PDF Format:


January 17, 2017
7:00 P.M.

Councilmembers Present Staff Present
Councilmember PflummCity Manager Gonzales
Councilmember NeighborDeputy City Manager Charlesworth
Councilmember JenkinsAssistant City Manager Sunderman
Councilmember VaughtCity Clerk Powell
Councilmember MeyerCity Attorney Rainey
Councilmember SandiferFinance Director Rogers
Councilmember KenigPublic Works Director Whitacre
Development Services Dir. Wesselschmidt
Councilmembers AbsentPolice Chief Moser
Councilmember KemmlingFire Chief Mattox
Parks and Recreation Director Holman
Assistant Public Works Director Gard
Mayor Distler
(Shawnee Council Committee Meeting Called to Order at 7:01 p.m.)


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. Good evening everyone. Welcome to tonight's Council Committee meeting. My name is Stephanie Meyer. I am a Councilmember from Ward III and the chair of this committee. Besides myself, the Committee members here tonight are Jim Neighbor of Ward I; Dan Pflumm, Ward I; Eric Jenkins, Ward II; Mickey Sandifer, Ward IV; and Brandon Kenig, Ward IV.

Before we begin our agenda, I'd like to explain our procedures for public input. During the meeting I will offer the opportunity for public input. If you would like to speak to the Committee at any of these times, please go to the podium. I will ask that you state your name and address for the record and then you may offer your comments. So that members of the audience can hear you, I would ask that you speak directly into the microphone. By policy, comments are limited to five minutes. And after you are finished, please sign the form on the podium to ensure we have an accurate record of your name and address.



COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: There is one item on tonight's agenda. It is a Priority Based Budgeting Workshop.

Priority Based Budgeting (PBB) is designed to complement the City's organizational, accounting-based budget. Caitlin Gard will start the presentation and introduce Chris Fabian from the Center for Priority Based Budgeting. The presentation will include an overview of the PBB philosophy and process, the City's progress over the last few years, Shawnee's 2017 RAD model, and potential uses for PBB in the future. This item is for informational purposes only.

Welcome Caitlin.

MS. GARD: Good evening. We’re really excited to present this information to you tonight. I know it’s not the first time that you guys have seen this, so hopefully it can be a really interactive process. At the end we’ll have a little bit of an exercise, hopefully that you guys find useful that we could potentially use in the future. So, after I’m done giving the intro, I’m going to introduce Mr. Fabian from the Center for Priority Based Budgeting. He’s just going to do a little bit of background, kind of bigger picture how other cities are using PBB, where they’re at in their processes, how we’ve been using it. And then after he’s finished, I’ll come in and I’ll do a little bit more deeper dive into that. And then after that Chris is going to review kind of where we’re at in 2017 budget terms. I’ll show you guys what looks like and then we’re going to do our exercise. So, with that we’ll turn it over to Chris.

MR. FABIAN: Thanks, Caitlin. And thanks everybody for having me here with you tonight. I’m happy that you pronounced it the RAD model. That’s why we named it that acronym just so we could have everybody say it’s a RAD model. It’s a good introduction.

In preparation for tonight, part of the whole spirit and the theme of this presentation and this workshop is talking about where communities go next with Priority Based Budgeting. We just launched the process with the city of Boise, Idaho. And their mayor, after hearing the process and the logic said, hey, fantastic, sounds logical, but so what. Essentially like what becomes of a community after you go through this. Why is it any different and what actually changes. And so just like Caitlin explained, we’re going to start with kind of a review of what communities are doing with the Priority Based Budgeting model and then Caitlin is going to come back up, talk a little bit more about your process specifically. And then we’re going to really dive into your data, which is the fun part for me. And hopefully it’ll become the fun part for you as well.

[Priority Based Budgeting - Shawnee and the PBB Mission slide]
But just to get started. This is a look back, the holidays for this year is like the ghost of Christmas past. This is looking back in 2013. This is the last time that I was here.

[Over 150 communities across the US and Canada slide]
And Shawnee is one of the earliest implementers of Priority Based Budgeting and you have managed to sustain your work over the years since you began. At this point there are just about 150 communities across the country who are doing Priority Based Budgeting now, which is a lot for our operation. And you joined a select group of organizations, cities and counties across the United States and into Canada. But given that there are 90,000 specific local government entities, we have a lot of work to do. But you were one of the first pioneers in this process. And as we’ll talk about today, many communities are looking your way as leaders. In fact, I have two meetings tomorrow, one with Wyandotte, the Unified Government, and one with the City of Kansas City, who are both looking towards your example in terms of what you’ve been able to accomplish.

[Evolution of the PBB mission slide]
In the early days you were so bold to take a chance on Priority Based Budgeting. But since then this has been identified as a national best practice by the association that represents city managers, ICMA, the Government Finance Officers Association that represents finance directors and budget directors. And I know that I’ve come across some of you at the National League of Cities during our presentations and we continue to work with NLC to present this information to elected officials.

This is sort of text heavy. You can read it after the meeting perhaps. But it’s a little bit about our evolution on the mission of Priority Based Budgeting. And aligned with our theme for tonight, when we started -- when we invented Priority Based Budgeting we did so to help out our own local government. We were practitioners. We were on the inside when we created this process. And we did it to bail out our own county which was facing a multi-million dollar deficit. This got the attention of some of the national associations, ICMA for the most part, and the Government Finance Officers Association because the great recession was just hitting so many communities. And at their request they asked us is this replicable. Can you actually come out and help other communities put PBB into practice primarily because so many governments had to cut the budget. They were trying to figure out their way out of the great recession and how they were going to make ends meet.

So, those were the early days. We had to invent a process, a repeatable process to get everybody through the work. And after a bit of time had passed and we had our initial group of implementations, our own mission had to shift because no longer was it adequate for us to simply help communities implement the process, but the new calling or the next calling was how do you use it. How do you put the data in play and help communities actually do something other than try to balance the budget.

Most of our communities today are not in a position where they’re using PBB because they have to cut the budget, although some of them are. Many communities today are future focused. They’re looking not just towards what to cut, but what programs they’re going to want to start as they look towards the future. And as so many of our communities, our cities are trying to understand what is the role of local government in a rapidly changing world that we live in. Priority Based Budgeting is helping us evaluate new programs that you might want to start and constantly assess where you’re going to get the money to be able to fund those programs. So, Priority Based Budgeting turns out to also have relevance in an environment where we’re starting new programs. And I know this is part of what we’re going to be looking at here in some of your next steps.

But just a glimpse. I want to show you four case studies quickly in terms of what some of our communities are doing with the work.

[Strathcona County, Alberta slide]
This is Strathcona County, Alberta. Anybody familiar with the Strathcona County? They’re in the Edmondton area. They are rich. They’re a very wealthy community. Oil is abundant in Strathcona County and they bring in a lot of revenue because of that. And in Strathcona their approach to this was to report back to citizens that despite the fact that they are experiencing an abundance of new revenue they wanted to lower taxes and at the same time increase service levels. So, how do you do that? They continued to look at lower priority programs that they were offering mining away resources, people and dollars, and re-channeling them towards higher priority initiatives. That’s exactly what they’ve done. And they didn’t have to. And that’s kind of exceptional. And that’s the will of the elected body in Strathcona County.
[Kalamazoo, Michigan slide]
In Kalamazoo, Michigan, a slightly different story. I don’t know how many of you have been following what’s happening in Kalamazoo, but they have lucked out. They have a couple of local philanthropists who donated $70 million to the city. It’s kind of a very fortunate series of events. And they’re using Priority Based Budgeting as the lens through which they evaluate how those resources are being spent. So, as you see in the slide there they’re talking about ending generational poverty as a result that they are defining specifically and evaluating every proposed service that they’re thinking of funding in that specific light. So, Priority Based Budgeting can be used across an entire organization. It can be used for specific initiatives. It can be used for ongoing programs. It can be used for one-time; projects. And we’ll get into that in part of the exercise that we’re going to show tonight as well.

[Washington County, Wisconsin slide]
Washington County, Wisconsin, completely different situation. If you’re familiar with what’s happening in Wisconsin they are in an environment where there is an extraordinary amount of pressure on local government right now to minimize the number of governments, to really pursue consolidation, and budgets are tight. So, in Washington County they are still in an environment where they need to reduce the budget and that is still how communities can use Priority Based Budgeting as your economic evolves into the future and we don’t know where things go, if you should find yourself in the unfortunate position where you do have to look at budget cuts ever again, it ends up being a tool that prepares you for those types of options and decisions.

[Boulder, Colorado slide]
And then finally, the fourth case study is Boulder, Colorado. They’re seven years in at this point to Priority Based Budgeting. What you’re looking at, and I’ll explain this in more detail, but those four quartiles for those of you who remember how Priority Based Budgeting works, Quartile 1 and Quartile 2 end up being those programs that are most aligned with your results as differentiated from Quartile 3 and ultimately Quartile 4, which are simply relatively less aligned overall. It’s all a relative evaluation process. But in Boulder as you can see it’s kind of the time lapse, 2012 through 2017 is when they started to put these charts together and mining away $1.7 million out of Quartile 4. You know, one of the main concepts of Priority Based Budgeting that we always talk about is that it’s a departure from across the board thinking of any type. So, we’re not talking about across the board budget cuts. We’re also not talking about across the board budget increases when you have new revenue. As you see in Boulder, if you add up all those numbers the green represents where they’ve increased the budget, the red where they’ve reduced it. And you can quickly do the math that they’ve received tremendous new resources overall in the city, but the majority of them are going towards Quartile 1 and Quartile 2 while they selectively mine away Quartile 4 over time. You notice that Quartile 3 is growing. That’s interesting. There is no hard and fast rule to Priority Based Budgeting that Quartile 3 programs can’t grow. In their case, many of these programs are funded by grant dollars. So, they look at programs that might be relatively less aligned with results, so long as there are ways to pay for them, grant dollars, program revenues, fees, charges for service, that’s exactly what they’ve allowed in terms of Quartile 3 growth.

