HomeMy Public PortalAbout10) 7I -1 Staff Report - Priority Based Budgeting Budget Model and Consulting ServicesAGENDA
ITEM 7.1.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 20, 2013
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Jose E. Pulido, City Manager
By: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING BUDGET MODEL AND CONSULTING
SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommend the City Council:
a) Award a Consultant Services Agreement to Center of Priority Based Budgeting
(CPBB) for the Priority Based Budgeting Model and related consulting services
(Attachment "A") in an amount not to exceed $36,500;
b) Authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute a Consultant Services
Agreement with CPBB; and
c) Appropriate $36,500 from the Undesignated Fund Balance to Account No. 01-
920-48-4231
BACKGROUND:
1. The City of Temple City was incorporated on May 25, 1960.
2. The City of Temple City has historically approached budgeting in a traditional way,
preparing and presenting a line item budget and organizing a spending plan by
department rather than by program or activity.
City Council
August 20, 2013
Page 2 of 5
3. Beginning with the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-11, the City Manager implemented zero -
based budgeting, Key Program Goals and Workload Measures by Department
and Divisions.
4. On January 31, 2012, the City of Cincinnati, Ohio issued a Request for Proposal
(RFP) seeking a consultant to provide priority based budgeting consulting
services.
5. On February 27, 2012, the City of Cincinnati, Ohio's Selection Committee
selected CPBB from the proposals received for priority based budgeting
consulting services.
6. On June 4, 2013, the City Council adopted the FY 2013-14 City Budget, which
included General Fund operating appropriations of $11,713,765.
7. On June 4, 2013, the City Council awarded a Consultant Services Agreement with
Lilley Planning Group for Strategic Plan consultant services and authorized the
City Manager to finalize and execute the Consultant Services Agreement.
8. On July 2nd and 3`d, 2013, the Administrative Services Director attended a
conference presented by CPBB in Washington D.C.
ANALYSIS:
Since 2010, the City has followed a zero -based budgeting process. Zero -based
budgeting is an approach to planning and decision-making which reverses the working
process of traditional budgeting. In traditional incremental budgeting, departmental
managers justify only variances versus past years, based on the assumption that the
"baseline" is automatically approved. By contrast, in zero -based budgeting, every line
item of the budget must be approved, rather than only changes. During the review
process, no reference is made to the previous level of expenditure and zero -based
budgeting requires the new budget request be re-evaluated thoroughly. However, with
the implementation of zero -based budgeting practices, the presentation of the
document, remained in a line item format and reflected a spending plan by department
rather than by program or activity.
As a high performance organization, the City is constantly reviewing and analyzing how
it does business and the processes utilized for accomplishing the City's goals and
objectives. In July 2013, staff was introduced to the CPBB and their results -based
approach to resource allocation addressing the needs of local governments as they
struggle to deal with unprecedented budgetary constraints as well as striving to
achieve long-term financial sustainability. The process was created to address the
need for a methodology that would successfully link the stated strategic priorities that
City Council
August 20, 2013
Page 3 of 5
an organization strives to accomplish with the way resource allocation decisions are
made through the budget process.
Since the CPBB Priority Based Budgeting process has gained nationwide recognition
and has been promoted by the International City/County Management Association
(ICMA), the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and the Alliance for
Innovation, staff further explored CPBB's approach and model for resource allocation.
After a thorough review of the CPBB's approach, a proposal was requested
(Attachment "B") and staff is recommending their Priority Based Budgeting model be
implemented. The model developed ultimately enables communities to link funding
decisions to their stated priorities. The processes also brings together local
government managers, finance, officers, elected officials, civic leaders, and community
stakeholders to make decisions that better align the community's resources with the
programs and activities the community and its leaders value the most.
