Egvsys co miami dade fl us

ICMA is the premier local government leadership and management organization. Its mission is to create excellence in local governance by developing and advocating profes- sional management of local government worldwide. ICMA provides member support; publications, data, and information; peer and results-oriented assistance; and training and professional development to more than 8,200 city, town, and county experts and other individuals throughout the world.

Established in 1931, the Institute of Government provides training, advisory, and research services to public officials and others interested in the operation of state and local govern- ment in North Carolina. The Institute and the university’s Master of Public Administration Program are the core activities of the School of Government at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. For more information about the School, the Institute, and the MPA program, visit the Web site (www.sog.unc.edu) or call 919-966-5381.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Managing local government services : a practical guide / edited by Carl W. Stenberg and Susan Lipman Austin.

p. cm. “A completely revised and updated version of Managing small cities and counties.” Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-87325-709-5 (alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-87326-709-5 (alk. paper)

1. Municipal services—United States—Management. I. Stenberg, Carl W. II. Austin, Susan Lipman. III. International City/County Management Association. IV. Managing small cities and counties.

HD4605.M25 2007 363.6068--dc22

2006039422

Copyright © 2007 by the International City/County Management Association, 777 North Capitol Street, N.E., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20002. All rights reserved, including rights of reproduction and use in any form or by any means, including the making of copies by any photographic process, or by any electrical or mechanical device, printed, written, or oral or recording for sound or visual reproduction, or for use in any knowledge or retrieval system or device, unless permission in writing is obtained from the copyright proprietor.

Design: Charles E. Mountain

Printed in the United States of America

2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007

5 4 3 2

Contents

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xi

Chapter 1 Meeting the Challenge of Change / Carl W. Stenberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter 2 The Legal Foundations of Local Government / David R. Berman . . . . . . 29

Chapter 3 The Clerk / Drew A. Dolan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Chapter 4 Budgeting and Financial Management / John W. Swain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Chapter 5 Human Resource Management / Gregory Streib and David W. Pitts . . . . . 95

Chapter 6 Planning / Stuart Meck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Chapter 7 Economic Development / Donald T. Iannone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Chapter 8 Community Development and Affordable Housing / Anita R. Brown-Graham and Jonathan Q. Morgan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Chapter 9 Public Works / Cathy R. Lazarus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Chapter 10 Public Parks and Recreation / Candace Goode Vick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

Chapter 11 Health and Human Services / Abraham David Benavides . . . . . . . . . . 253

Chapter 12 Emergency Management / Bob Hart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

Chapter 13 Police Services / Gary Cordner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

Chapter 14 Fire and Other Emergency Services / John W. Swain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341

Chapter 15 Service Delivery Alternatives / Gordon P. Whitaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369

Chapter 16 A Manager’s Toolbox / William C. Rivenbark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391

For Further Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437

Supplementary Material Online . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455

Meeting the Challenge of Change

Volunteers teach community preparedness in Westminster, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Technology brings information to citizens in Lucas County, Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Working across boundaries in Englewood, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Communities cooperate to handle household hazardous waste in Lewiston, Maine . . . . 19

The Clerk

The office of the clerk in Bisbee, Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Technological efficiency in Lexena, Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Managing records in Great Falls, Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Voter information on the Web in Wasilla, Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

License and permit information on the Web in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

The city clerk’s office on the Web in O’Fallon, Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Budgeting and Financial Management

Budget schedule, Pinecrest, Florida (Figure 4–2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Property tax bill for a single-family house in El Portal, Florida, 2005 (Figure 4–3) . . . . . 71

Period report for revenues and expenditures, McCall, Idaho (Figure 4–4) . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Point-in-time report of balances, McCall, Idaho (Figure 4–5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Selected entries from the table of contents of a comprehensive annual financial report, St. George, Utah (Figure 4–6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Explaining city expenditures to citizens of Wilmington, North Carolina (Figure 4–7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

St. George, Utah: Statement of Net Assets for the year ended June 30, 2004 (Figure 4–8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

St. George, Utah: Statement of Activities for the year ended June 30, 2004 (Figure 4–9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Human Resource Management

Friends and neighbors referral program in Springfield, Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Better recruitment through technology in Medford, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101

A nontraditional approach to recruitment in Henrico County, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Pay for performance in a union setting in Hamilton County, Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111

Pay for performance in Wells, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112

Employee wellness in Boulder, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113

The Employee Health Connection in Catawba County, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . .113

Developing an effective workforce in Wellington, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119

Media training class in Stafford County, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119