So again, part of the theme is just preparing you as we think about where you go in the future just to see how different communities are using the process and different alternatives. In one of the meetings earlier today we talked anymore we -- if you remember the books Choose Your Own Adventure, those stories that you can kind of pick where you go, all of our communities are doing so many different things. And it’s our job to continue to provide examples and show you where this all leads.

[Shawnee’s Impact on the PBB Community slide]
In Shawnee’s case, this is the impact that you’re already having on the Priority Based Budgeting community. On the right-hand side, this was several years ago, you were the first community that was courageous enough to put your data online and actually see who would pay attention to it. At a program level, showing every program and service that you offered and what those programs cost and the FTE equivalent to support those programs. A number of communities picked up on it. We have always been interested just to see do citizens pay more attention to this than anything else that we’re trying to put online or to get out there in terms of overall transparency and accountability. Among our colleagues it was a big deal. And many communities right now are looking at ways to better provide this information to citizens overall.

As well as on left-hand side you see, with part of our mission being reducing the time that it takes to implement Priority Based Budgeting so you’re not just bogged down as an organization just churning through the process, but actually shortening that investment so that you can spend far more time studying the data, you -- Shawnee now holds the record for the fastest implementation in terms of turning the data around. So, that’s a credit to staff as well. You guys have done a great job.

So, we promote these stories internally. When communities come back to us and say, we can’t finish in a certain period of time. We say, well, Shawnee did it. I don’t know how. You can turn to them. Try not to poach their staff.

[Shawnee’s Progress slide]
Let’s transition from how communities have been using it and some of those stories to just a little bit more about your process over the years. This being a clip from a story in an outlet called Route 50. People are paying in this article, if you hadn’t seen it already, was highlighting some of the ways that you already had begun to use Priority Based Budgeting.

[The Process slide]
But the process itself is pretty straightforward. We have some basic ingredients that we are constantly focused on and they come together in order to produce a priority based budget, and these are program inventories. A listing of what it is that you do and their associated cost.

[Results and Results Definition slide]
You see determining results and clarifying result definitions. So, we get to the bottom of why do you exist, why are you here and how might you define that. And then ultimately there’s an evaluation step where it’s pretty simple. Programs that achieve results to the highest degree are the most relevant programs that you offer as differentiated from programs that have less overall alignment with results.

So, a different way to look at it if we just broke these core ingredients out, we’re looking at what do we do that’s central to the conversation. It’s what do we do today and what might we do in the future, how much does it cost and how does it relate to why we are in business. Or using our Priority Based Budgeting terminology, we’re talking about programs and services, that’s what we do, how much they cost and the results that we’re trying to achieve. As Caitlin mentioned we have translated the line item budget to a program budget. And that’s one of the fundamental outcomes of all of this work. Regardless of how programs align with results, you now know how much it costs you to provide certain services. So, when it comes to things like bench-marking, looking at your cost of service, program revenues and how they align with the cost of providing those services, this cost allocation step is something that you continue to do and continue to update throughout the years. And finally, as programs are evaluated relative to results, the scoring process, those results might change. And we had some discussion earlier about how do you always make sure that those results are appropriate and that they are defined in a way that continues to be relevant for your community and make sense. One of the observations we had earlier today was that perhaps some of your current result definitions might be in need of refreshment. And we have some communities that are interested in that. How do we make these clear, just easier to follow. So, as you go through scoring they make sense and they’re measurable. So, that will be something that we’ll continue to advise you on how that looks.

If you remember this is what results and result definitions look like. For every single one of your results, you had associated result definitions. These are from my stock slides, so I think these are back from the 2013-2014 era. But it is good news that you continue to evolve those and check them and make sure that they are still valid. So, we have this key component, Result and Result Definitions.

[Program Inventories and Program Costs slide]
Program Inventories and Program Costs in the tools that we will get into. This slide is just meant to be general illustration. But for every program you have your associated personnel costs, non-personnel costs and program revenue.

[Scoring and Quartile Development slide]
And then as programs are scored again results, we had the breakout. Just to refresh everybody’s memory of that differentiation of Quartile 1, 2, 3 and 4.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Chris, I’ll just interrupt you for one second --


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: -- just for the minutes to reflect that Councilmember Vaught has joined us at 7:18. Finally. Thank you.

MR. FABIAN: What you’re looking at on this chart, I just wanted to explain briefly. Over on the left-hand side are what we called community-oriented programs as differentiated from governance programs. So, if you remember, we made this distinction in the process that you have some programs that you offer that impact citizens directly. Those are community-oriented programs and they’re scored against community-oriented results. And then we have the internal governance programs, those that help make sure that City Hall is running smoothly. The programs that you offer from the City Manager’s office, budget, finance, risk, purchasing IT, HR and so on. And they go down parallel paths. And they’re all scored against the results that make them relevant. And all that you’re seeing is kind of the behind the scenes work to put programs in quartiles. Here you see the breakout of Quartile 1 programs versus Quartile 2, Quartile 3 and Quartile 4 using just some basic statistics, our standard deviation method for community-oriented programs and the exact same approach for governance programs. One of the exciting things is that in the old days we had no way to really convey how we were doing our analysis in the background anymore. This is something that staff has the power in their own hands to be able to take on. But this is what’s going on in the model. This is how programs get into quartiles.

[Resource Alignment Diagnostic (RAD) Model slide]
During the second half of my presentation, after Caitlin gets a chance to talk, we’re going to get into specifically what you see here. But this is your alignment of resources towards results. And this is your model. This is 2017. And I’ll give you some more reflection on exactly what we’re seeing here. But it’s dramatic in terms of how well aligned the city is towards Quartile 1 and Quartile 2 versus Quartile 3 and Quartile 4. I’m going to give you some comparison information to see how you stack up against communities. But overall, just know this is one of the healthiest spending areas that we’ve seen, which is both good news and bad news in certain ways.

[Alignment of Resource Allocation with Results slide]
It’s tremendous news in terms of the results that you’ve established being able to see almost like a report card how your resources are aligned with programs, how those programs are aligned with results. This is a very positive spending array. But we’ll dive into and see exactly how you pick it apart. Related to that, this again being kind of a teaser slide for the second half, how your spending actually does tie specifically to results. That’s what you see on the left-hand side, the dark blue area representing your investment towards results in terms of programs that have a high degree of impact. The lighter blue programs that have some degree of impact on those results, orange rounding out the total spending in terms of the programs that were evaluated in the process. So, we’ll dive into these charts in specific detail.

[Public Cemetery Management slide]
Lastly, before I turn it back over to Caitlin, one of the things that we’ll talk about this afternoon, the filtering capabilities in the model allow us to be able to pinpoint certain groups of programs that are ideal for particular conversations. And so this is an example. In the model, you can filter and tease out programs that are highly mandated. You have to do them and yet they scored low meaning that they have less to do with achieving the results that make this community great. And one of the programs that jumps out as you look at this was Public Cemetery Management. You’re not alone. Many of our communities end up having some degree of oversight of a public cemetery that ends up being a lower priority overall. And the question that comes up, being a Quartile 4 program is, well, it doesn’t make sense to cut it. We can’t just get rid of this program, so what to do. And in our work and where this goes next is understanding that, yes, you might have Quartile 4 programs that you’re not going to get out of the business of doing. But then the conversation shifts to what are other communities doing about it. Do you just let it go? Do you provide the bare minimum level of service while still paying respects and honoring the service that you have to maintain or what are other communities doing? And as you see there are it turns out a lot of people studying the future of cemeteries. We won’t go into all the stories, but there are some fascinating solutions out there.

[Parks and Recreation Programs slide]
Similarly, we looked at parks and recreation programs. And what you’re seeing here on the chart, especially as I point your attention, and I’ll show you this live in terms of program funding, but you look at programs that have the ability to generate fees for service and cost recovery. And the question becomes how are other communities approaching this. In your Parks and Rec department how is your overall percentage of funding looking in terms of fees of service versus how the general government resources are subsidizing those programs. So, it brings up questions like what are your opportunities for actually charging a higher fee that recovers the full cost of providing some of those services versus are there certain opportunity areas where you actually want to keep the costs low or subsidized for a particular reason. Or Point 3, are there are public-private partnership opportunities that you can look at as well.

So, just a segue into the second half of today’s presentation we will dive into the model and do a live demo. But before we do that I’m going to turn it back to Caitlin for some description of your work.

MS. GARD: Thanks, Chris. Do we have any questions or comments at this time? Yes.


COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I got one question here. When we talked about the pods and these others, what has been your -- I went through these today and sort of looked at different areas and then different pods that might -- how they related in other areas. And it seemed like there was some redundancy and might have been some simplification. So, what is your experience about reducing the number of pods just for the sake of understanding that people look there or with other cities.

MR. FABIAN: Yeah. Great. So, this is -- when you describe pods, I believe you’re referring to the result maps and the results and definitions that go with them.


MR. FABIAN: Circles, pods, that’s great.

MS. GARD: We call them the bubbles.

MR. FABIAN: All right. The bubbles.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Bubbles. Bubbles, pods.

