Grading the Cities introduction THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT Report Card: Denver Revenue Rank: 17 Form of Government: Mayor-Council Mayor: Wellington E. Webb (took office 1991) City Council: 13 members (11 elected by district, 2 at large) FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT: B+ Denver does a five-year forecast of its revenues and expenses, updated annually, and it carefully stays on top of the fiscal impact of proposed legislation. There are tight controls to guard against spending in excess of appropriations. Revenue estimators have had a hard time, however, making allowances for the growth that has enveloped Denver. As a result, their revenue estimates have been on the low side lately. “We realize the need to consider growth more,” says the city’s finance director. “But I don’t think any model would have predicted last year’s growth.” There is no rainy day fund here, but there is a “general contingency reserve,” budgeted at about 2 percent of expenditures, and used if spending goes higher than anticipated. There also is a state-dictated reserve that requires cash to be set aside for natural disasters. The city’s unreserved undesignated balance has stayed high for some time; it was nearly 19 percent in fiscal year 1998. Denver lacks any centralized cost accounting system, but some of the departments, including Water, Public Works and Aviation, have implemented cost accounting procedures on their own. HUMAN RESOURCES: B- Denver hasn’t done long-term work force planning, but with human resources technology being updated, that is likely to change in the next year or so. In the meantime, human resource teams work with city agencies each fall to project hiring and personnel needs in the coming year. The city’s recruitment efforts are relatively strong, and with the labor market in the region exceptionally tight, it tries to get the hiring done as speedily as it can. “Unless we move quickly, we can’t hire,” one official says. “There are so many different places applicants can go.” To this end, Denver allows people to apply for jobs online, but the testing system still slows down the process, as does a requirement that every personnel action obtain budget office approval. Historically, Denver has been weak in the area of managerial training, but a trainer’s network has been established to better coordinate the effort, improve evaluation efforts and explore computer-based training. In addition, supervisory development training has been introduced. Denver’s government is permitted to reward good performance with extra pay, and is looking into other ways to encourage superior performance. Many employees, however, consider the evaluations arbitrary and complain about favoritism in the performance awards. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: C+ Denver is making solid progress in information technology, but it still has far to go. No citywide IT strategic plan currently exists, and a number of pockets of technology aren’t integrated or even compatible with others. The city says it is in the process of developing a strategic plan, which should be completed by the end of the summer, and is pursuing standardization aggressively, with sufficient input from the agencies that the process seems to be meeting minimal resistance. The city’s enterprise-wide financial management and human resources information systems have long needed an update, and they are getting one. Basic components are already up and running (they had to be to get the city ready for Y2K). A number of modules still remain to be implemented. The city’s Web site has great budget and strategic planning information, but it could stand improvement in explaining the activities of individual departments. There is an impressive mechanism for job application online. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: B- Each of Denver’s agencies does a six-year assessment that looks at the need for new assets, repair and rehabilitation. These are updated annually. The quality of the assessments varies from agency to agency; city insiders estimate that about a third should be doing a better job. A two-year capital plan is being produced for the city as a whole. Generally, Denver has high-quality data to support its analysis of proposed projects. Agency requests for funding are supported by detailed budgets and solid descriptive information. The government also does a reasonably good job of evaluating maintenance needs, but funding is on the low side. In the “ever happen to you?” department: Denver’s database of city-owned property was lost in a computer mishap. There was no electronic backup, so now the city is having to reconstruct the information from hard copies. MANAGING FOR RESULTS: B- Denver has made real advances in strategic planning. It is updating its last plan, which was released in 1989, during hard economic times, and which focused on economic development. The current document, now available in draft form on the Web, is a far more sophisticated one, with broader long-term goals. A great deal of citizen input has been used in its construction. The city produces a number of performance measures, many of which are included in the mayor’s proposed budget and are increasingly utilized by the city council. They predominantly measure outputs, however, not outcomes — although there are a few notable exceptions, such as street maintenance, in which trained observers are used to evaluate the condition of streets and alleys. There is a task-based performance appraisal program, but not many departments have successfully linked employees’ goals either to the city’s strategic plan or to the goals of the agencies themselves. “We have some work to do here,” concedes Jim Yearby, director of the Career Service Authority. AVERAGE GRADE: B- 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.