Open communication in Champaign, Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Telecommuting to fight pollution in Austin, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Sharing sick leave in Tumwater, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Planning

Planning in action in Denton, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Lakewood, Colorado, reaches out to the Hispanic community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Pottawattamie County, Iowa, surveys residents on land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

A future land use map from a comprehensive plan for Delaware, Ohio (Figure 6–2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Excerpt from a zoning map for Oxford, Ohio (Figure 6–3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Code reform in Milwaukee, Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Cooperative Web site in Washington State (among Bellevue, Bothell, Issaquah, Kenmore, Kirkland, Mercer Island, Sammamish, and Snoqualmie and Snohomish County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Smart growth for schools in Littleton, New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Economic Development

Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

The Fort Wayne–Allen County Economic Development Alliance

The Chain of Lakes Downtown Economic Enhancement Study in Michigan (includes the villages of Bellaire, Central Lake, and Ellsworth and the city of East Jordan)

The Southwest California Economic Alliance (among the cities of Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, and Temecula and Riverside County)

Economic development and the arts (discusses Santa Fe, New Mexico; Laguna Beach, California; Sedona, Arizona; Boulder, Colorado; and Paducah, Kentucky) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Connecting downtown to the office parks in El Segundo, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Scenario planning (cites Mooresville, North Carolina, and Charlottesville, Virginia) . . . 168

Supporting small manufacturers in Grants Pass, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Community Development and Affordable Housing

New Choices Workforce Development Program in North Carolina (involves Halifax, Hertford, Northampton, Gates and Bertie Counties) . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Brownfields redevelopment (in Bridgeport, Connecticut; Clearwater, Florida, and Fayetteville, North Carolina) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Green infrastructure planning in Kinston–Lenoir County, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 189

Affordable housing in Highland Park, Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

Public Works

Environmental management and employee development in Kent County, Delaware . . . 204

Succession planning in Westminster, Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

Criteria for prioritizing capital improvement projects in Mountain View, California . . . 213

Sustainable design in Austin, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

GIS-based asset management in Saco, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

GIS maps showing drainage, Pierce County, Washington (Figure 9–1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Recycled water in small California cities (cites Calistoga, Ceres, Lodi, Los Banos, Palo Alto, Ridgecrest, Scotts Valley, Simi Valley, and Upland) . . . . . . . . . 227

Marketing a new trash collection system in Lynchburg, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Recycling a landfill in Mountain View, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

Public Parks and Recreation

Creating small parks in Lakewood Township, New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

Promoting public life in Stroud Township and Bucks County, Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . 236

The Virginia Creeper Trail (involves the towns of Abington and Damascus) . . . . . . . . . 237

A sample public-private recreational contract: Stokes County, North Carolina . . . . . . . 240

School district recreation departments (cites Sheboygan, Wisconsin, and cities in South Orange County, California) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Promoting Leisure Activities for Youth (PLAY) in Virginia Beach, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . 242

Public input survey in Washoe County, Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Adopt-A-Park in Elmhurst, Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

A multigenerational park in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Health and Human Services

Hire-A-Youth in Glendora, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

Residential alternatives for elderly citizens in Catawba County, North Carolina . . . . . . 258

Integrated approach to rehabilitation in Gaithersburg, Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

Home rehabilitation loan program in Englewood, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

Meeting transportation needs in James City County, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

Integrated service provision in West Hollywood, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264

Environmental health problems in Nashua, New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Women’s Wellness and Maternity Center in Monroe County, Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . 266

Keeping children active in Santa Monica, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

Living-wage ordinances in Sonoma, California, and Durham County, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

The Ben Gordon Center in DeKalb County, Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

Coordinated human services in the schools in Catawba County, North Carolina . . . . . 275

Community-oriented policing project in Southern Pines, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Neighborhoods in Action in Orem, Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278

Reaching out to immigrant communities (mentions Santa Barbara, California) . . . . . . 279

Emergency Management

Emergency plans for businesses in Orlando, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290

Disaster preparedness video in Arlington Heights, Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

Community emergency response in Clearwater, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

Animal evacuation plan in Apple Valley, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300

Thunderstorm and tornado warnings in Edmond, Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

Police Services

Community policing in Arlington County, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320

Volunteers in the Billings, Montana, police department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

Interagency cooperation in Wisconsin (among Dodge, Jefferson, Kenosha, Racine, and Walworth Counties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326

The school resource officer in Oskaloosa, Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328

A mutual aid pact for police in Massachusetts and Connecticut (among the towns of Brimfield, Holland, Sturbridge, Wales in Massachusetts and Union, Connecticut) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334