MR. FABIAN: So, this was -- let me try to explain the concept. We confronted this early on in the development of this entire process. Could a result definition actually impact more than one result? And so you think about maintaining safe traffic flow, right, making sure that people are traveling safely around the city. Does that belong in terms of the result of achieving a safe community or could it also belong towards a result like a healthy local economy. You know, you want safe streets in every result area. And so it occurred to us that why would we necessarily silo a result definition and say it belongs to one result or another. The idea behind these result maps is that they are also called cause and effect diagrams. And so we wanted to understand every possible cause to the effect of the final outcome or result area. And the bottom line, it’s okay to have crossover if you believe that it’s logical, if you believe in the example that I gave that safe traffic flow contributes to a safer community just as it might contribute to people’s ability to shop because it’s a healthy local economy. You don’t want to have complete redundancy where you have two results that are the exact same. So, when it comes to the specific result areas that you have that’s where we continue to bring back the conversation and say are these unique enough result ideas like safe community or economic growth and vitality. Those seem pretty different enough, but it’s okay to have overlap in the result definitions.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Well, I thank you because that explains that. Because again, there are -- rather than trying to simplify it, again there are many of what I call the pods that contribute to the safe community or economic growth and things. And so I would think that anybody who wants to get nerdy about it can get into the weeds and understand how it works. But no, thank you. That helps considerably.

MR. FABIAN: Good question.

MS. GARD: Any other questions or discussion at this time? Okay.

So, you guys in front of you have workbooks. We’re going to be using these tonight for kind of a variety of things. So, quickly going through it just so you guys know what’s in here. There’s some introduction to the Center for the Priority Based Budgeting and also with Chris, a lot of the stuff that he just went over. The process and timeline from where we as the City of Shawnee has been, some of the slides that Chris went over and then also our specific timeline with dates and items that we completed within since 2013. And then we have our pods or bubbles or result maps or whatever you want to call them. Those I’ll talk about a little bit, but they have been updated since our 2013 implementation of Priority Based Budgeting. Last year, if you remember, the Governing Body validated our result definitions with a few couple tweaks, there were some adjustments to them.

Next is the information that the Governing Body has given some input especially to our results. And like I said the result definitions. Back in 2014, we had a result definition exercise where the Governing Body kind of prioritized our results, which results are more important than other results. Not that none of them are not important, but some of them needed a higher focus when -- long story short, when scoring programs some scores should be higher prioritized to certain results rather than others. So, in your packet you have how those ended up scoring. You also have an example of what that looked like at the time. We had a Governing Body retreat, so there’s just an example there to kind of jog your memory. And then also there is a list policy questions. So, Chris was going over, you know, the mandated versus cost recovery, kind of the ways that you can filter in the RAD model that he’s going to go over in just a couple minutes. But for your guys’ future information there are tons of more questions than we’re even going to be able to go over tonight, so a lot of those are in your packet here. And then the 2017 budget numbers, Chris will show you the RAD model, but there is also a breakdown of list of programs by department, their total cost and FTEs associated with them, along with the perspective from the city-wide and each department on where the programs in city-wide or departments fell and what quartiles they fell in. And then lastly we’re going to do an exercise like we spoke about earlier. But I just wanted to give you a little rundown of what was in your packet. If you would switch to the PowerPoint, Stephen.


MS. GARD: I was looking at the wrong computer.

[Shawnee’s PBB Process Timeline slide]
So, just quickly here we can talk about the timeline that this Governing Body and also staff has gone through. Like Chris said we started this process back in 2013. We’ve updated the model three times now with the 2014 budget numbers, 2016 budget numbers and 2017 budget numbers. So, back in 2013, the City Council identified the results. So, what is Shawnee is in business do. And we came up with seven results, six community results and then one good governance result, so those are for our internal services that we provide to ourselves. And then pretty much immediately following that workshop staff made sure that our program inventories were up to date and made sure that we actually had inventoried all of our programs. And then also staff did the result definition exercise. So, the Governing Body came up with the results and then staff got together and decided what do those results means. So, that’s where we came up with the pods or the bubbles or result maps. And then what happened is staff scored programs. So, departments scored their own programs. And then what happened is there was a peer review. So, groups from other departments then peer reviewed the scores the departments gave their own programs thought are these good scores, are they appropriate, let’s change them, let’s not change them. So, there was a peer review process there, too. And then in 2014, we got back together with the Governing Body and we looked at those results definitions. I think this was the first review of those. And then also the Governing Body prioritized the results with the Center for Priority Based Budgeting. So, they came in. And like I was talking about before which results were more important and you have those in your binders tonight. Later in 2014, the first RAD model came out. We did publish it on our website a little bit following this. And the Governing Body also reviewed the prioritization from the workshop earlier in the year. Like I said the RAD model was posted online in the end of 2014 and 2015. We are currently working on a way to publish the new information out on the website now. It’s a little bit more difficult of a process, but I think it’s going to work out pretty soon.

Then in 2015, the departments got together and reviewed the 2014 budget information from the RAD model, looked at their programs that were in Quartile 3 and Quartile 4 just to kind of review why are these in the lower quartiles, what kind of programs are they, how much do they cost, are they really something we should be doing, should we review the program as a whole, should we review aspects of the program, kind of stuff like that. So, in your packets, I guess during the 2015 budget discussions departments reviewed with you those programs in Quartile 3 and Quartile 4. Some of those programs being street sweeping from the Public Works Department. We were going to purchase a new street sweeper. Street sweeping fell in Quartile 3. You know, we should review the street sweeping program. Is it something we could out source, is it not. And so we kind of went through that whole process if you guys remember. And it was a very good process and it was just one example of how we looked at our Quartile 3 and Quartile 4 programs. So, once we completed the RAD model we did a couple of updates. The Governing Body came back and then in 2016, early last year, reviewed the result definitions again. That’s when we made a few changes. And then we’re currently, like I said, looking at putting the 2017 budget numbers on the website. And then in your binders are also is a breakdown of the 2017 budget that Chris is going to go over here in just a little bit. Are there any questions? That was a lot of information very quickly.

Other things that we’re doing with our results from Priority Based Budgeting is we implemented them in our work plan I think. This is our third year doing that. We wanted all of the projects that we are focusing on for the upcoming work plan to also be aligned with our results. And so this is just an example. These were provided to the Governing Body during the budget process last year. So, this is just a screen shot. But we wanted to make sure, like I said, that our projects are aligning with our results. So, each result has projects associated with it that staff is going to work on throughout the year.
What we’re also doing is we’re looking at our performance measures. Again, tied to our results. We want to make sure that the items that we’re tracking for performance also fall within our results and our results have definitions. What kind of questions do we have about this? None? No discussion.

Okay. So, I’m going to turn it over to Chris to go over the 2017 budget in our RAD model.

MR. FABIAN: Thank you. All right. For this next section I’m going to get your actual model up and running. And as we go through it I hope that if you do have questions at what we’re looking at feel free to dive in because this is -- hopefully how this works is you start to get a sense for how the departments are able to start to use the information and also the type of discussions that you can begin to engage in as well.

Getting back on the Wi-Fi. That’s all right. I know the password. Want some dramatic effect as we log in. Drum roll, yes. It’s like Christmas Vacation.

This is kind of neat. This is a perspective of all the communities who are going through this with you as well. And one of the first things that I want to bring up, and you can see this on your individual monitors, is that right? Okay. One of the first concepts of Priority Based Budgeting is this separation between what we call your community-oriented programs and your governance programs overall. And before Priority Based Budgeting you could make us swag at this. You could attempt to look at your line items, look at the budget and understand what are departments that tend to be more internal in nature versus what departments tend to serve the community overall. But by being able to characterize each program within a department as either community oriented or governance oriented we have a far better idea as to how the organization is supported. So, you can look at this across the entire organization. We can look at it specific within the General Fund. And what you’re seeing, while this is the overall proportion of spending, community versus governance for any particular fund, down below these are the departments and their proportion of the spending from a community perspective or a governance perspective overall.

So far so good? And again, please jump in with any questions.

