Grading the Cities introduction THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT Report Card: Richmond Revenue Rank: 27 Form of Government: Council-Manager Mayor: Timothy M. Kaine (took office 1998) City Manager: Calvin D. Jamison (appointed 1998) City Council: 9 members, elected by district FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT: B Richmond used to have difficulties with departmental overspending, but the problem largely has been solved by reducing the level of central control and giving directors more authority to manage their own programs. “People are coming in within their budgets,” says finance director Bernard Wray, “and the burden isn’t on the budget office.” The city keeps a sharp eye out for future expenditures, and even with a tight budget, keeps costs in line with income. It does a particularly good job of managing debt, which is important because of a peculiarity in the city’s finances: Taxes are collected only at the end of the fiscal year, and until then, the city has to stay afloat by borrowing, mostly from utilities, as well as through tax-anticipation notes. As long as revenues are estimated accurately — which they have been — this isn’t a catastrophe, but it does cost the city treasury about $1 million a year in interest. About a quarter of the city’s spending is for outsourced goods and services, with oversight handled by individual agencies. Some do well, but it can be “a mess,” according to a source in the auditor’s office. HUMAN RESOURCES: C Here, too, departments have been given a great deal of authority. They forecast their own work force needs and recruit their own employees. Some do it much better than others. Managers in most departments still operate by a “rule of six,” which limits hiring flexibility. The departments would like to move away from this, but employees have been reluctant to agree. In fact, distrust between managers and staff is a problem pretty much across the board in Richmond. In the last survey of employees, 80 percent said they did not trust management. Curiously, the majority of employees reported that they did trust their own manager. An effort to attract and retain personnel has been one of the priorities of the new city manager. One of his first moves was to get employees a raise. The city also has launched an unusual effort to tie bonuses to achievement of the city council’s major goals. For example, employees received a small bonus last year for making progress toward a 30 percent reduction in the violent crime rate. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: C Richmond produces a strategic information plan (called its “automation plan”) that defines the projects it will be embarking on over the next three years. A few agencies, such as police and fire, also have their own departmental IT plans, but most do not. “If they did them,” says IT director Libby Mounts, “it would be far easier for us to put together the automation plan.” After some delay, a new human resources information system is now working. It will provide a great deal more information than the old one, including data for work force planning. The city does a good job of making technology training available to its work force; computer-based IT instruction sits on everyone’s desktop. The problem is that many employees don’t bother to use it. “They’ll tell you they can’t train because there’s too much going on,” says Mounts. “They have more excuses than Carter has pills.” Richmond’s Web site is on the weak side, with little financial information. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: C- Richmond has a long-term capital program, with clear project descriptions and justifications, and efforts are made to connect the program with the city council’s strategic priorities. However, those efforts don’t always succeed. Council members have a pronounced weakness for putting best-laid plans on a back shelf while they insert projects in their own districts. Project management is in the hands of individual departments. Although most seem to come in on time and on budget, there are problems getting them started in the first place because the city has a reputation among contractors as a challenging client. “We are not good at attracting bids,” says Don Charles, the architecture and engineering administrator. “There are too many legal requirements on city jobs.” Richmond has consistently underfunded its building maintenance needs. “Maintenance is not sexy, and historically, the city’s budget process hasn’t paid respect,” says Charles. City Hall itself is in bad shape and needs serious attention. MANAGING FOR RESULTS: C+ In the development of Richmond’s first biennial budget (FY2000-2001), the city council made an effort to set major priorities, and weighted individual services based on key areas of council interest. The result is that Richmond now has a strategic plan that includes targets for the government and city as a whole. There’s no requirement for agencies to prepare their own strategic plans, and no central office charged with encouraging them to do so. Most departments have developed internal performance measures, which are reported on a semi-annual basis. The use of performance data in the budgeting process is increasing, although the linkage is still informal. Some council members think the information very valuable; others are far less enthusiastic. The big problem here is one of ethos: Over the years, a number of Richmond managers have paid perfunctory attention to management initiatives, and while that has changed, it remains difficult to get departmental buy-in across the organization. “It’s kind of erratic,” says Emmet Logue, a management analyst. “Some departments have fully embraced this. Others are just going along, not really using it on a day-to-day basis.” AVERAGE GRADE: C+ Copyright © 2000, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Reproduction in any form without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited. Governing, City & State and Governing.com are trademarks of Congressional Quarterly, Inc.