Fire and Other Emergency Services

Sprinklers (mentions Scottsdale, Arizona, and Prince Georges County, Maryland) . . . . 343

Cooking with the Fire Department in Old Town, Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

A fire academy in Sugar Land, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

Private sector fire protection in Scottsdale, Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360

Interlocal cooperation in Illinois (among the villages of Flossmore, Hazel Crest, Homewood, Glenwood, and Matteson) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360

Senior fire volunteer program in San Marcos, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361

Working together in Mesa, Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364

Service Delivery Alternatives

Public-private partnership in Santa Clarita, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376

A public-private partnership for recreation in James City County, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . 376

Intergovernmental cooperation in Dowagiac, Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377

Competitive services policy in Arlington, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378

Living-wage requirement for contractors in Brookline, Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381

Mutual accountability in Charlotte, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383

Criteria for public works contracts in Monmouth, Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384

When local governments resume service production and delivery (cites Savannah, Georgia; Independence, Iowa; Fort Collins, Colorado; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Whittier, California) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385

A Manager’s Toolbox

Organizational goals in Scottsdale, Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394

Alignment of organizational and programmatic goals in Saco, Maine (Figure 16–1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395

Performance measures for the Fairfax County [Virginia] Public Library (Figure 16–2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398

Performance measures for the building division, Newberg, Oregon (Figure 16–3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399

Communications department budget in Concord, North Carolina: Mission statement, past performance, goals, and objectives (Figure 16–4) . . . . . . . . 402

Communications department budget in Concord, North Carolina: Budget summary and performance summary (Figure 16–5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403

Budget development calendar for Concord, North Carolina (Figure 16–6) . . . . . . . . . . 404

Winston-Salem and the North Carolina Benchmarking Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405

Note: Unless otherwise noted, all populations shown in sidebars are July 2005 estimates from the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Foreword

Managing Local Government Services is the third edition of ICMA’s popular Managing Small Cities and Counties: A Practical Guide, developed and ably guided through its first two editions by James M. Banovetz, professor emeritus, Northern Illinois University.

For the third edition, Carl W. Stenberg and Susan Lipman Austin of the School of Government at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill assembled a team of practi- tioners and academics to refocus and update the text in a number of areas. The first chap- ter, by way of introduction, places local government management firmly in the context of “governance”: the web of relationships that surrounds local program planning and service delivery. This chapter outlines demographic, economic, technological, and cultural trends that affect the management of service delivery.

A new chapter on alternative methods of service delivery addresses public-private options as well as intergovernmental service delivery approaches, and a new chapter on community development recognizes this increasingly important focus of management and service delivery. A new closing chapter presents the reader with “A Manager’s Toolbox,” five management practices that are fast becoming the standard for professional local government management. Other chapters cover the legal context in which cities and coun- ties operate, and the basic management functions and core services that were covered in earlier editions.

Why the name change? The short answer is that the volume you hold in your hand has been, for two decades, ICMA’s only text on the complete spectrum of services that the local government manager must make sure are provided. All local governments budget and plan, manage people to get work done, protect the health and safety of the commu- nity and its residents, promote economic growth, maintain the infrastructure, and work to uphold and improve the quality of life for all residents. The requirements for these basic services, defined and addressed in this book, are the same—although the level of demand may be higher in larger places.

Managing Local Government Services continues to highlight the problems and experi- ence of managers in small communities, because most local government managers serve in small cities and counties. Managers in many small cities and counties do not have the staff or the financial resources to introduce and maintain a full spectrum of sophisticated services. Many of these managers must personally see to everything from purchasing to tree removal. Many feel that change is more difficult in a small place. This book addresses the special concerns of local governments with limited resources and closes every chapter with a set of questions designed for managers of small communities.

With this revision, Managing Local Government Services also recognizes its relevance to local governmental units of all sizes and its function as the comprehensive text on the subject. Focused on services, this new text is a companion to The Effective Local Government Manager, which addresses the tasks and roles of the manager-leader.

As communities continue to evolve in a world that is growing smaller, more competi- tive, more informed, and more conscious of environmental uncertainty, Managing Local Government Services will be a touchstone for the aspiring as well as the experienced local government manager. ICMA is pleased to publish this practical guide to the core work of the profession.

Robert J. O’Neill Jr. Executive Director

ICMA

Foreword

Preface

This book has been written for local government professionals who lead and manage cities and counties and who are responsible for the efficient, effective, and equitable administration of services to citizens. It should be especially helpful to new or entry-level managers and those in smaller communities, to enable them to grasp the scope and com- plexity of local services and to appreciate the challenges and opportunities of governance.