But we’ll go back from the General Fund and go back to all funds, but you can do it for any one of your funds overall. One thing that I did want to draw your attention to so, you see that overall across the city your community-oriented spending makes up in this percentage about 89 percent of the overall pie. These are for your ongoing operational programs. That’s what was scored in Priority Based Budgeting. This is compared to 11 percent governance. Okay. From our work and our experience across all Priority Based Budgeting communities, this is a very low overall percentage spending for governance programs. It doesn’t mean it’s good. It doesn’t mean it’s bad. But when we were working in a very small community in Saskatchewan, the town of Humboldt. And they’re so small that the city manager is also doing janitorial tasks and he’s also help desk for IT. You get the picture. They are lean and then some for the internal support of their organization. They are closer to nine percent governance and that’s the smallest we had ever seen. To be at 11 percent is definitely towards the lean end for internal support. Most of our communities are closer to 20 or even 25 percent overall for internal governance. Again, that’s not to say that they’re good for being at 25 percent. It’s just the data that’s what we’re seeing overall. What it suggests to us is that certainly knowing that you are towards the low end is constantly evaluate that and just make sure, be asking yourself the question when you look at your internal support functions how are they doing. Is the organization holding up? Are your fleet assets, your facilities, your IT assets falling behind in terms of maintenance or replacement. It’s just something to keep in mind. The positive spin on it is if things are looking good, if you feel like they are adequately resourced, then this is a phenomenal percentage. It’s a great place to be. And it’s something you can describe, just like you would talk about an investment or a charitable donation, you want that support percentage to be responsible. But as you’re talking to citizens as well, this is a highlight to us of the City of Shawnee. We can move from this general concept about percentage of spending, community versus governance, to one of the next major components which is the understanding of how your resources are aligned with results. So, I had a screen capture of this in your slides. One of the other major outcomes of your work in Priority Based Budgeting is truly being able to know how programs align with results. And since we know how much programs cost we can actually see of the resources that you take in how are you contributing to the results that you say make this community great. And to the councilor who asked the question about the pods and the overlap, so this is where this is going to come into play really nicely. If you look at these numbers, a program that you offer, call it snow removal or cemetery management, that impacts not only one, but multiple results is counted in every single one of these categories. So, that’s the idea is that programs aren’t forced to impact only one result or another result. Sometimes they can have an impact on multiple results. And that’s intentional. In Priority Based Budgeting you want to know what are those services. If you put a dollar into them they impact not only one but two or three results. It’s like a high rate of return, right. So, that’s exactly why that overlap is actually okay. It’s legitimate overall for the analysis. So, what’s cool about is that in your position as elected officials, as you look at these result areas and you’re matching this up against what you know is taking place in your community, if you say, for instance, and I’m just going to pick on one, you become extremely interested in an environmentally sustainable community or you’re interested in economic growth and viability. As a result area, something that you think this community really needs to increase its contribution towards those results or have a great degree of impact. You can take a look at this portal to see, well, what are we doing currently to actually achieve these results and what could we be doing -- what would you recommend in terms of new programs or enhancements to current services to have a greater degree of impact. Does that make sense? This is the best role that we’ve seen for elected officials to play. For some of you I think you know a close colleague of ours, a partner in our work is a woman named Kathy Novak, who is past president of the National League of Cities, has been a mayor and an elected official for 17 years of her life. And her opinion, and she helps us counsel organizations, this is exactly where she spends a lot of her time. She’ll spend a day on a workshop to say let’s take safe community and let’s talk about the result definition and all the pods. We’ll look at our current investment and over here we can say let’s actually go to safe community as a result and we want to look at every program that we’re currently offering that appears to have a contribution towards achieving a safe community and ask ourselves is this where we want to be. Can we do anything to impact the safety of our community to a higher degree. Are there new programs that we want to start. So, one of the things that I was really excited about as Caitlin was bringing up the integration into your work plan or new projects that are coming up, this is completely logical. And again, you guys are kind of ahead of the curve in this area. Being able to see these results infuse other strategic initiatives that you’re working where you’re constantly asking the question how does this new project actually impact a result. For all the things that you’re measuring from a performance measurement perspective how do they tie back to results. That’s where it all should go back to, is why are you here. Why would you spend any of the dollars that you have. So, from this perspective as you look at this portal, this is across the entire organization. We can look at any particular department. So, if we looked at the police department, for example, not surprising, the greatest contribution, yeah, okay, you’re understanding it quickly. The greatest contribution they have is towards the safe community, but it’s not only towards the safe community. So again, that’s that concept of programs meeting multiple results. So, the police department as an overall department offers many different programs of which the vast majority have a tremendous impact on your safe community result. But they are also having an impact on the strength of your economy, on an attractive, healthy, well-maintained community, mobility and reliable infrastructure, quality, cultural and recreational opportunities. Again, so far so good? All right. Just taking it in. Okay. For us this is one of the breakthroughs is as practitioners, one of the frustrations that we had, as we would report back to our own elected officials is they would say, you know, we’re in the great recession. Our economy is really struggling. What are we doing to impact the strength and vitality of our local economy. And we could name programs off the top of our head, investments that we’re making in infrastructure, for instance, and we’re putting people to work. Or we have a job training center that we’re opening up in a library. But here we can actually dig into all of the programs because the organization has done the work to connect the dots. You know how programs align with your results and so you can actually study all of the programs, not just the ones that surface off the top of your head. All right. This is the first component that I wanted to spend some time on.

Now, let’s transition to the four quartiles. Okay. So, where I left you off during the last presentation was that your alignment overall again is among the healthiest that we’ve seen. And I’ll actually show you a comparative chart here in just a second to back up my point. But as we’re looking at this we notice that we’re looking at 100 percent of the programs across the entire city. These are all of the programs that went through the process. But if we wanted to toggle and look at your community-oriented programs -- I thought that was going to happen. I think I might be kicked off the internet again. Let’s see. That’s what happens when you have like a thousand tabs open. But it looks like I’m back in. Sorry about that. Okay. Cool. Coming to life. Okay. I was going to move from the entire organization wide perspective to individual perspectives. During the first part of this presentation I showed you the percentage difference of community versus governance. And now within community spending itself, we can look at how that spending is prioritized. So, right now we’re just looking at community-oriented program which again, this should match up with what we were just looking at, account for about 89 percent of the overall programmatic spending. And it’s not to assume that all of that spending is of the highest priority. It says of that 89 percent let’s dig into it and be able to understand where you still might have opportunities for resource allocation. But overall, tremendously healthy profile as you look at your community-oriented programs. As we toggle to look at your governance programs this makes up that remaining 11 percent overall. And again, from a governance perspective this is also a very high degree of Quartile 1 and Quartile 2 spending overall. And this is a point that you might have heard over the years. When we first started this work and we would talk to communities who had had to go through more excruciating budget cuts, they would say the way that we’ve done it is that we’ve cut our internal programs and services, our overhead to the maximum extent possible while preserving programs that impact citizens directly. And that’s -- as you think about it that’s a normal way to approach it absent any other information. You’d rather not impact citizens directly if you had the option not to. But that also assumed that all internal programs, all governance programs were a lesser priority than any community-oriented program. Does that make sense? Whereas, if we look at it in this perspective, even just as we’re looking at governance programs, we can see that just within governance, yes, there are Quartile 3 and Quartile 4 opportunities to take a look at. However, the vast majority of that spending is going towards Quartile 1 and Quartile 2. So, the idea is to move away from community-oriented is more important than governance spending and instead say within community or governance there’s Quartile 1, Quartile 2, Quartile 3 and Quartile 4. And that’s where you want to focus the conversation. So, we can put these pieces together and look at the overall organization at the same time. If you are tackling any particular fund, if you wanted to have a discussion just about the General Fund, you can choose the General Fund. One thing that’s kind of neat in terms of exercises, as you think about the future there’s a target portal that you can use to just run scenarios. So, let’s say you’re anticipating three percent increase overall in resources. Again, to stay away from across the board thinking you would not simply -- an across the board approach would be to give every quartile, every program, every department the exact same three percent increase, voila, you hit your three percent target and every program is created the exact same. Instead to achieve three percent you might say you know what, we’re going to talk about adding programs or increasing funding for Quartile 1 and Quartile 2 at a higher percent. We’re going to talk about those at four percent for instance. And now if we left it as is it would be a 3.8 percent increase overall. So, that means that Quartile 3 and Quartile 4 programs just don’t get the same level of increase and you can approach it differently. This helps to just begin to understand the approach to target budgeting. Not every community is using this. Some communities just are -- they don’t look at it this way. They say departments use your quartiles and come back with recommendations. But a target approach is not what they do. I just propose that this an option to consider.

I’ll go back to all funds. Every department is able to look at their own individual spending array. So, we picked on Police last time. Let’s pick on Parks and Rec. Okay. Hey, every department is worthy of picking out in Shawnee because they all tend to be Quartile 1 and Quartile 2 heavy. So, it makes my job easier tonight. But Parks and Rec looks fantastic in this spending array. But if I’m Parks and Rec, knowing what we know about Parks and Recreation programs, and I alluded to this earlier in the presentation, many Parks and Rec programs have fees for service associated with them. And so while I have Parks and Rec highlighted here, we can go over to the final drop down. And if we wanted to look specifically at those fees and charges I’m just looking at program revenue. That’s what we call them in the tool. And this is actually pretty interesting. Notice how the array changed. We’re just looking at the fees for service side of the equation. This is something that we like to see. For lower priority programs, those that are Quartile 3 and Quartile 4, you want those programs to pay for themselves to the greatest extent that you can. Why is that? If it’s Quartile 3 or Quartile 4 you don’t want to take your general government resources, the resources that you have a choice to put in one program or another and intentionally subsidize programs that are of the lowest level of priority, instead you want those programs, if possible, to pay for themselves from the users. So, not your general government tax dollars, but the users of those services who say I’m willing to pay you to get the benefit of this program. And then the city has an easier job to say, okay, great. If you’re willing to pay for it, we will support it. So, that’s fantastic. But let’s pull those out of the equation and look at just the general government side of it. It’s much less, so we’ve eroded Quartile 3 and Quartile 4. However, if I’m in Parks and Recreation, just as a starting place, these are programs that I would want to take a look at. Lower priority where it appears that our fees and charges don’t pay for them, that’s what we’re looking at here, general government resources. These are subsidized elements of those programs. This is where I would want to dive in and say do we have the opportunity to reconsider how we go about those fees for service. Would people be willing to pay for the services that they use. Does that make sense to everybody? All right. Every department can do it, not just Parks and Rec. I’m picked on Parks and Rec.

