Options



| Options |Pros |Cons |Other Observations/ Possible Unintended Consequences |

|Functional Consolidation/ Shared |Eliminates some duplication of Management and |Starts to reduce ability to determine service |Increases amount of time spent by managers in |

|Operations |Supervisory staff |level and costs |coordinating /oversight for services shared with other |

|(Jointly operate a service or sub-service|Allow for some economy of scale savings |Loss of an identity and relationship to city wide |cities (initially only) |

|without formally merging or combining. |Reduces some redundancy of administrative analysis and |team |Reduces clarity of being part of “one organization” |

|I.E. agree to joint police investigations|effort (i.e. Weapons of mass destruction, Report |Reduces ability to create a uniform organizational|(employees see themselves as working for different |

|unit or sharing Bat. Chiefs for fire |writing, purchasing) |culture |subsets of what is now one dept.) |

|incidents.) |Allows for some better sub regional redeployment of |Savings are not large |Develops relationships that were not present before |

| |resources based on varying demand |Uncertain administration |Get better ideas by mixing people from other |

| |Allows for specialized expertise |Reduces Council’s influence in individual cities |organizations |

| |Less stressful on employees and labor as it a “Lego | | |

| |building block” approach | | |

| |Problems/solutions not restricted to city borders | | |

| |Promotes regional approaches | | |

| |Incrementally enhances collaboration | | |

| |Less political heat | | |

| |Uniformity | | |

| |Professional development – enhances variety of | | |

| |assignments | | |

|Single Service JPA/District |Eliminates duplication of Management and Supervisory |Reduced ability to determine service level and |Creates a single service governance structure that |

| |staff |costs |competes with broader focused cities for money |

| |Allow economy of scale savings. |Loss of an identity and relationship to city wide |Could cross the size threshold in terms of |

| |Reduces redundancy of administrative analysis and |team |manageability. |

| |effort (i.e. Weapons of mass destruction, Report |Creates a dynamic that pushes a higher average of |Interrelationships governed by majority rule |

| |writing, purchasing) |countywide employee salary and benefits. |Service level disagreements |

| |Better regional redeployment of resources based on |Single focused district governance structure and |Public information management |

| |varying demand |CEO |Services less accountable to citizens |

| |Allows for specialized expertise |Less varied work opportunities/assignments. |Hard to disassemble and change |

| | |Greatly reduces city’s ability to set spending |Even/uneven governance - collaboration/compromise? |

| | |priorities | |

| | |Creates additional government unit | |

| | |Organizational politics influences success | |

| | |Need to clearly delineate service level | |

| | |Loss of political control | |

|Contract for service |Could reduce cost associated with higher benefited |Requires staff and expertise to over see contract |Could potentially make decision with “low ball” |

| |public employees. |compliance. |contract amount and cost could significantly grow over |

| |Could allow economy of scale savings. |Reduces ability to respond to unanticipated needs |time. |

| |Could allow for spreading administrative costs over a |or changes in priorities. (An alternative |Lose expertise, equipment/infrastructure to recommence |

| |larger base. |perspective is more accountability/ability to |service in the future |

| | |direct resources may exist.) |May be unable to get out of contract if extends over a |

| | |Would have strong labor resistance. |long period of time. |

| | |Need to manage complexity of multiple MOU’s |Legislation may restrict (State limit opportunities for|

| | |May have political opposition/perception that it |contracting out services). |

| | |wouldn’t work |Need to ensure everyone on the same page as to common |

| | | |goal for why proceeding with shared services |

|County wide |Eliminates some duplication of Management and |Reduced ability to determine service level and |Could cross the size threshold in terms of |

| |Supervisory staff |costs |manageability. |

| |Allow for some economy of scale savings. |Loss of an identity and relationship to city wide |Overly burdens county elected leaders with sub regional|

| |Reduces some redundancy of administrative analysis and |team |issues |

| |effort (i.e. Weapons of mass destruction, Report |Creates a dynamic that pushes a higher average of |Decreases access to elected officials. |

| |writing, purchasing) |countywide employee salary and benefits. |May need to compromise local standards (e.g., what |

| |Allows for some better sub regional redeployment of |Less varied work opportunities/assignments. |calls to respond to, frequency of service) |

| |resources based on varying demand. |Greatly reduces city’s ability to set spending |May have different perceptions of quality needed of |

| |Allows for specialized expertise |priorities. |services/technology (e.g., state of the art technology,|

| | | |minimum needed to provide service, etc.) |

|Multi-city municipal services |Eliminates duplication of Management and Supervisory |Some reduction in individual city’s ability to |Reduction of political diversity |

|partnerships |staff |determine service level and costs |Diminish political power (one vote vs. various |

|(Where 2 to 6 cities jointly operate all |Allow economy of scale savings. |Less varied work opportunities/assignments. |meetings) |

|or most public services.) |Reduces redundancy of administrative analysis and |Some reduction in individual city’s ability to set| |

| |effort (i.e. Weapons of mass destruction, Report |spending priorities. | |

| |writing, purchasing) |How do you handle different policy positions (e.g.| |

| |Better regional redeployment of resources based on |speed bumps). | |

| |varying demand. |Politically complexity | |

| |Allows for specialized expertise. |Spread management talent too thin. | |

| |Allows for identity and relationship to multi citywide | | |

| |team. | | |

| |Allows for continued broadly focused governance | | |

| |structure and CEO | | |

| |Still allows for labor market that is below the mega | | |

| |city level . | | |

|Stand Alone City |Sole discretion to determine service level and costs |Requires duplication of Management and Supervisory|Tends to re-enforce parochialism and undermines |

| |Clear identity and relationship to city wide team |staff |regionally responsiveness. |

| |Provides an array of cities to use as market to compare|Does not allow economy of scale savings. | |

| |employee salary and benefits and reduces potential |Redundancy of Administrative analysis and effort | |

| |demand to be compared to large Metro cities. |(i.e. Weapons of mass destruction, Report writing,| |

| |One broadly focused governance structure and CEO |purchasing) | |

| |More varied work opportunities assignments due to “jack|Less regional redeployment of resources based on | |

| |of all trades” environment. |varying demand. | |

| | |Smaller cities often are unable to justify/afford | |

| | |specialized expertise | |

-----------------------

Attachment A

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download