A central theme of the book is that local managers operate in an increasingly complex environment, which involves building both a professional organization within their city or county and a capacity to engage with intergovernmental and intersectoral networks that are critical to successful problem-solving and service delivery. The knowledge, skills, and competencies needed to do so are wide-ranging, and call upon the manager to engage in organizational and community leadership.

The sixteen chapters have been organized to give the reader a broader and deeper perspective on the dynamic world of local government services. Our goal has been to produce a highly practical book that provides a “one-stop” overview of common organiza- tion, best practices, and challenging issues regarding management of core local services. Each chapter has been reviewed by a team of practitioners and academicians for accuracy, relevance, and state-of-the-art treatment.

A book like this involves contributions of many people. Susan Lipman Austin, project director at the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill Institute of Government, joined with me to co-edit this edition. She was particularly adept at managing communi- cations and paper flows between the editors, authors, and reviewers and keeping the pro- duction of chapters on track. Christine Ulrich, ICMA’s editorial director, provided valuable ideas and insights regarding topics, author selection, advisor recruitment, and substantive content. Jane Cotnoir, senior editor at ICMA, skillfully edited each of the chapters. We are indebted to the diverse team of authors who agreed to contribute their time and talent to the project. Finally, we would like to express our appreciation to Dean Michael Smith and our colleagues at the School of Government for their encouragement and support through- out this project.

We worked with an outstanding group of practitioner and academic advisors who read chapters from the second edition and suggested changes and additions in cover- age of topics, reviewed chapter outlines for the third edition for content and continuity, and commented on the preliminary and final drafts of the chapters. We are indebted to the following members of the advisory board for their help ensuring that the project goals were met: Mike Abels, city manager, DeLand, Florida; Arthur Anselene, director of

parks and recreation, Herndon, Virginia; Carol Bloodworth, city administrator (retired), Maize, Kansas; Frayda Bluestein, professor of public law and government, UNC–Chapel Hill; Barbara Blumenfield, regional vice president, ICMA Executive Board, and former city administrator of Oak Creek, Wisconsin; Jon Bormet, director, International Resource Cities Program; Octavio Chavez, resident advisor, ICMA-Mexico; Leon Churchill, manag- ing director, Reading, Pennsylvania; Carla Dicandia, recreation supervisor, Saddleback Valley Unified School District, Mission Viejo, California; Rex Facer, assistant professor of public management, Brigham Young University; Daniel Fitzpatrick, city manager, Peekskill, New York; Joyce Forbes, village clerk, Riverdale, Illinois; Candace Goode Vick, associate professor of parks, recreation, and tourism management, North Carolina State University; Charles Gossett, professor of political science, California State Polytechnic University; Rod Gould, city manager, Poway, California; John Granito, special advi- sor, Management Partners Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio; John M. Greiner, senior management and budget specialist, Montgomery County, Maryland; David Habecker, assistant fire chief, Flossmoor, Illinois; Harry Hayes, local government project director, University of Georgia; Mike Johnson, city administrator, Marshall, Minnesota; Wendy Kellogg, associ- ate professor of urban planning and environmental studies, Cleveland State University; Roger Kemp, author, consultant, and former manager of cities in California, New Jersey, and Connecticut; David Kilbane, village administrator, Round Lake Beach, Illinois; Kurt Kimball, city manager, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Greg Kuhn, senior associate, Northern Illinois University; Bob LaSala, city manager, Lancaster, California; Mark Levin, city administrator, Maryland Heights, Missouri; David Limardi, city manager, Highland Park, Illinois; J. Thomas McCarty, county administrator, Eau Claire County, Wisconsin; David McEntire, associate professor of emergency administration and planning, University of North Texas; Jonathan Q. Morgan, assistant professor of public administration and gov- ernment, UNC–Chapel Hill; William Nelson, city manager, Dowagiac, Michigan; Brian Nickerson, associate professor of public administration, Pace University; David Niklaus, adjunct faculty, Southern Maine Community College; William C. Rivenbark, associate professor of public administration and government, UNC–Chapel Hill; Bruce Romer, chief administrative officer, Montgomery County, Maryland; John Rukavina, director of public safety, Wake County, North Carolina; John W. Swain, professor of public administration, Governors State University; Dave Timmons, city manager, Port Townsend, Washington; Victor Vasquez, assistant city manager, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Kenneth Vittum, town manager, Pearisburg, Virginia; and Gail Weniger, township manager, Warwick, Pennsylvania.

