|
|
From Governing’s
Grading the Counties introductionFebruary 2002 issue
THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT
Report Card:
Last June, one of the downtown projects ran into an Act of God, worsened by a mistake of man. When Tropical Storm Alison dropped 30 inches of rain on the Houston area in less than 12 hours, the brand-new Criminal Justice Center suffered major damage. It turned out, in hindsight, that much of that damage was self-inflicted, because the building’s electrical equipment had been placed in the basement — in times of deluge, a very expensive planning mistake. The building is still closed, as the county makes repairs and relocates the equipment on the second floor, at a cost of $18 million.
While the county government has ambitious plans to make Harris grander, it is attempting to make itself smaller. Or at least more compact. In the past five years, the county has reduced the number of administrative departments from 25 to nine, and looked for ways to combine any offices with common missions. The Department of Public Infrastructure, set up four years ago, resulted from a merger of several agencies, including the engineering and flood control departments, with the idea that this would lead to better planning and management. There have been some fits and starts to the streamlining. The Toll Road Authority, for example, was initially merged in with Public Infrastructure, then became independent again. Now, the board is considering reversing that decision.
The county’s most lively political issue right now is escalating property values and the resultant property-tax increases. The assessed value of homes and commercial properties shot up by nearly 60 percent in the 1990s, and last year, a record 324,421 homeowners were reassessed upward by 10 percent — the cap for a one-time increase. Now, the county is facing a record number of property-tax appeals. Meanwhile, it is struggling to come up with a tax policy that the disgruntled voters will accept. “A major issue,” says Terry Thornton, director of financial services, “is trying to find the perfect balance between infrastructure need and not overburdening the tax base.”
Positives: Rigorous monitoring of revenues, expenditures and debt; good long-term planning; solid reserve cushion; good attention to cost and efficiency data in management analysis, although difficulty with financial management computer system has inhibited more general cost accounting; county keeps unusually good tabs on state legislation that has an impact on localities.
Negatives: Substantial technology problems; no formal debt policy; budget enactment routinely has followed start of fiscal year, although shift in schedule should correct problem; more than $170 million in unfunded pension liability.
Positives: Major restructuring centralized infrastructure management in 1998, leading to better communication, efficiency, less duplication of staff; centralized planning, with five-year capital improvement plan, updated annually; outside consultant assesses facilities; good cost estimates of facility needs; generally good record in keeping projects on schedule and on budget.
Negatives: County still challenged to keep up with growth demands; limited technological tools to evaluate condition of roads, with reliance on visual assessments; some condition data held at precinct level; no computerized preventive-maintenance system for facilities.
Positives: Departments have discretion in hiring and granting salary increases; departmental progress in performance appraisal; speedy hiring; walk-in testing.
Negatives: Inconsistencies in classification and compensation, although central HR office is trying to encourage consistency through departmental studies; little long-term workforce planning; communication of training opportunities to employees needs improvement; no tuition reimbursement; non-cash recognition programs generally focus on longevity, not performance.
Positives: Budget office puts emphasis on management analysis; departmental consolidation created stronger links to common missions; central office helping to improve departmental strategic planning; commissioners have midyear review of performance; targeted efforts at improving quality of results and efficiency-oriented measures through individual studies.
Negatives: No countywide strategic plan, though goals are set through budget process; link between performance measures and budgetary decision making needs strengthening; measures and data vary greatly by department, with many still measuring quantity of work rather than quality or results; budget document weak in communicating performance information.
Positives: Robust network capability; 2010 Committee setting long-term entity-wide agenda; integrated criminal justice information system; public safety radio system used by 71 jurisdictions, although not city of Houston; good training for both end-users and technology specialists; improved procurement; disaster recovery generally worked well during major flood.
Negatives: Huge problems with two-year-old computer system for finance, personnel and purchasing; uncoordinated silo-style development of e-government services, although greater coordination coming through 2010 Committee; poorly designed Web site; elected officials in conflict on key IT issues, such as digital signatures; GIS useful but greater coordination needed.
|
 |
arris County keeps on growing — more than 20 percent in the 1990s, making it the nation’s third-most-populous county — and the government keeps on investing heavily in new projects and new construction to meet the increased demand. In November 2001, citizens approved $475 million in general obligation bonding for road improvements and another $60 million for parks. The list of building projects also is long, including a major reconstruction of the downtown government campus and a new $566 million retractable-roof stadium and exposition center.