|
|
From Governing’s
Grading the Counties introductionFebruary 2002 issue
THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT
Report Card:
Oakland is one of three Michigan counties that have a good deal of discretion over their own governance and legislative agenda. The county commission, somewhat unwieldy in size with 25 members elected from separate districts, nevertheless takes a hands-on approach to its work, with committees that keep tabs on everything from planning and building to personnel and finance. Recently, when a committee decided that one of the county’s four district courts wasn’t paying enough attention to its budget, the court suddenly found itself restricted to quarterly, rather than annual, appropriations.
Oakland’s fiscal processes have become much smoother overall since it developed an unusual two-year rolling budget. The county not only looks a full biennium ahead but also conducts a thorough reassessment annually, with a new second year added on. “We’re always in the first year of a two-year plan,” says Budget Director Jeff Pardee. In the past, budget debates here could be long and rancorous. Now, he says, “everybody knows where we’re going.”
The most visible difficulty within the county’s public-policy sphere is the traffic congestion caused by rapid economic growth and underfunding of roads. The road commission is an independent legal entity that is not considered part of county government. Oakland also has had some difficulty in establishing long-term strategic planning. An effort was attempted by the commission several years ago but was unsuccessful. A consultant hired to help with the job didn’t have a good sense of the county’s needs. The effort also received little support from the five independently elected officials, who regarded it as a top-down approach, lacking in rank-and-file participation.
Positives: Rolling budget provides ongoing two-year outlook; accurate revenue estimates; efforts to clamp down on overtime and departmental overspending; expenditures well tracked; general fund balance, plus revolving delinquent tax fund, provides good cushion; cost analysis guiding county toward privatization initiatives and management efficiency; excellent financial reporting, including reports to citizens; savings program for departments encourages efficiency; newly updated investment policy.
Negatives: Minimal long-term financial planning beyond two-year budget; no formal debt policy, although one is planned; more departmental training needed to monitor contracts; limited long-term investing; cash-flow analysis improving but still needs work; volume of contracts makes speedy processing difficult.
Positives: Emphasis on design development; attention to maintenance and operating costs; detailed monthly project-tracking reports, with oversight through unit of county commission; facility projects stay within budget; biannual condition assessments; office building inventories include energy information and formal estimates of costs necessary to maintain in good condition; computerized preventive-maintenance and energy-management systems.
Negatives: Diffuse capital-planning structure; lack of ongoing departmental planning; lack of countywide strategic planning; somewhat limited citizen involvement; building inventories updated only every five years; condition data not contained in inventories.
Positives: Multiple activities aimed at boosting employee morale; emphasis on career progression; accelerated salary increases permitted for excellent performance; rewards for employees who recruit new workers in difficult areas; new succession-management program; long-standing basic workforce planning; excellent student training program helps to diversify labor pool; low turnover; 24-hour job hotline.
Negatives: Continuing work needed to update classification system; resource constraints inhibit use of some recruiting tools; posting and testing requirements slow hiring process; hiring lacks flexibility, with list of applicants limited to five; appraisals don’t link with departmental objectives, although efforts under way to improve; slow termination.
Positives: Departmental goals and objectives published in program budget; aggressive effort to capture costs along program lines in recent years; new data warehouse expected to help manage performance information; increasing central efforts to encourage departmental strategic planning; performance targets are set and compared to actuals, with variances explained.
Negatives: No formal countywide strategic plan; less than half of departments do strategic planning; no common format among those that do; progress on improving performance measures has been slow, although county trying to improve currently minimal use of outcome measures; minimal performance auditing.
Positives: Strong, fully integrated financial management and human resources information systems; good GIS; unusually strong sharing of data between county and 61 local municipalities; IT department provides centralized support to all county elected officials; new and improved Web site; strong strategic IT plan; end-users involved in planning.
Negatives: County could improve post-implementation review of new IT systems; data integration between specialized systems has been difficult, although new data warehouse will help.
|
 |
here’s a lot for other counties to envy about Oakland. Its per capita income of more than $42,000 a year places it in the top 1 percent of all counties in the nation. It is one of only two Michigan counties with a AAA bond rating; for years, it has been the hub of job growth and economic development not only for the Detroit area but for the entire state. With stable leadership — among both elected officials and professional staff — Oakland has a reputation for working well with its 61 municipalities, towns and villages. Internally, it has good financial management, innovative technology and a strong emphasis on employee morale.