All right. So, we’ll go back to all department, all funds, 100 percent of the budget. And I’m going to make my way into one more section of the tool that I want to show you. So, you remember, Caitlin mentioned these. We had these basic program attributes. Not only were we measuring programs against results, but programs were measured against additional criteria such as is the program mandated and how mandated is it. So, if you looked down here there’s a zero to four scoring scale for the question is the program mandated. A four meant that the program -- that’s the highest on the mandate scale. A four meant that the program is not only mandated, it’s mandated by a level of government above you. The federal government requires you to do it or the state government requires you to do it. A three meant that it’s not a federal piece of legislation that requires you to do it. It’s not a state mandate, but it’s something in your own city charter. You’d probably have to go to the -- it’s in your incorporation documents. You might have to go to the citizens to get it changed. It’s a strong level of mandate, it’s just not a federal mandate. A two represented something that’s more of a self-imposed mandate. It’s your own policy or policy adopted by elected officials before you. So, that’s not incorporation documents. That’s not a federal mandate, but it’s your own local ordinances, polices, resolutions. A one includes something like a best practice or an industry standard. You pave the roads in a certain way because the association of civil engineers or public works said this is a great way to take care of asphalt. And a zero means that there is no mandate whatsoever. So, I’m going to toggle, just so you can see how this works, all the way over to just those programs that scored four across the entire organization. 26.2 percent of your budget, in terms of the programs that went through prioritization, are programs that you’re mandated by a higher level of government to provide. And as you look at this chart it’s kind of interesting, you have programs that are Quartile 1 and Quartile 2 and mandated by a level of government above you. This means that Quartile 1 and Quartile 2, that means that they also probably scored really high against results. That’s how they got to be Quartile 1 and Quartile 2. So, as you look at this you say, yes, we’re mandated to do it, but we probably would have wanted to do them anyway. They achieve results to a high degree. Even if there is no rule, there is no legislation, these programs are impacting your community to a positive degree, Quartile 1 and Quartile 2. But let’s not look at Quartile 1 and Quartile 2. Let’s say we’re happy with how those turned out, but we’re interested in the anomaly of Quartile 3 and Quartile 4. What does it mean to have a program that you’re highly mandated to provide, but it didn’t score very well that means that it doesn’t impact results to a high degree? In other words, yes, we’re mandated to do it. That’s how scored mandate 4, but Quartile 4, Quartile 3, we sure that we weren’t mandated to do it. You’re doing these programs by and large because you’re required to. And for these particular programs in our experience the frustration was as soon as it’s deemed mandated we have to do it. It was as if we had no other options to consider. The mandate was out there. We had to fulfill the mandate. But for these particular programs the new question is what does the mandate actually require us to do and do we have any options to reconsider that potential mandate. And this is an example of what we call the policy questions. These are not easy ones to tackle, but they become really intriguing for each department to take a look at and answer that specific question. We’re mandated to do these programs, but they don’t achieve results to the highest degree, what are our options. Can we change the service level? What can we do to do things differently? And that’s where for my last section of this presentation I’m going to toggle to one more component of your tool called the Five Policy Questions. And this stems from, again, earlier on in the presentation I talked about the evolution of what we had to do in Priority Based Budgeting to get communities beyond just going through the rote motion of implementing the process over and over again to actually seeing where would we start. If I were to be helping you for the next year we’ve built in these policy questions as kind of the top five areas where we recommend organizations dive into. And the first policy question is what we just talked about. It is a preset filter that says we want you to look at those programs that scored mandate equals four. So, highly mandated, low quartile. And the question on the table is what does the mandate actually stipulate and do we have some flexibility. What’s cool, you have 14 programs that meet that criteria based on how they were scored. This is what we were just looking at in terms of spending array. This chart that shows you, Shawnee, in blue against the mean, the average of the Priority Based Budgeting community, this suggests that you have less programs that are ripe for analysis in terms of this policy question compared to others in the PBB community. The gray bar, the Priority Based Budgeting community is larger than you. And that’s obvious to us because typically organizations where this is a huge opportunity area are county governments, counties that have a lot more federal or state requirements to grapple with than cities. So, that’s why that makes sense.

As we scroll down even further we see for this particular policy question, highly mandated, low quartile, it’s not every department across the organization that needs to study this. Primarily this is coming -- the City Manager’s office taking a look at, Police Department, and Parks and Rec has a few programs in that area. This little sliver, this tiny component of Parks and Rec, remember that cemetery discussion earlier on? This was one of those programs. It scored high in mandate, low in priority area. So again, it’s not as if these programs get cut tomorrow, but it launches a discussion about what could we do differently to tackle the cemetery. Like what are we doing? What are our current service levels? What are communities doing differently? Can we get a non-profit to help us run this? Carol mentioned to me earlier some alternatives that you’re already exploring for ongoing revenue streams in terms of doing things differently at the cemetery, that’s great. But it’s directional. This is meant to provide that group of programs and set the departments in motion to start to study those programs and report back to you.

Policy Question 2, slightly different. Instead of a federal mandate these are mandate equals 2. These are your own policies or policies adopted by councils before you and low quartile. So, this says are we perhaps over-providing for our own self-imposed mandates. These are easier to deal with. This is not you need to go change a piece of federal legislation, this is can you look at your own code and reconsider things that might have made sense in the past, but maybe your policy is outdated. That’s primarily the opportunities that come out of this section. So, you have 23 programs in this area as we come all the way down. Interestingly, if I’m in the Fire Department these could be -- there’s a handful of programs that could be up for analysis here. Public Works, that is Planning. City Manager has some programs here, Police as well and a few more in Parks and Recreation. For every department they can generate the list of their own programs. And there’s a specific departmental dashboard that allows departments to be able to get in, take a look at their own programs and start to make that recommendation.

So, we go all the way back to, you know, how did Boulder, for instance, mine $1.7 million out of Quartile 4 when it wasn’t just straight budget cuts. They’re going through this exact same analysis looking at those programs that are lower quartile overall, but not just Quartile 3 and Quartile 4. In this case it’s mandate equals two. They’re looking at their own internal policies and trying to figure out can we change our policy. It’s a policy question because they’re going to come back to you and say the only reason we’re doing this program at this level is because our own policy requires us to do it. And short of doing an entire code review for every policy that you have in the organization, this guides that. It’s a divide and conquer mechanism to get down to 23 specific programs overall and this is it. This is all you’re going to study.

I’ll run through just the last few of these here. And I think you’re getting the gist. Okay. And if you wanted to have a discussion about any one of these policy questions that is exactly how the organizations are doing it. So, you as a Council would say, yes, we like these policy questions. Or in Strathcona County they said, we like policy questions 1, 2 and 3. Don’t do the whole set. Just go back and study those first three and that became a series of discussions between departments and council.

Policy Question 3 is all about service sharing options with other public sector organizations. So, the whole idea here, this is reliance equal the three. And notice that in this case we’re looking at Quartile 1 and Quartile 2. Sometimes there’s inordinate focus just on Quartile 3 and Quartile 4. In this case we’re saying, no, these are the programs that meet your results to the highest degree, you do want to remain in this business. It appears because they scored reliance equal to three that means that there’s another public sector entity that provides a similar service. And the whole idea here is it possible that there could be a public sector partnership that comes about where you could achieve an efficiency. That would be the only reason to do it. So, you’re looking at these 87 programs and saying we care about them deeply, the impact results to a high degree. But since there’s another public sector agency we want to explore what might a city of Shawnee, county, city, non-profit partnership look like, and how can you explore that partnership in terms of a greater efficiency. So, the departments go back and they study these 87 programs just looking for a public-public partnership.

Policy Question 4 is public-private partnership.



COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Looking down there just -- we’ve been below everybody else quite a bit on almost everything you’ve shown and this one here we’re up -- we’re greater than the rest of the people that do the Priority Based Budgeting.

MR. FABIAN: Very interesting. Good observation. And in Quartile 1 where the majority of your spending is --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Quartile 1 where the big spending is.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, there might be some opportunity there.

MR. FABIAN: Totally. Many of our organizations right now they look at, is there a consolidation. And it brings up all of the typical questions that are very important to grapple with. It’s not as easy as just saying, hey, here’s another public sector entity out there, let’s form a partnership. There come about issues of control and who wants to be the lead in providing this program. But it’s to give you a starting place and say those questions, important as they are, recognize that there is a partnership opportunity. Maybe not every single program is going to be one that you jump at, look for the ones that seem easier to implement and where true efficiency or cost savings could be obtained.

Policy Question 4. This is on the private sector. So, the idea here, looking across the whole organization, is very similarly Quartile 1 and Quartile 2 definitely looking at a public-private partnership. So, in this case there’s a private sector entity who offers something similar. If it’s Quartile 1 or Quartile 2 you’re looking at a partnership opportunity just like the last policy question. If it’s Quartile 3 or Quartile 4 and there’s another private sector service provider the question on the table here is not necessarily can we form a partnership, but is there a consolidation. So, we see many instances in communities where they’re looking at a program in Boulder. I think John might have told you this story years ago they had a yoga -- a city run yoga program that the private sector started to provide. Back in the day in Boulder, Colorado there wasn’t Core Power Yoga or 24 Hour Fitness everywhere. Fast forward 30 years there are. So, Boulder formed a public-private partnership and ultimately consolidated services. That made sense for them. It was a low priority and a private sector entity was providing that program as well. That’s exactly where you look at. And again, it’s not across the entire organization. It’s just for this small population of programs.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: [Inaudible; talking off mic] with our contemporaries on that one?

MR. FABIAN: Oh, yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Phased out [Inaudible; talking off mic]. Yeah. We’re exceeding everybody else again on that one. So, it looks like the private -- the partnership areas are we could probably look for the most potential.

MR. FABIAN: Yeah. And you’re in a metro area, I mean that makes sense to me too. There are other service providers nearby.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I mean we’re way over [Inaudible; talking off mic]. Quite a bit higher than our contemporary communities and I think quite a bit as well. And Quartile 1 that makes sense where the big bucks are. So, it would be interesting to see where those options or those opportunities are.

MR. FABIAN: I completely agree. And this does exciting. From the department’s perspective as you look at your own list you might find areas where certain programs just don’t make sense. You would not recommend for whatever reason a public-private partnership is actually explored. But at least you can come back to the table and say, yes, it shows up in the graph, but for these reasons you don’t anticipate that you would save money. But for another handful of programs it absolutely does. And in many cases you’ve been really hoping that there would be a consolidation, but it’s just never come on the table before. That’s how we see it used.