Through this unique results -based resource allocation process, organizations
successfully:
• Identify and define the strategic results that their organization seeks to achieve
to meet community expectations;
• Provide a framework for involvement of community stakeholders in validating
and/or helping to define the organization's results;
• Develop a comprehensive list of programs and services offered by the
organization and identify the costs of those services;
• Evaluate and determine the degree to which those programs and services
contribute to the achievement of the identified results;
• Prioritize programs in a matrix format that highly achieve those identified
results as compared with programs that are less of a priority in terms of their
impact on results;
• Align resource allocation decisions with higher priority programs; and
• Provide a "new lens" through which the organization can clearly see where
opportunities exist to refocus attention on programs that are of the highest
priority to the community and shift resources away from those programs that
are not highly relevant in terms of achieving the organization's results for the
community.
Staff is recommending that the City begin the implementation of this new budget model
immediately to work in conjunction with the City's strategic plan development rather
City Council
August 20, 2013
Page 4 of 5
than waiting to begin the process in January 2014, which is the typical time staff would
begin working on the budget process for City Council adoption in June 2014. The City's
Strategic Plan will identify the community's vision and goals for the City in the next 20
years. Staff feels these two processes, the City Strategic Plan and Priority Based
Budgeting will complement each other well and in fact, Priority Based Budgeting will
take the strategic planning process one step further and quantify the resources needed
for implementation, creating a best practice for long-range strategic and financial
planning activities. As a result of implementing Priority Based Budgeting immediately,
the City's strategic planning process will be delayed for three to four months. However,
staff feels the benefits derived from the Priority Based Budgeting and the contributions
that will be made, including a detailed quantitative analysis of current programs, will
make the development of the City's Strategic Plan a much more comprehensive
process. Staff recognizes that there may be some overlap in the scopes of work
between the two consultants, but is working on potential revisions so that there will not
be a duplication of efforts.
Although the City's Purchasing Code (Code) requires a formal bid process for
professional services in excess of $25,000, staff did not solicit a RFP for consulting
services. The Code does allow the City to contract directly with a consultant if a
competitive bidding by another Federal, State, County or local government agency has
been completed and is in substantial compliance with the City of Temple City's Code.
The City of Cincinnati, Ohio completed a competitive, formal bidding process in
February 2012 for Priority Based Budgeting Model and selected CPBB. A copy of their
Professional Services Contract which outlines the process and timeline is attached for
reference (Attachment "C"). Staff has reviewed the City of Cincinnati, Ohio's process
and has determined that it is in compliance with the City's Code.
WC
As the City moves forward with the development of a City Strategic Plan, Priority
Based Budgeting will complement, enhance and quantify these efforts, providing an
opportunity for a precedent setting process for local government's long-range strategic
and financial planning activities. As a result, it is recommended the City contract with
CPBB for the Priority Based Budgeting model and related consulting services.
FISCAL IMPACT:
If this action is approved, an additional $36,500 will be appropriated from the General
Fund Undesignated Fund Balance. Revised General Fund operating appropriations for
FY 2013-14 will be $11,750,265. This additional appropriation will be offset as
additional property tax revenues are anticipated for the FY 2013-14. HdL, the City's
sales and property tax consultants, have indicated that assessed valuations in Temple
City Council
August 20, 2013
Page 5 of 5
City have increased by 5%. Staff budgeted a 2% increase and as a result, it is
estimated the City will receive an additional $75,000 in property tax revenues. A
detailed report and recommended adjustments will be included in the FY 2013-14 First
Quarter Budget Report that will come to the City Council in September 2013.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Consultant Services Agreement with CPBB
B. Proposal from CPBB
C. City of Cincinnati's Professional Services Contract with CPBB
ATTACHMENT"A"
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING
By and Between
THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY,
a municipal corporation
and
Center for Priority Based Budgeting
RIV #4822-7830-4520 A - 1 -
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA
AND
CENTER FOR PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING
This Agreement for Consultant Services ("Agreement") is entered into as of this day
of , 2013 by and between the City of TEMPLE CITY, a municipal corporation
("City") and Center for Priority Based Budgeting, a mission -driven corporation ("Consultant").
City and Consultant are sometimes hereinafter individually referred to as "Parry" and hereinafter
collectively referred to as the "Parties."