James M. Banovetz, editor of the first two editions, dedicated the book to local govern- ment leaders, who must anticipate and adapt to the challenge of change; develop goals and objectives for their communities; and manage the programs and services to achieve their vision. We too salute these leaders, to whom Americans have entrusted the quality of life in their communities, and dedicate the third edition to them.

Carl W. Stenberg Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Preface

1 Meeting the Challenge of Change Carl W. Stenberg

How cities and counties can adapt to the new economy and the information age is a key topic of debate among government reformers, public offi cials, civic groups, and students of local government. Increasingly, boundaries between local governments are blurring, responsibilities for service delivery are being shared, and partnerships and col- laborative approaches across jurisdictions and sectors are becoming common. Citizens expect local governments to be entrepreneurial and equitable, as well as effi cient and effective. And professional local government managers fi nd themselves working as com- munity leaders and change agents.

It wasn’t always this way. Historically, cities and counties were responsible for basic services to support their communities, such as public safety, libraries, public utilities, public works, and cemeteries. Counties acted as arms of state government in unincorpo- rated areas, and townships served citizens in rural areas in twenty states. Public education was provided by school districts, which were usually separate from general-purpose local governments. In most cases, these functions were predominantly or exclusively local, in the sense that their performance entailed little or no collaboration with other local juris- dictions or units, receipt of external funds, or regulation by state and federal authorities.

During the twentieth century, as our nation’s population grew and became more urbanized, a new set of services was added to local government responsibilities. These services included land use planning, zoning and subdivision control, urban renewal, housing, parks and recreation, and public health and welfare. Over the past sixty years, local services have continued to expand and diversify. Joining the mix of city and county responsibilities have been animal control, job training, juvenile and senior centers, meals- on-wheels, community and economic development, emergency preparedness, leisure services, and environmental protection. Special districts have sprung up to fi nance and manage discrete services, such as fl ood control, water supply, and fi re protection.

As Figure 1–1 illustrates, the expansion and diversifi cation of responsibilities at the local level led to new layers of local government superimposed on the existing government structure. This trend also produced fi ve troubling conditions: proliferation in the number of general and special-purpose local units; lack of uniformity in local government bound- aries; service coordination problems; voter confusion and apathy; and high taxes and local government spending.

2 Meeting the Challenge of Change

Figure 1–1 New kinds of local government

New kinds of local government were superimposed on the existing government structure in response to changing local concerns and needs for services.

Reformers today criticize the irrational pattern of local governmental units; the exces- sive number of small jurisdictions performing a limited range of duties; the costly duplica- tion of functions; the parochial orientations of local leaders; and the lack of coordination between special districts, school districts, and general-purpose local units. They also

First

Counties

and

Townships

then

Cities and villages

then

School districts

then

Special districts

equal

to provide local government

Counties were fi rst settled in colonial times by the early settlers.

to bring local government closer to people in rural areas

New England and Mid-Atlantic states established town governments in colonial times; townships were created in the midwestern states by settlers who came to that region from New England and the Mid- Atlantic states after the Louisiana Purchase.

to provide urban services (fi re and police protection, streets, libraries, etc.)

While a few cities and villages existed in the colonial era, most were established during the early and middle years of the nineteenth century. New cities and villages continue to be established, as new settlement patterns convert rural land to urban use.

to keep the schools “out of politics”

School districts were established in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as voters attempted to take control of the schools away from the corrupt politicians who controlled most county and city governments.

to circumvent tax limits, local powers, geographic bound- ary limitations, and other restrictions

Special districts have been established in growing numbers since the mid-twentieth century. They are sometimes created to provide services over a geo- graphic area that is different from the boundaries of existing local governments and sometimes to create additional governments that will have added tax and borrowing powers.

1 Great proliferation in the number of local governments 2 Lack of uniformity in local government boundaries 3 Problems of service coordination 4 Voter confusion and apathy 5 High taxes and government spending

Meeting the Challenge of Change 3

express concerns about limitations on the time and expertise of part-time elected offi cials and governing bodies, and about antiquated budgetary, personnel, and procurement rules under which many local governments operate. In their view, many communities are not prepared to tackle complex and costly problems that spill across local boundary lines, and are unable to take timely collective and authoritative remedial actions. These constraints make it diffi cult to provide the quality of life needed to attract and retain businesses and taxpayers in the competitive global economy of the twenty-fi rst century.