The last one I’ll show you. Okay. So, this is multiple filters at play, so we’re trying to simplify the discussion. What about those programs that score low on the mandate scale? If anything, there’s an industry standard, but there’s no legislation that you’re following. Low on the reliance scale meaning there’s probably potential partners both in the public sector and the private sector and low quartile and you could actually reduce program revenues for those programs overall very low. Carol, this is going to be a program for you to explore. There is one program that meets this criteria. You scored very low in this category. That would be interesting to see what program fit that criteria. But that was directional. Carol can go back and study that program and see what’s going on. This is probably the most interesting area for us, just kind of taking a step back, big picture. What we saw happen after the great recession when so many organizations had to really reassess their role was local government trying to understand what is your role. And the opportunity was to recognize that there are many other players who also care about similar results as you. Maybe they’re in the private sector. Maybe they’re -- I’m sorry, maybe they’re in the public sector, maybe they’re even in the private sector. And where we see communities thriving with this whole system is understanding where those partnerships exist. So, leveraging other service providers who are also trying to achieve similar results as you is literally like growing your organization, right? If you find that there is another public sector or another private sector entity trying to achieve a safe community and you make a partnership with them, it’s like you are able to purchase their services to achieve the same results as yours without doing that. So, if that makes sense. I wasn’t as articulate as I wish I was. But leveraging partnerships in a community is probably one of the biggest opportunity areas that we see.

The last thing I’ll show you and then I’ll turn it back over to Caitlin or take some questions, I wanted to go back to the slides and we -- I wanted to make a point that, you know, the five policy questions is just where we are now. This is -- there is so much to study. This could be easily the next year or two years of investigation as the departments start to look at these program areas and these opportunities and come back with recommendations. But that’s how they’re doing it. That’s how Boulder mined 1.7 million. That’s how Strathcona County reduced taxes and increased service levels. That’s exactly how they’re doing it. But I wanted to go back to the fact that we are continuing to try to provide better information to you as policy makers and to decision makers within an organization. And one of our concepts, I’ll just try to describe it. So, everybody understands the four quartiles, correct? I mean you get it, Quartile 1, Quartile 2, 3 and 4, high priority, less aligned with results is lower. And the whole idea is every community we work with also has a four quartile perspective based on how aligned they are with their results. And while our communities don’t all share the same results, you know, we have Hermosa Beach, California that wants to be the world class beach city USA. You guys don’t have that one. Nevertheless, the idea is you are --

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: [Inaudible; talking off mic] earthquake is coming.

MR. FABIAN: Yeah. Right. Right. I passed a lot of rivers today. Nevertheless, they are trying to measure how well aligned they are with their own results. And you’re measuring how well aligned you are with your own results, can’t we compare how well aligned one community is versus another. And so we’re playing around with this concept. And I wanted to show you because I think that you would be happy to see of the nearly 150 organizations that are in Priority Based Budgeting we have a concept called the -- it’s an index. It’s just a measurement, that’s it. We’re calling it the ROI index because that’s what Priority Based Budgeting is all about. It’s your return on the investment in terms of a societal return. It’s a return on your results as a community. And the higher the ROI index is perfect alignment. If you had a zero that would mean that nothing you do is aligned with your results. Okay. So, you are above zero. That’s good. In fact, you’re so above zero you have the fourth highest return on investment index, meaning you have the -- you are ranked fourth among all of the communities who have gone through this work, which means to you, and it’s clear to us, you are very highly aligned with your results. I said earlier that this is kind of a good news/bad news story. Good news, that’s exceptional. It’s sort of a tough concept to explain. But as you start to think about how you are telling this story to your citizens you have a huge story to tell. I can’t impress upon you enough. If you want to get in front of your citizens and tell them how genuinely accountable you are with their resources, you are doing exceptional. And the Priority Based Budgeting community is already top of the top. This is not across, you know what I mean? We only have 150 communities who have gone through this work. So, you’re only compared to your peers and your peers are all very good and you’re fourth among them. If I -- well, do with this data as you will, but you have a great story to tell in terms of how well aligned you are. I think that’s something tremendous. Nevertheless, you still have opportunity areas as we just walked through with the five policy questions. So, I hope that you dive in and explore.


MS. GARD: What kind of questions do we have or discussion we want to have before we start our exercise?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Oh, I had a question. Do most of the other communities, the other cities, do they supplement those policy questions with their own and work those into a general process?

MR. FABIAN: Did everybody hear the question? Okay. Good. Most communities are starting with the five policy questions. Actually most are starting with a subset of the five because all five at once is a pretty big task to take on. In terms of supplementing them we have a Priority Based Budgeting community web page of users where we’re testing out other -- where we have Policy Question 6, 7 and 8. One of them is can we just look at our highest dollar programs that are highest priority and are there workforce process enhancements that we can take a look at in those areas. That’s a good question to look at. So, there are more. And, yes, communities are adding more to the areas of exploration. So, you will continue to get the benefit of those as we go on.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Okay. Great. Yeah. Because I was just thinking looking at that because there’s a number of directions you can go. You can look at like the cost recovery slider and compare to Quartile 4, see if there’s, you know, options for lower priority programs to be able to implement, you know, fees if it’s a -- kind of ancillary, optional program. And same with like population and being able to see how well you’re serving the population and whether or not that aligns with the quartile. So, it was just -- I noticed a lot of ways that you could slice and dice that. So, I didn’t know if other communities are, you know, expanding on that.

MR. FABIAN: That’s fantastic. Council’s choice. Up to you guys, but we could play around. I mean that’s the whole idea. My objective is to give you guys a taste of how this works and how to begin to filter and the five policy questions are just that. But there are many different ways. And the fact that you came up with a novel one it’s a great one. Why do we measure cost recovery? Exactly for the reason that you just brought up. And why not compare that with size of population served because we’re looking at specifically here’s a program that we offered directly to a limited constituency, low population served and we subsidize it, why wouldn’t we ask that small group of people, sorry, smaller population of users to consider paying a fee for it unless it’s a policy choice not to. Great. Great direction.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: One really good example of that, so I have to say it since it’s such a perfect fit, is the CityRide program. It’s exactly -- it serves a very small population. They do pay a small fee, but the city does subsidize it. So, it is very much a policy question then of is this the kind of program that supports our results in the kind of community we want to be, and then that’s a choice that we make -- you all make through the budget process.

MS. GARD: Any other questions or comments before we start our exercise? Stephen, will you switch to the computer?

So, the last thing we’re going to do tonight is we’re going to go through an exercise very similar to what staff did when staff was scoring and peer reviewing all of the city’s programs. As you know the county sales tax passed earlier last year and City Manager Gonzales provided a list of unmet needs to the Governing Body during last year’s budget cycle. So, at some point --


MS. GARD: March. In March, this group needs to decide where we’re going to allocate that county sales tax. So, we thought tonight would be a good exercise to use our Priority Based Budgeting scoring towards two of those unmet needs. As you know the list is much longer than just the two we’re going to do tonight. So, these are just examples. And if this group finds it useful, I suppose then we could potentially move forward with doing a similar scoring project with all of the unmet needs. So, tonight we’re going to score two of those -- they’re actually projects not programs. So, in your packet, if you want to turn to the last tab which says exercise. So, we’re kind of going to do scoring and peer review at the same time. What’s going to happen is I’m going to have you guys score these projects yourselves and then we’re going to discuss it as a group and you’re going to come to a consensus hopefully.


MS. GARD: Hopefully. On what scores you think are appropriate for these projects. So, your big page, the 11 x 17 is the score sheet. I’m going to walk through a few of these with you first just so you get the hang of it and then I’ll give you a few minutes to finish off the score sheet. If you don’t remember which projects these are behind your worksheet are the project sheets for both of these projects that provide a little bit more explanation to what these projects are. These budget sheets were given like I said last budget cycle to be used. So, the two projects we’re going to look at tonight are the Shawnee Mission Parkway Landscape Plan Beautification and 71st Street Hedge Lane to Mize I think. Yep. Hedge Lane to Mize. That’s right in front of Erfurt Park. So, just review the project sheets for a couple minutes and then we’ll go ahead and start on our scoring.

All right. I think you guys are familiar with the projects. And like I said the explanations are behind your worksheet. So, we’ll start with the Shawnee Mission Parkway project. The first score we’re going to do is are we mandated to provide this project. It says program, but are we mandated to have a beautification and landscape plan for Shawnee Mission Parkway. I want you guys to think about it. Remember a score of four means we’re mandated by someone higher than us. If the score is a three that means it’s our charter ordinance that’s mandating us. If a score is a two that means we mandate ourselves either via code, resolution, ordinance or policy. One is a best practice. And zero is there is no mandate. So, if you guys wants to have a score for that.

MS. GARD: Okay. Everybody got a score for that? Anybody want to share?


MS. GARD: Four?



MS. GARD: Four? What are our thoughts?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: See how easy consensus is.

MS. GARD: Look at that, guys. We just agreed.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Oh, never mind then.

MS. GARD: Actually just kidding.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Let’s do 71st Street.

MS. GARD: We’ll do that next. We’re going across.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Oh, we’re going across? Okay.

MS. GARD: We’re going to score the Shawnee Mission Parkway project first and then we’ll do 71st Street. So, the next one for Shawnee Mission Parkway, reliance on the City to provide this beautification landscape plan. A four is the City is the only provider of the plan. Three is the City is almost the sole provider, but there are other private contractors available. Two is another non-profit agency would do it. One and zero are there are several other or tons of other private providers that will do it for us. There are no right or wrong answers. But you guys have got to come to an agreement.