RECITALS
A. City has sought, priority based budgeting consulting services as defined and
described particularly in Section 2 of this Agreement.
B. Consultant, following submission of a proposal for the performance of the
services defined and described particularly in Section 2 of this Agreement, was selected by the
City to perform those services.
C. Consultant was selected by the City on the basis of Consultant's demonstrated
competence and the professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the
services required.
D. Pursuant to the City of Temple City's Municipal Code, City has authority to enter
into this Consultant Services Agreement and the City Manager has authority to execute this
Agreement.
E. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of
those services defined and described particularly in Section 2 of this Agreement and desire that
the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.
OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by
the Parties and contained here and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
SECTION 1. TERM OF AGREEMENT.
Subject to the provisions of Section 20 "Termination of Agreement" of this Agreement,
the scope of services set forth in Exhibit "A" "Scope of Services" shall be completed pursuant to
the schedule specified in Exhibit "A." Should the scope of services not be completed pursuant to
that schedule, the Consultant shall be deemed to be in Default of this Agreement pursuant to
Section 21 of this Agreement. The City, in its sole discretion, may choose not to enforce the
M #4822-7830-4520 v1 - 2 -
Default provisions of this Agreement and may instead allow Consultant to continue performing
the scope of services until such services are complete.
SECTION 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES.
Consultant agrees to perform the services set forth in Exhibit "A" "Scope of Services,"
which is incorporated herein by this reference, in accordance with the terms and conditions of
this Agreement.
SECTION 3. ADDITIONAL SERVICES.
Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its
performance of this Agreement which are in addition to or outside of those set forth in this
Agreement or listed in Exhibit "A" "Scope of Services," unless such additional services are
authorized in advance and in writing by the City Council or City Manager of City. Consultant
shall be compensated for any such additional services in the amounts and in the manner agreed to
by the City Council or City Manager.
SECTION 4. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.
(a) Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay
Consultant the amounts specified in Exhibit `B" "Compensation," which is incorporated herein
by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for actual expenses, shall
not exceed thirty six thousand, five hundred dollars ($36,500), unless additional compensation is
approved in writing by the City Council or City Manager.
(b) Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice for all work
performed and expenses incurred during the preceding month. The invoice shall detail charges
by the following categories: labor (by sub -category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and
sub -consultant contracts. Sub -consultant charges shall be detailed by the following categories:
labor, travel, materials, equipment and supplies. If the compensation set forth in subsection (a)
and include payment of labor on an hourly basis (as opposed to labor and materials being paid as
a lump sum), the labor category in each invoice shall include detailed descriptions of task
performed and the amount of time incurred for or allocated to that task. City shall independently
review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine whether the work performed and
expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. In the event that no
charges or expenses are disputed, the invoice shall be approved and paid according to the terms
set forth in subsection (c). In the event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original
invoice shall be returned by City to Consultant for correction and resubmission.
(c) Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant
which are disputed by City, City will use its best efforts to cause Consultant to be paid within
forty-five (45) days of receipt of Consultant's correct and undisputed invoice.
(d) Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not
be deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant.
SECTION 5. INSPECTION AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE.
RN 44822-7830-4520 v1 -3 -
City may inspect and accept or reject any of Consultant's work under this Agreement,
either during performance or when completed. City shall reject or finally accept Consultant's
work within sixty (60) days after submitted to City. City shall reject work by a timely written
explanation, otherwise Consultant's work shall be deemed to have been accepted. City's
acceptance shall be conclusive as to such work except with respect to latent defects, fraud and
such gross mistakes as amount to fraud. Acceptance of any of Consultant's work by City shall
not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement including, but not limited to,
sections 16 and 17, pertaining to indemnification and insurance, respectively.
SECTION 6. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS.
All original maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, surveys, reports, data,
notes, computer files, files and other documents prepared, developed or discovered by Consultant
in the course of providing any services pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property
of City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by City without the permission of the
Consultant. Upon completion, expiration or termination of this Agreement, Consultant shall turn
over to City all such original maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, surveys,
reports, data, notes, computer files, files and other documents.
