals, Approach Phase I B: Study Current Situation March (internal and external) Phase II A: Identify high potential April opportunities Where we are today Phase II B: Formulate Jan-Mar April recommendations & May - June options Phase III: June- July Develop implementation plans Phase IV: Implement July - November Phase V: Track results Amend budget November - December
What We Saw Last Week Risk Management Team • Vehicle Accident Claims • Workers Compensation Claims • Employment Practice Claims • Claims Processing Efficiency
What We Saw Last Week Compensation & Benefits Team • Compensation Policy • Employee Performance • Compensation Structure • Benefits Management • Medical Benefits • Post Retirement Benefits
What You’ll See Today • Organizational Restructuring Team Goal: To provide a more efficient and effective organization for delivering services to citizens • Vehicles & Equipment Team Goal: To improve the efficiency and cost- effectiveness of providing fleet maintenance services, and in the purchase of City equipment and vehicles
What You’ll See Today • Some Opportunities were a “no go” • Too costly • Disruptive of service • Some Opportunities can move forward now (through implementation plans) • Some Opportunities are long-term • Major structural changes are long-term
Breakthrough Change Breakthrough Change
Or ganizational R e str uc tur ing/ Consolidation T e am T ac oma City Counc il Br e akthr ough Change Initiative Wor kshop June 11, 2005
Age nda � T e a m Go a ls & Pro c e ss � Hig h Prio rity Oppo rtunitie s � Spa n o f Co ntro l/ L a ye rs � F unc tio na l Alig nme nt � Summa ry o f Co st Sa ving s � Ne xt Ste ps
T e am Goals Pr imar y Goal pr ovide d to te am � T a rg e t a nnua l c o st sa ving s o f $1,166,000 � Ma na g e me nt e ffic ie nc ie s: $750,000 � Othe r sa ving s: $416,000
T e am Goals T e am’s Se c ondar y Goals � A mo re e ffic ie nt a nd e ffe c tive o rg a niza tio n fo r de live ring se rvic e s � Minimize impa c ts o f o rg a niza tio na l c ha ng e s o n pro viding City se rvic e s � Optimize spa n o f c o ntro l � Pro vide func tio na l a lig nme nt & a c kno wle dg e stra te g ic prio ritie s
T e am Pr oc e ss Summar y � T wo sub c o mmitte e s � Spa n o f Co ntro l/ L a ye rs � Ma na g e me nt & supe rviso ry struc ture � Ra tio o f supe rviso rs to e mplo ye e s � Cla ssific a tio ns � F unc tio na l Alig nme nt � F unc tio na l Co nso lida tio n � Re -so urc ing (o ut-so urc ing , in-so urc ing , a lte rna tive sta ffing ) � Re g io na liza tio n
T e am Goals & Pr oc e ss Ke y Assumptions � T he o rg a niza tio n will shrink in the future : fe we r se rvic e s a nd e mplo ye e s � F o c us o n de live ring c urre nt se rvic e s – se rvic e prio ritie s fro m the b udg e t pro c e ss we re no t re a sse sse d � Struc ture de pe nds o n se rvic e s – if se rvic e s c ha ng e struc ture sho uld to o
High Pr ior ity Oppor tunitie s Span of Contr ol/ L aye r s sub-c ommitte e � Spa n o f Co ntro l: # o f pe rso ns supe rvise d b y o ne ma na g e r o r supe rviso r � City-wide 5.4:1 a ve ra g e spa n o f c o ntro l is slig htly b e lo w o the r c itie s a ve ra g e spa n a t the time the y did the ir studie s � Supe rviso ry spa n in de pa rtme nts ra ng e fro m 2 to 12 � 50 pe rc e nt o f supe rviso rs ha ve le ss tha n 5 dire c t re po rts
High Pr ior ity Oppor tunitie s Span of Contr ol/ L aye r s sub-c ommitte e Span of Contr ol: Compar isons at time of studie s Average Span of Control for Selected Local Governments 7 6.5 5.9 5.9 5.6 6 5.4 Average Span of Control 5 4 3 2 1 0 Tacoma (2005) King County (1994) Palo Alto (2004) Seattle (1996) Portland (1994) Source: Subcommittee; City/County Audit/Other Reports