Others argue the virtues of a government that is close to the citizen—virtues such as accessibility and affordability, the need for local autonomy and control, and the cost- effectiveness of voluntary leadership. They contend that democratic values of responsive- ness and fairness are more important than technocratic values of effi ciency and effective- ness. Moreover, they point out that while local government structure and operations may not meet ideal standards, in most places they work satisfactorily in delivering services demanded by the public at prices (i.e., taxes and fees) that citizens are willing to pay. Part-time elected offi cials, served by professional managers and their staff, rather than professional politicians are the appropriate leaders of grassroots community governments because they are close to both the problems and the citizens.1

Given the strong political and public support for maintaining the structural, functional, and fi nancial status quo, how can local governments continue to provide the level of services expected by their citizens in a rapidly changing world?

As is often the case in such debates, the real truth lies somewhere between the extremes. But the question remains relevant: given the strong political and public support for maintaining the structural, functional, and fi nancial status quo in many communities, how can local governments continue to provide the level of services expected by their citizens in a rapidly changing world?

One thing is certain: these trends were accompanied by the need for greater profession- alism in local government as the scope and complexity of services grew. Two major forms of professional management became popular: the council-manager form and the adminis- trator form. In the council-manager form, the mayor and council appoint a chief executive offi cer, who serves at the council’s pleasure and has full responsibility for the day-to-day administrative operations of the government. Managers see themselves as facilitators, playing key roles in policy development and implementation. However, they have neither a vote nor a veto in council meetings. In the administrator form, either the mayor or the mayor and council appoint a chief administrative offi cer, who serves at the pleasure of the appointing authority. Administrators’ powers vary: they may have limited authority or have powers identical to those of a manager. Administrators see themselves as coordina- tors, implementing policy under the leadership of the chief elected offi cial.

This chapter discusses the contemporary context for managing local services. It explains how the rules of the game have been changing in recent years. It also identifi es trends driv- ing the management of local service delivery now and in the future, and it reviews a range of intergovernmental responses. Finally, it reviews the key roles and related knowledge, skills, and abilities required of twenty-fi rst-century city and county managers.

4 Meeting the Challenge of Change

The contemporary context: How the rules of the game have changed The contemporary context for local government service delivery and management has been shaped by powerful ideological and political forces and trends. These forces and trends have generated discussion and debate over the role of government in American society, the size and scope of governmental activities, and the cost of government. They have also had profound impacts on the rules of the game in at least four areas: the role of citizens, the values and views of elected offi cials, the manager’s roles and responsibilities, and the ways in which local governments conduct their business.

New roles for citizens Citizens tend to have two enduring attitudes about local government. First, most citizens think their local government is more trustworthy and effi cient than the state or national government; accordingly, they want the local government to be allowed to identify local needs, set priorities, and fi nd the most suitable ways to address problems.2 Second, although they want quality services, many citizens resist tax increases to pay for improve- ments or new services. In short, they want more for less.

To meet the challenges of managing and budgeting in this environment, some critics of government began suggesting in the early 1990s that public managers “reinvent” govern- ment and its relationship with citizens.

Citizens have always been the owners of government in that they elect, give legitimacy to, and hold accountable councils and boards and, through these governing bodies, professional managers and staff. Citizens also have traditionally been considered clients of local agencies, such as health and human services departments. Those who promote reinventing govern- ment call upon public managers to also treat citizens as customers and coproducers.

Those who describe citizens as customers see the local government system as a mar- ketplace that offers choices among multiple jurisdictions. In this view, citizens “vote with their feet,” moving from one jurisdiction to another in search of services they desire at tax and fee rates they are willing to pay. For example, interdistrict school choice plans pioneered by Minnesota gave parents educational options beyond the neighborhood public school and put pressure on schools from which students were being transferred to improve their performance.

Within individual local governments, the idea that citizens are customers encourages managers to abandon one-size-fi ts-all approaches and customize or tailor such services as

Volunteers teach community preparedness in Westminster, Colorado

The city of Westminster, Colorado (pop. 105,084), has developed a community preparedness program in which community volunteers teach other citizens what to do during various emergencies. Program costs to employ a part-time coordinator and print community preparedness booklets and other information are funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Volunteer teachers participate in a four-hour training session and meet monthly to discuss their experiences. Organizations in the city can request training on a variety of topics, and the city usually sends out two volunteers for each ses- sion, as well as a community preparedness program coordinator or the city’s emergency coordinator.