MS. GARD: Not an option.


MS. GARD: Okay. What do we think?



COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I agree with three.



COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I put zero. There’s other people to do the work.

MS. GARD: We do we think, guys? Three? I heard three mostly. Are we okay with that? Why are some of the reasons you said the scores that you did? Why three?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Because the city doesn’t have to do them. We can contract some of that.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: You can contract that.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That’s what we’re saying, right? Is that what three is?

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: We’re going to pay for it, right.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, it’s the cost.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Is there anybody else that’s going to do it without us paying for it.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Are you getting any money from --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: All right. Let’s go for it.

MS. GARD: Like if we don’t do it --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, that’s why – that’s where I was having a little bit of the difficulty though because in the actual presentation when we actually get out and get ready to do this --

MS. GARD: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- there may be some non-profits and stuff that would chip in and help.

MS. GARD: For sure.
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But as far as just the up-front planning --

MS. GARD: It is.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- I think it’s going to be pretty much an onus on top of the city.

MS. GARD: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: So, it’s a cross between three and four.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, it all depends on whether you’re just talking about pure planning and front-end loading or the actual project overall. I mean –


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: If we could dove some off on some non-profits that’s what you’re saying.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s kind of why I went with a three because I thought we’d pick up some of that on the back end when we actually got out there and do implementation. So, that’s where I come up with three.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: And I could [inaudible] with the county there might be a little bit [inaudible].

MS. GARD: Oh, that’s a good idea.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Sounds like a good Eagle Scout project.

MS. GARD: Okay. Three. I’m writing down three. Three. All right. So, for the Shawnee Mission Parkway project cost recovery. Are we going to recover any costs from our beautification landscape plan?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Just from the tolls we put in.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Increased property value.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But that is true. I mean you might get some sales tax. You might get some increased property tax.

MS. GARD: A four is 75 to 100 percent of the cost. A three is 50 to 75 percent. Two, 25 to 50, one, 1 to 25 and zero is a none.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That’s a hard one to quantify.

MS. GARD: It is.


COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I only gave it a one.



COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: You could make an argument for or against anything.

MS. GARD: So, the intent for this attribute is for fees for service. So are we going to have fees on our end?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: No. We’re talking about indirect recouping of costs through increase property values.

MS. GARD: Right.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Perhaps increased traffic of people utilizing Shawnee Mission Park who may stop in the shops and stores along Shawnee Mission Parkway. .

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But there’s no fee, so it would be zero.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Those kind of indirect recaptures. So, that would luckily a one max.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But what he’s saying is fees. There’s no fees so it’s zero. We’re not collecting any fees so it’s a zero, right?

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Are we going to sell tickets because it’s going to be so beautiful.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, unless we put in a toll road, then it’s zero.

MR. FABIAN: Right. So, here is the part of this conversation. For this particular attribute it is specific to are people going to come and pay a fee for it.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: So, it’s direct recoupment.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Oh, that’s zero then.

MR. FABIAN: Or are you pulling in a grant to fund it. But what you’re talking about, which is really good, I hope that you bring up when you’re scoring this project against the results and especially the result of economic growth and vitality because that is going to have a high impact based on what you’re describing.

MS. GARD: Perfect. So, we’ll table that for a few minutes from now. So, zero, none? We’re not going to put in any tolls in? Okay.

The next one is the portion of the community served. Four is the entire community. Three is a substantial part of the community, two, significant part of the community, one, some of the community, and zero, a very small portion of the community.


MS. GARD: No point fives.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I did put a three because that’s probably is the most heavily trafficked road.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I would put a three also.

MS. GARD: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But not everybody. I mean there are some people that probably never come down Shawnee Mission Parkway. But it’s pretty much. It’s pretty well used.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: [Inaudible] bicycle [inaudible].

MS. GARD: Sure.

MS. GARD: Okay. Three. We agree with three. I think that’s a good score.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’d have to go with you on that one.

MS. GARD: So, what we’re going to do next is the results. So, all the results that Chris talked about earlier we’re going to score the Shawnee Mission Parkway Landscape Beautification plan against those results. So, when we’re scoring for results all of the scores mean the same thing for each result. A four is that the project is essential to the result. A three is that the project has a strong influence. Two, it influences. One, some influence. And zero, no influence. Do those scores make sense to you guys? Okay.

So, for attractive, healthy and well-maintained community what would you give the Shawnee Mission Parkway Landscape Beautification Plan?

MR. FABIAN: They can consult their result maps.

MS. GARD: That’s right. You can also consult the result maps if you don’t know what these results mean. Your bubbles or your pods or your result maps or whatever you want to call them are located in your workbook with all the definitions associated with them.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: And it’s pure visual, so that’s [inaudible].


MS. GARD: Consult the pods.



MS. GARD: I heard three and four.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: There’s two threes and two fours. Come one, what do you got?



MS. GARD: Oh, man. Three threes and three fours.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: Well, Jim had a two.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Michelle is not paying attention.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Oh, you had a two?

MS. GARD: Well, yeah, she can’t vote. She’s not really here.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Well, yeah. Because it influences a result, but it’s not central to the result.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Because the only thing it does –

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: If you do it or don’t do it.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: -- so when we’re talking about attractive and healthy.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That I don’t think – I don’t think that having an attractive [inaudible] community is not [inaudible].


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: So, then it’s not essential to the –

MS. GARD: That’s a good way to put it. Okay. Three. Three.

Okay. The next one is economic growth and vitality. How does the Shawnee Mission Parkway Landscape Beautification Plan influence or affect the economic growth and vitality?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: One. It’ll influence, but it’s not –

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s not going to really move the meter from the bell that much. It helps. It’s another added nice thing.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: A good example, you drive down State Avenue.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: In terms of economic growth?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: There’s as property on State Avenue that sat for years.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: They spent, you know, several million dollars going down State Avenue. And even as challenging as it is you see things happening on State Avenue that haven’t happened for years.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Metcalf is a good one.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: No, that’s a good point.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I mean it makes a difference.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: People are spending money and.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That’s why I didn’t say zero. I said one.

MS. GARD: Two. Are we okay with that?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Not on my sheet. I got a three.

MS. GARD: This is the consensus sheet here.


MS. GARD: The next one is effective mobility and reliable infrastructure.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Anybody have anything but a zero on that one?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Anybody do anything above zero?


MS. GARD: Zero? All right. Are you sure? Did you read the bubbles? Okay. Zero.


MS. GARD: All right. Zero.

The next one is environmentally sustainable and well-planned community.





COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’d say two. I’m comfortable with two.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’m comfortable with two.

MS. GARD: All right.

MS. GARD: Two? I heard two?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Why do you have anything above zero?

MS. GARD: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I would say three, but.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Seriously, explain it.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I don’t see anything about environmentally sustainable for the beautification.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We’re talking about beautification of a street, trees, plants, recovered green space.

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Added green spaces.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, environmentally sustainable, keyword sustainable which has to do with green space, and a planned community which shows that we’re actually making an effort to plan our community with beautification of the streets, so.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Green space. Get out and play.

MS. GARD: Two? Three? Two?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Well, obviously you want a two because you because you keep pushing for two.

MS. GARD: I’m just repeating what you guys are saying.


MS. GARD: See, I hear more twos.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Throw out the low score and the high score.

MS. GARD: All right. Two.

Quality, cultural and recreational opportunities.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Recreational opportunities. Well, once you put some basketball goals out there or something.



MS. GARD: That’s a good idea in the medians.


MS. GARD: I do too. That’s a great idea.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: That or a deer stand.

MS. GARD: A beer stand.



COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: A beer stand works good. I like the way you said it.


MS. GARD: Oh, sorry about that.

MS. GARD: What did we say, zero?


MS. GARD: One. One.



COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: One for the cultural value.

MS. GARD: I heard more zeroes than I did ones.

And then on the last one for this one is safe community.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I don’t see how that does anything for safety either.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Actually I think it does.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Actually it’s going to be bad for safety. People will look at all the cool stuff.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: No. What it does it creates a more --

MS. GARD: When they’re driving through the beer stand.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: -- affluent and vibrant community with more people. So, that’s safety in general.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: That causes higher traffic.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: It supports well-kept neighborhoods and thriving businesses that are clean, healthy and visually appealing.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Thank you. I looked at the bubble.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, neighborhoods. There’s no neighborhoods there.

MS. GARD: One? One.

All right. Moving on to the next project. 71st Street from Hedge Lane to Mize. Are we mandated to do this project?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Well, since we passed a -- the City Council with it it’s kind of – we’re in it now, so that’s a two it looks like.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s not a city charter, but it’s --

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: But we passed approval of that to do –

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Yeah. I didn’t think we had passed -- we didn’t pass it yet. This is one that’s not on the list.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Oh, no, this isn’t Clare Road.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m going to say zero.

MS. GARD: This is in front of Erfurt.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. I’m thinking of the wrong one.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: This would be a one best practice though because don’t we – isn’t our goal is to approve our – yeah. I mean at least give sidewalks and streets [inaudible].

MS. GARD: Connectivity to parks. One.

Reliance on the city to do this project. If we don’t do it is anybody else going to do it?



COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, we need to -- no, I’m just kidding.


MS. GARD: Four? Cost recovery?




MS. GARD: Portion of the community served? That girl that did the --




MS. GARD: One?


CITY MANAGER GONZALES: What about all the people [inaudible]?

MS. GARD: That’s what I mean.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: No. I would say because one you – I think one you’re saying that it’s just people locally. But Erfurt is, I mean it’s a fairly -- that’s one of the bigger shelters.