If and to the extent that City utilizes for any purpose not related to this Agreement any
maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, surveys, reports, data, notes, computer
files, files or other documents prepared, developed or discovered by Consultant in the course of
providing any services pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant's guarantees and warrants related
to Standard of Performance and found in Section 9 of this Agreement shall not extend to such
use of the maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, surveys, reports, data, notes,
computer files, files or other documents.
All written and oral information not in the public domain or not --previously known, and
all information and data obtained, developed, or supplied by the Countyorat its expense, will be
kept confidential by the Consultant_ and will not be disclosed to any other party _without the
City's prior written consent.
The materials used by the Consultant for work performed under this Agreement are
specific and unique methods- of fiscal management and budget prioritization. As such, these
materials are protected by copyright. The City agrees and understands that these materials and all
methods, models and applications resulting from the useofsaid materials are the sole, complete
and absolute property_ of the Consultant.- As such, any use, future use or application or any
publication -(either oral or written) of these materials by the City will be at the discretion of the
Consultant and in any event will not occur without the express and prior written permission of
the Consultant.- All legal rights and=- protections afforded by copyright and the Consultant's
ownership of all the underlying -intellectual property associated with these fiscal management and
budget prioritization materials are retained and reserved exclusively by the Consultant, reserving
all legal rights and remedies incident to its ownership of these materials. _ It is understood that the
City may utilize these methods, models -and applications for their own specific use but are not
free to share these methods,_ models_ and applications with other individuals or entities.
RIV #4822-78304520 V1 -4-
SECTION 7. CONSULTANT'S BOOKS AND RECORDS.
(a) Consultant shall maintain any and all documents and records demonstrating or
relating to Consultant's performance of services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall
maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, or other
documents or records evidencing or relating to work, services, expenditures and disbursements
charged to City pursuant to this Agreement. Any and all such documents or records shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be sufficiently
complete and detailed so as to permit an accurate evaluation of the services provided by
Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. Any and all such documents or records shall be
maintained for three years from the date of execution of this Agreement and to the extent
required by laws relating to audits of public agencies and their expenditures.
(b) Any and all records or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this
section shall be made available for inspection, audit and copying, at any time during regular
business hours, upon request by City or its designated representative. Copies of such documents
or records shall be provided directly to the City for inspection, audit and copying when it is
practical to do so; otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, such documents and
records shall be made available at Consultant's address indicated for receipt of notices in this
Agreement.
(c) Where City has reason to believe that any of the documents or records required to
be maintained pursuant to this section may be lost or discarded due to dissolution or termination
of Consultant's business, City may, by written request, require that custody of such documents or
records be given to the City and that such documents and records be maintained by the requesting
party. Access to such documents and records shall be granted to City, as well as to its
successors -in -interest and authorized representatives.
SECTION 8. STATUS OF CONSULTANT.
(a) Consultant is and shall at all times remain a wholly independent contractor and
not an officer, employee or agent of City. Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any
manner, nor to incur any obligation, debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City,
whether by contract or otherwise, unless such authority is expressly conferred under this
Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in writing by City.
(b) The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of
Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City,
nor any elected or appointed boards, officers, officials, employees or agents of City, shall have
control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents
except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent
that Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials,
officers, employees or agents of City.
(c) Neither Consultant , nor any of Consultant's officers, employees or agents, shall
obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may otherwise accrue to
City's employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may have to any such
rights.
RIV #4822-7830-4520 v1 -5
SECTION 9. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE.
Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience and facilities
necessary to properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough,
competent and professional manner. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to
the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. In meeting its
obligations under this Agreement, Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted
standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing services similar to those
required of Consultant under this Agreement. In addition to the general standards of
performance set forth this Section 9, additional specific standards of performance and
performance criteria are set forth in the Scope of Work that shall also be applicable to
Consultants work under this Contract. Where there is a conflict between a general and a specific
standard of performance or performance criteria, the specific standard or criteria shall prevail
over the general.