Meeting the Challenge of Change 5

police patrol and solid-waste collection to the preferences of various neighborhoods. All local personnel are expected to have a strong customer-service orientation and attitudes comparable to private sector companies recognized nationally for excellence in this area.3

As coproducers, citizens take part in providing a wide range of local services—from Neighborhood Watch police programs, to volunteer fi re departments, to citizen advisory boards, to planning departments, to faith-based organizations in human services. The common factor is professional managers working alongside amateur citizens.

Treating citizens as customers creates performance pressures on managers to deliver a service at competitive levels of quality and cost satisfaction; treating them as coproduc- ers requires managers to put aside “we know best” and “we-they” attitudes. Both of these dimensions of the citizen’s role potentially expand the manager’s accountability beyond the governing body to include the larger community.

Finally, citizens care more about the quality and cost of services than about which unit provides the services. Most citizens do not understand or appreciate the wide range of special and general-purpose local units that exists across the country. They look to the professional manager and governing body of the community to ensure that their expecta- tions are met, even though service provision might involve cooperation with other locali- ties or might be contracted out to the private sector, putting responsibility for performance beyond the control of local offi cials.

Elected offi cials’ values and views Within the cultural, legal, and fi scal framework of the local government system, the basic roles of local governing bodies have not changed dramatically: representing citizens and constituents, making policy, overseeing administration, and “doing” politics. But the ways in which these roles are played, as well as the orientations of the offi cials who serve, have changed in important respects.

Partisan politics and single-issue politics reinforce a short-term orientation and incremental approach to policy making by elected offi cials who do not share a common vision for the community.

In a representative democracy, elected offi cials are expected to listen to constituents and seek to address their needs and meet their expectations in ways that are consistent with the core values of the community. As local governments replace nonpartisan with partisan electoral systems, and as more and more municipal council and county board members are elected from districts rather than from the entire jurisdiction,4 it has become increasingly challenging for these elected offi cials to fi nd a general will or guiding public interest that can serve as the foundation of policy for the whole community. A grow- ing number of single-issue candidates and antigovernment candidates have also made it harder for elected offi cials to reach coalitions within the governing body, fi nd common ground, and build consensus. When elected offi cials cannot reconcile confl icting public values, the result is sometimes political and economic polarization between communities, neighborhoods, and citizens.

In places where this has happened, the policy-making process has changed. Managers may not receive clear or consistent direction on implementation priorities. Candidates

6 Meeting the Challenge of Change

who have run successfully against the local government may consider the manager to be part of the problem rather than the solution and may not fully trust—and may even seek to replace—him or her. Incumbents who seek a long-term career in city or county elective offi ce may be reluctant to make unpopular or controversial decisions that could jeopardize their political future, preferring that the manager take the lead.

Partisan politics and single-issue politics reinforce a short-term orientation and incre- mental approach to policy making by elected offi cials who do not share a common vision for the community. If the governing body does not agree on strategic goals and objectives, it cannot develop action plans and priorities for programs and budgets. They contribute to growing gaps between professional managers, governing bodies, and citizens that arise from their differing backgrounds, expectations, and competencies.5 These condi- tions make it diffi cult for a governing body to set clear and realistic expectations for the manager—or for itself as a council or board—or to effectively oversee and fairly evaluate administration.

The manager’s roles and responsibilities As elected offi cials have become more partisan and more focused on single issues, manag- ers have been drawn into the policy-making process, being asked to do more than provide accurate information and impartial advice. For example, managers are expected to iden- tify and assess options and make recommendations for the governing body to consider. Politics and administration are no longer a dichotomy (if they ever were), and managers and governing bodies share responsibility in the spheres of mission, policy, administra- tion, and management.6

Many of the changes described in the last few pages, as well as other developments and trends, have changed the manager’s job and sometimes created tension in his or her relationship with elected offi cials and community leaders. The most important of these factors include (1) antigovernment feelings among the public, leading to distrust of elected and appointed offi cials and support for local candidates running against the government; (2) unrealistic citizen expectations that they can have more services for less taxes; (3) local elected offi cials’ shift from a trustee role to an activist role, and their corresponding emphasis on constituent service instead of common and cooperative problem solving; (4) the increasing visibility, powers, and political ambitions of mayors; (5) the tendency of local elected offi cials to focus on implementation and to micromanage administration; (6) governing bodies’ pressure on managers to privatize government services; and (7) access to information about local operations that the technology revolution has given citizens

Professional administration in local government

“In the future the legitimacy of professional administrators in local government will be grounded in the tasks of community-building and enabling democracy—in getting things done collectively, while building a sense of inclusion.”