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: significant 32,000. If you figure half that’s 32,000 people.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: That would be substantial.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: That would be half, yeah.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s one to two, somewhere in there.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’m going to give it a one.

MS. GARD: One? I heard one.

All right. Let’s move on to the results for 71st Street. Attractive, healthy and well-maintained community.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I would support it is the same as the other one. I mean both – actually it’s attractive, healthy, well-maintained –

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s not near as substantially used as Shawnee Mission Parkway though.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: But it provides [inaudible] sidewalks and a wider street and bike lanes so that people can access the park. So, is that not healthy, well-maintained and attractive?


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: But that’s the one we’re on, right? So, now it’s a matter of program is essential to the result. Program is a strong influence on the result.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m going with a two.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’m going with two also.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I’ve got at least a three.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: I’m going to go with a two.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: If we’re going to say – how do you way Shawnee Mission Parkway is a three if we’re putting beautification in the center of the road, but completely redoing a road with bike lanes and sidewalks to access a park is a two?

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I had it as a four and I’ve got this one as a two.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Because of the impact.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Program influence [inaudible].

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And the number of people affected.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: The impact [inaudible] a number of people. But we’re talking – you’re talking about a section of road out there in a neighborhood that’s a ditch section road. I mean Shawnee Mission Parkway is going – it’s already developed and done with a nice road whether we beautify it or not.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s also the entrance to our community and all these other good things, so. It’s the impact. It is the impact.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: So, the beautification [inaudible]

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: This isn’t that big a deal.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: We’re saying beautiful, one road is attractive, healthy and well-maintained, but completely redoing a road with bike lanes and sidewalks.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We got more twos. Let’s go to the next one. Can we?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: It’s just based on the – I’m just basing mine on impact, so, you asked and that’s my answer. The impact just isn’t that great on the community-wide.

MS. GARD: Two?


MS. GARD: Brandon?

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: I had it as a three.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I have it as a three.


MS. GARD: Okay.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I got two. What do you got?

COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: I’ve got two and three.

MS. GARD: You’re the tie-breaker. He is the tie-breaker.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: It’s a two point fiver.

MS. GARD: Not an option.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Actually it’s not even --

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: really the math scored three.

MS. GARD: All right. Three it is.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: You won this one.

MS. GARD: Economic growth and vitality.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I think it attracts more residential development to the area.


COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Because you have the other side of the street there. When you look at -- and you have an 80-acre tract sitting up there nobody is doing anything with yet.

MS. GARD: Are you okay with the two?

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’ll give it a two.



COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: Jeff’s not okay with it.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I think it’s going to have more of an economic impact than beautifying Shawnee Mission Parkway.

COUNCILMEMBER SANDIFER: We can put [inaudible] back there.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I guarantee you any road we go in and improve --

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: I guarantee any road we go and improve in Shawnee with curbs, gutters and sidewalks will have a greater economic impact than beautifying Shawnee Mission Parkway through property values.

MS. GARD: Effective mobility and reliable infrastructure.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I’d give that a three.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: You’ve got three twos and a three. What do you guys got?

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Effective mobility. I mean that’s --

COUNCILMEMBER KENIG: Yeah. That’s a three.

MS. GARD: Three, three, three.




COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: You’re easily influenced.


MS. GARD: She’s like all right.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: She’s not bad she’s --

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We need to get more of that.

MS. GARD: We’re almost done.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: She’s cooked. Feeling loopy. Whoo.

MS. GARD: We’re almost done. Environmentally sustainable and well-planned community.



COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: What’s that? Environmentally sustainable and well-planned community.



MS. GARD: Wow. Did you guys see that? That was fast.


COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Does everybody have three?

MS. GARD: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Wow. We’ve got to write this down on this calendar.

MS. GARD: No, I circled it.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: Well, we’ve got to write it down on the calendar --

MS. GARD: Oh, you’re right.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: -- because it’s much bigger than your page there. Probably going to call the president-elect and tell him to make a day for Shawnee.

MS. GARD: Quality, cultural and recreational opportunities.





COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: I’m going to go with two.


COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: As far as city impact.




COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: It gets a whole lot of people to a park.

MS. GARD: Three? More threes. I heard more threes. Last one, safe community.





MS. GARD: Two.

COUNCILMEMBER PFLUMM: We’re done. Do we get to go home?

MS. GARD: Almost. I’m almost done.

COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHT: Motion to adjourn.

MS. GARD: Did you guys find this exercise helpful?


MS. GARD: So, we won’t get the results tonight. But I’m going to give these to Chris and he’s going to put them into a new model for us just to show how they’re going to compare to each other. And we’ll send those out to you guys as soon as we get them. If we thought that this was helpful, it might be a good idea to like I said do this with more of our unmet needs. Probably the ones that are more of a one-time cost rather than reoccurring just because the sales tax does have a sunset on it. So, if you guys like this idea I think it’s a good idea in March.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: I think it was a pretty good idea. I think it lends itself well to our CIP.

MS. GARD: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Rather than the way we did it last year doing with this kind of model instead of that model we did before. This might be more a propos.

MS. GARD: What city does that?

MR. FABIAN: Kenmore.

MS. GARD: Kenmore where?

MR. FABIAN: Washington.

MS. GARD: Washington uses it for their capital improvement program.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Because I’m not saying that would dictate that capital improvement program --

MS. GARD: Sure.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: -- but it would give you kind of a -- seeing which way the wind is blowing, what’s the Council’s kind of feel on this.

MS. GARD: Yeah.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: And, you know, I don’t think it would be -- it would dictate it, but it would definitely give a kind of a useful sense of where the Council stands and how much impact they think it has according to these priorities.

MS. GARD: And did you see how much you guys agreed? That was great.


MS. GARD: Actually I think about two or three, but I won’t talk about those. I think that’s all I have here. I’ll turn it over to Carol.

CITY MANAGER GONZALES: And I won’t wrap up long. This is really the first time in the last three, four weeks that we’ve gotten that RAD model, gotten our ‘17 numbers in and actually all of us have seen it together also. So, we are just beginning to see the possibilities of what it can do for us. So, as we move towards budget process the staff will be talking about that. If what you’ve seen interests you, there is something or specific areas or models or questions that you’d like us to look at and run, obviously we can’t, as Chris said, can’t tackle everything all at once. But over time it just helps us become a better organization, helps us continue to evaluate the programs that we’re doing and bring that information forward to you all as you’re doing the budget process.

We are going to start a couple new things. We are going to start our packet memos, tying those to results. So, in your heading we’re going to put the result that we believe it most supports and you guys can debate whether we’re right or not or have discussion if you want. But we thought that just keeps them in everyone’s mind as you’re looking at items on the agenda. And some of them obviously may support more than one result. So, we’ll start that immediately.

As soon as we get a little more familiar with that RAD model we’re going to try and put it out online. Chris said there are some cities and that they’re working on some text with it. Because as you can see it’s very complicated. You just stick it out there online no one is really going to know what to do with it. So, we’re going to try and figure out the best way to present the information because it’s really, really cool data. So, and then in March, since you all liked that process, as we begin to talk about the sales tax, and between now and then also as you have other issues you want to include in that discussion let me know. We’re going to pull out the unmet needs list from last year and see if there’s any new things we think of. But if there’s other things you all want to include in that discussion. And we don’t have to in March decide where we’re going to spend the whole $13 million over the next ten years obviously. But I think it would be good to give the public some information of what our most immediate plans are and goals are for that funding. And we’ll have some recommendations for you on our part, too. So, that’s all we had tonight. Hopefully it was helpful.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Yeah. Thank you, Carol. Eric.

COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS: Yeah. Just a comment. I think I’m really thrilled with the Priority Based Budgeting process because aligning our dollars with what our -- not just what our needs are, but our most important things that we feel are essential to our services and if they’re making the city a functional and good community. But I also was interested when we saw some of the slides that show -- because most of the time we’re ahead of everybody on our slides. But then we get to those slides where we were looking at the possibility of maybe looking for where we could share services with somebody. That seems like that was one area where we kind of hit the wall. So, I’d really like to get into that some more and see if there is a way we can maybe identify -- put a finger on some of those. But overall, we’re doing great obviously. But I mean we can always do better. If we can do better that’s great if we can do better. So, just take a look at those.


COUNCILMEMBER NEIGHBOR: Yeah. I just would like to say to Chris, the first time I saw Kathy present this I think it was in Denver in 2010 at NLC. Tremendous idea and there has been a lot of peaks and valleys you guys have gone through, and Caitlin. But I just want to say thank you very much. I think I can speak for those of us. It makes a lot more sense now, and I’m a little slow in six years, and I’ll probably get it in ten, but I think it’s a good thing. And I agree with Eric here that it’s an incredible tool to help us do better and be more efficient going forward. Plus ask the questions that need to be asked before we have to do the vote and put it in the budget. So, that makes that whole process not near as excruciating.

COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Thank you, Jim. And I would echo both of their comments. I thought this was really helpful. So, thank you both. Is there any further discussion from the Council? Anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this item?


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: All right. That concludes our agenda. I will accept a motion to adjourn.



COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: A motion has been made and seconded on this item. All those in favor say aye.


COUNCILMEMBER MEYER: Opposed nay. The motion passes. We are adjourned. Thank you.

[Therefore, the motion was made by Councilmember Jenkins and seconded by Councilmember Pflumm. The motion passed 7-0.]

(Shawnee Council Committee Meeting Adjourned at 8:50 a.m.)


I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

/das February 6, 2017

Deborah A. Sweeney, Recording Secretary



Stephen Powell, City Clerk

File Attachment Icon