High Pr ior ity Oppor tunitie s Span of Contr ol/ L aye r s sub-c ommitte e Span of c ontr ol: Ave r age by de par tme nt City of Tacoma Average Span of Control by Department Ave. Span of Contr 14.00 11.87 11.10 12.00 10.33 10.009.00 8.12 7.81 6.57 6.36 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.50 4.39 4.22 3.38 3.26 2.71 2.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 - Human Rights/Human Services ent Relations s Human Resources ic Development Management & Budget bly Municipal Court General Services iner Public Works Police Department ent ation System ent Library Finance Legal Public Assem Fire Departm Retirem Hearings Exam Governm Inform Econom Source: Subcommittee Review of Organization Charts
High Pr ior ity Oppor tunitie s Span of Contr ol/ L aye r s sub-c ommitte e Span of Contr ol Managers/Supervisors with Span of Control 250 215 215 anagers/Superviso 200 170 150 120 100 No. of M 50 0 Less than 3 Less than 4 Less than 5 5 or more Source: Subcommittee Review of Organization Charts
High Pr ior ity Oppor tunitie s Span of Contr ol/ L aye r s sub-c ommitte e Manage me nt L aye r s City of Tacoma Maximum Supervisory Layers by Department e y a 6 5 5 5 5 L 5 ry 4 4 4 4 4 o 4 3 3 3 3 is rv 3 2 2 e p 2 1 1 u S 1 x a 0 s s n rt m t e M n i e n ly g e erv e tio t s pm in u n e e d ry rc rvic e b l te ork a rtm o e nc rtm u m la m l C eg ra u S ys etirem B lo so t Re W se xa a e ib a n L S t & ve a a in l S L ep a E e ep s icip lic n R um F A e n n ra tio D gs D D R b e e an lic n u ne rnm m /H a e rin ic ire u P b rm lic um e M m e ts u ea ag F G o P ve fo h no H P ig H n In o o a R G M c E an um H Source: Subcommittee Review of Organization Charts
High Pr ior ity Oppor tunitie s Span of Contr ol/ L aye r s subc ommitte e R e c omme ndations � Pre fe rre d Optio n: re vie w supe rviso r po sitio ns tha t supe rvise le ss tha n 4 e mplo ye e s � E stima te d sa ving s o f $2,250,000/ b ie nnium � Re vie w will re sult in inc re a se d spa ns a nd fe we r la ye rs
High Pr ior ity Oppor tunitie s Span of Contr ol/ L aye r s sub-c ommitte e Classific ation � Hig h numb e r o f c la ssific a tio ns no t c o mpa ra b le to c itie s o f simila r size � I ssue s in c la ssific a tio n a lso ide ntifie d b y Co mpe nsa tio n a nd Be ne fits Bre a kthro ug h te a m a nd 2004 Pe rso nne l Ma na g e me nt Syste m a udit � Re c o mme nd HR re vie w a nd a ddre ss c la ssific a tio ns ma tte rs ide ntifie d in spa n o f c o ntro l/ la ye rs wo rk
High Pr ior ity Oppor tunitie s F unc tional Alignme nt Sub-c ommitte e F r ame wor k � Unive rse o f po te ntia l o ppo rtunitie s � E nviro nme nta l sc a ns (b e st pra c tic e s, b e nc hma rking , sta ff surve y, City Co unc il, te a m me mb e rs a nd c o nsulta nts) � Va lida te / Re fine o ppo rtunitie s � Spe c ific a na lysis � I mple me nta tio n pla nning
High Pr ior ity Oppor tunitie s F unc tional Alignme nt Sub-c ommitte e Assumptio ns � All sa ving s c o nside re d, b o th Ge ne ra l F und a nd no n Ge ne ra l F und � Co ntinua tio n o f e xisting se rvic e s � E ffic ie nc y impro ve me nts a lso c o nside re d � All o ppo rtunitie s no t c re a te d e q ua l � F urthe r a na lysis o f a ll hig h po te ntia l o ppo rtunitie s is re q uire d
High Pr ior ity Oppor tunitie s F unc tional Alignme nt Sub-c ommitte e F unc tio na l Alig nme nt a na lysis � Co nso lida tio n o ppo rtunitie s � Re -So urc ing o ppo rtunitie s � Re g io na liza tio n o ppo rtunitie s
High Pr ior ity Oppor tunitie s F unc tional Alignme nt Sub-c ommitte e Consolidation option #1 Co mb ine the Histo ric a lly Unde rutilize d Busine ss pro g ra m (HUB) with the L o c a l E mplo yme nt a nd Appre ntic e ship pro g ra m (L E AP), b o th in F ina nc e � Sa ving s b a se d o n re duc ing to o ne supe rviso r, ma king o ne po sitio n sta ff le ve l � No n GF Sa ving s: $21,000/ ye a r (a ppro x)
Recommend
More recommend