Source: John Nalbandian, “Facilitating Community, Enabling Democracy: New Roles for Local Government Managers,” Public Administration Review 59 (May/June 1999): 189.

Meeting the Challenge of Change 7

and interest groups, enabling them to easily register complaints, monitor performance, and put administration under the spotlight.7

As a result of these factors, managers must devote more attention to policy, leadership, and constituent relations in their dealings with governing bodies than they have in the past. Because managers and elected offi cials need to spend a good deal of time together to forge a partnership for leading and governing their communities, the manager is some- times viewed as the “sixth council member.” Managers and elected offi cials are mutually dependent and share responsibility for most aspects of local government, yet they need to divide responsibility in order to effi ciently, effectively, and equitably provide services and fulfi ll the expectations of citizens.

How local governments conduct business A fourth dimension of the changing rules of the game involves the shift from “govern- ment” to “governance.” While the focus in the past was on the authority and activity of individual units of government, the focus today is on how governmental units can work with each other and the private and nonprofi t sectors to accomplish results that the public wants. A key factor responsible for this shift has been the inability of local governments acting alone to respond to contemporary challenges and to operate in the businesslike, entrepreneurial manner envisioned by governmental critics who want more effi cient and effective government.

In most parts of the United States, local government is fragmented. Individual local governments are small in territory and population, and are generally limited with respect to powers and range of responsibilities. The number of governmental units and the rela- tionship between general- and special-purpose units affect effi ciency, effectiveness, equity, and economies of scale—core values in service delivery. However, these values collide with other important virtues of the local government system: closeness, responsiveness, smallness, and customization. Reconciling these competing and confl icting values is the job of both elected offi cials and professional managers. The confl ict of values sometimes exacerbates the gap between the elected offi cials’ priorities of building the community and representing citizens, and the professional administrators’ desire to modernize the organi- zation and improve local services.8

The complexity of local government has come under scrutiny with the recognition that most important public problems can be addressed only by working across jurisdictional and sector boundaries—that is, with other communities, agencies, nonprofi t organiza- tions, businesses, citizen groups, and volunteers (see Figure 1–2). The term governance describes the reality that governments are only one of the players in local service delivery, albeit a critical player; it refers to “(1) all community interests affected by challenges and necessary to their resolution, not just government institutions, and (2) the collaborative problem-solving mechanisms needed to design timely strategies as well as the government institutions and other service-delivery mechanisms needed to implement them.”9

The need to manage within and work with a diverse array of horizontal and verti- cal networks of governmental partners, public-private organizations, and regional and community groups has altered the traditional authority of both managers and governing bodies. The more that these entities have become facilitators, brokers, and networkers, the less they operate in a hierarchical command-and-control model. While their responsibility has grown, their authority has become more shared.10

8 Meeting the Challenge of Change

Figure 1–2 John Q. Citizen’s domain

In summary, all these ideological and political trends have had a profound impact on the work of the manager. Apart from the roles and responsibilities indicated above, the manager increasingly serves as a bridge over sometimes troubled waters. Gaps continue to widen in many communities: between the education and experience of professional full- time managers and that of amateur part-time governing bodies; between the basic roles of

City or village government

County government

State government

Federal government

Family services center

Mental health agency

Park district

Planning district

Drainage district

Sanitary district

School district

The house is John Q. Citizen’s domain, a piece of property that is served (some would say overloaded) by many governments. The typical citizen has little understanding of the complex system of governments that affect his or her life, including a wide range of special districts that are almost invisible.

Meeting the Challenge of Change 9

elected offi cials to represent and make policy for the community and those of managers to build organizational capacity to effectively carry out policy; between citizen “more for less,” “we want it our way,” “just in time,” and “quicker, better, cheaper” expectations for service delivery and the need to represent community interests and engage in deliberative deci- sion making; and between the community place-based orientation of elected offi cials and other local leaders and the boundary-spanning nature of contemporary problem solving and service delivery.11

The global context: External trends that drive local decisions In addition to the important developments at the local level, at least seven signifi cant national and international trends will drive future city and county decisions: population mobility; demographics; the new economy; technology; environmental quality, resource management, and conservation; privacy and security; and fi nances. Generalizations about the impacts of these trends on the diverse array of local governments in the United States are risky; nevertheless, it is clear that at one time or another during the next two decades (if not already), managers and elected offi cials will need to confront the implications of these trends in the decisions they make about local services.12