County Report Cards:   Alameda, Calif. Allegheny, Pa. Anne Arundel, Md. Baltimore, Md. Broward, Fla. Clark, Nev. Contra Costa, Calif. Cook, Ill. Cuyahoga, Ohio Dallas, Texas Erie, New York Fairfax, Va. Franklin, Ohio Fulton, Ga. Hamilton, Ohio Harris, Texas Hennepin, Minn. Hillsborough, Fla. King, Wash. Los Angeles, Calif. Maricopa, Ariz. Mecklenburg, N.C. Miami-Dade, Fla. Milwaukee, Wis. Monroe, N.Y. Montgomery, Md. Nassau, N.Y. Oakland, Mich. Orange, Calif. Palm Beach, Fla. Prince George's, Md. Riverside, Calif. Sacramento, Calif. San Bernardino, Calif. San Diego, Calif. Santa Clara, Calif. Shelby, Tenn. Suffolk, N.Y. Wayne, Mich. Westchester, N.Y.

From Governing’s February 2002 issue   Main introduction page THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT Introduction: Capital Management 40-County Average Grade: B-     y now, everyone has heard the old line that the three most important factors in real estate are “location, location and location.” Well, here’s a new one (although one that is admittedly less likely to achieve general familiarity): The three crucial factors in capital management at the county level are maintenance, maintenance and maintenance. This includes everything from gathering regular condition data and putting in place measures to prevent deterioration to making sure there’s no backlog on the scheduled maintenance projects. Capital Management Grades County   Alameda, Calif. B- Allegheny, Pa. D+ Anne Arundel, Md. C- Baltimore, Md. A- Broward, Fla. C+ Clark, Nev. C+ Contra Costa, Calif. B- Cook, Ill. C+ Cuyahoga, Ohio C- Dallas, Texas B- Erie, N.Y. C+ Fairfax, Va. A- Franklin, Ohio B+ Fulton, Ga. C Hamilton, Ohio B+ Harris, Texas B- Hennepin, Minn. B+ Hillsborough, Fla. C King, Wash. B Los Angeles, Calif. D+ Maricopa, Ariz. B+ Mecklenburg, N.C. C+ Miami-Dade, Fla. C Milwaukee, Wis. C+ Monroe, N.Y. B Montgomery, Md. C Nassau, N.Y. D- Oakland, Mich. B- Orange, Calif. B Palm Beach, Fla. B Prince George's, Md. C Riverside, Calif. C- Sacramento, Calif. C- San Bernardino, Calif. C- San Diego, Calif. A- Santa Clara, Calif. B- Shelby, Tenn. B Suffolk, N.Y. B- Wayne, Mich. B- Westchester, N.Y. A- One of the consequences of decentralized management structures is that many county governments have less complete information about the condition of their physical assets than either states or cities do. Only a minority of the 40 counties covered in the Government Performance Project were able to give a dollar estimate of what it would cost to return all of their assets to good condition. That may seem to be just a record-keeping function, far removed from actually filling potholes or repairing leaky roofs. In fact, the very effort to pinpoint the amount of work needed can be the catalyst that actually gets the work done. A few years ago, for example, Baltimore County identified a $560 million school maintenance backlog. That number was so horrifying that the county quickly started pouring funds into its school buildings, some $300 million since 1999. They’ve also succeeded on a more important front. The school system has stepped up its accountability and condition assessments to prevent another shocking repair price tag. “There’s been a change in attitude,” says Fred Homan, Baltimore’s budget director. In King County, Washington, a management audit about five years ago criticized the county’s major maintenance program for failing to keep on top of its requirements. In response, the county developed a sophisticated model that categorizes all capital projects according to their level of need, and maintenance expenditures are distributed accordingly. The model helps the county council better understand the system’s priorities and the justification for spending. One key to a strong maintenance program is protecting repair and rehabilitation funds. Line items for the smaller maintenance projects — usually funded with cash — are often the first on the chopping block during budget cuts. But protecting them can insure against larger, more expensive maintenance projects in the future. In Franklin County, Ohio, an aggressive preventive-maintenance program and a commitment to using high-quality materials have made potholes a rarity — they’re such a rarity that one county engineer promised the local newspaper he would personally fill any pothole that they could find. Of course, there are enormous differences in the types of capital the various counties have to deal with. Cuyahoga, for example, has independent political entities that are responsible for the port, parks, sewers, libraries, health, housing and transit, so the county has no direct responsibility at all in these areas. Fairfax County, Virginia, maintains only 5 miles of county roads — the state and federal governments handle the rest. On the other hand, more than half of Fairfax’s budget goes to cover the county’s public schools. Maricopa County, Arizona, is the funding authority for a Superior Court and medical center. Milwaukee County runs a zoo; Westchester County has to worry about maintaining an airport. But while the responsibilities vary greatly, the tools used by counties to deal with their capital-planning issues are very similar. Most have capital plans that extend at least five or six years — often longer in the case of transportation. The majority of counties are placing an increased emphasis on project management to ensure that work is delivered in a timely manner, at the lowest possible cost. Almost all hold public hearings about their capital plans, and some use public-private partnerships to save county funds and facilitate project completion. And just as the counties’ approaches to capital planning tend to follow similar paths, the obstacles they confront are frequently similar. A short list of the most common would include: Vast numbers of players. Lisa Aronson, executive director of the Charter Review Commission in Florida’s Broward County, notes that at least 40 different governmental entities have a role in the water management within the county’s borders, from drainage to water supply. Lack of coordination. In Hennepin County, Minnesota, the transportation department must seek approval for its work from the 46 cities and towns within its borders, since the cities — not the county — have land use authority. This means that projects are often delayed and that timing is unpredictable. “City councils will make their decision when they’re darn good and ready,” says Jim Grube, the county’s transportation director. Poor technology. While a number of counties are investing in high-tech solutions to capital management — including geographic information systems (GIS) that give them a broad view of all their infrastructure in an easily understood, multi-layered fashion — this is still a shortcoming for many. Dallas County, for example, has not yet invested in an automated management system for its facilities. “If we had an automated system that started off with baseline information,” says Dan Savage, the assistant county administrator, “we’d make some different decisions in terms of extending useful life. We’d make better investment decisions.”