If and to the extent that City utilizes for any purpose not related to this Agreement any
maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, surveys, reports, data, notes, computer
files, files or other documents prepared, developed or discovered by Consultant in the course of
providing any services pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant's guarantees and warranties
related to Standard of Performance shall not extend to such use of the maps, models, designs,
drawings, photographs, studies, surveys, reports, data, notes, computer files, files or other
documents.
SECTION 10. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS; PERMITS AND
LICENSES.
Consultant shall keep itself informed of and comply with all applicable federal, state and
local laws, statutes, codes, ordinances, regulations and rules in effect during the term of this
Agreement. Consultant shall obtain any and all licenses, permits and authorizations necessary to
perform the services set forth in this Agreement. Neither City, nor any elected or appointed
boards, officers, officials, employees or agents of City, shall be liable, at law or in equity, as a
result of any failure of Consultant to comply with this section.
SECTION 11. PREVAILING WAGE LAWS
It is the understanding of City and Consultant that California prevailing wage laws do not
apply to this Agreement because the Agreement does not involve any of the following services
subject to prevailing wage rates pursuant to the California Labor Code or regulations
promulgated thereunder: Construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work
performed on public buildings, facilities, streets or sewers done under contract and paid for in
whole or in part out of public funds. In this context, "construction" includes work performed
during the design and preconstruction phases of construction including, but not limited to,
inspection and land surveying work.
SECTION 12. NONDISCRIMINATION.
RIV #4822-7830-4520 v1
Consultant shall not discriminate, in any way, against any person on the basis of race,
color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, physical handicap, medical condition or
marital status in connection with or related to the performance of this Agreement.
SECTION 13. UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS.
Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, et sec., as amended, and in connection
therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ
such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this Agreement,
and should the any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of unauthorized
aliens, Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such liabilities or
sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred by City.
SECTION 14. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
(a) Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or
shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the
interests of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant's performance of services under
this Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no
person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or
subcontractor without the express written consent of the City Manager. Consultant agrees to at all
times avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of
City in the performance of this Agreement.
(b) City understands and acknowledges that Consultant is, as of the date of execution
of this Agreement, independently involved in the performance of non -related services for other
governmental agencies and private parties. Consultant is unaware of any stated position of City
relative to such projects. Any future position of City on such projects shall not be considered a
conflict of interest for purposes of this section.
(c) City understands and acknowledges that Consultant will, perform non -related
services for other governmental agencies and private parties following the completion of the
scope of work under this Agreement. Any such future service shall not be considered a conflict
of interest for purposes of this section.
SECTION 15. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION; RELEASE OF INFORMATION.
(a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in performance of
this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the public domain
or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such information or
work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization from the
City Manager, except as may be required by law.
(b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not, without
prior written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney of
City, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to
interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement.
RIV #4822-7830-4520 v1 - 7 -
Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant
gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
(c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of Consultant,
provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City shall have the
right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and fees,
including attorneys fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant's conduct.
(d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant , its officers, employees,
agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition,
request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court
order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder.
City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be present at any
deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to
provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by
Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by
City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
SECTION 16. INDEMNIFICATION.
(a) Indemnification by Design Professional. As provided under Civil Code Section
2782.8, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and any and all of its
officials, employees and agents ("Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all claims.
actions and proceedings (whether at law or equity, administrative or judicial), demands, orders,
judgments, losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and costs,
(collectively "Claims") to the extent same arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence,
recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, its officers, agents, employees or sub -
consultants (or any entity or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the
performance of professional services under this Agreement, with the understanding that in the
event Claims are found by the trier of fact to have been caused by the joint or concurrent
negligence of the City and its contractors and consultants, and Consultant, damages and expenses
from both indemnity and duty to defend obligations shall be borne by each party in proportion to
its negligence.
(b) Indemnification from Sub -Consultants. Consultant agrees to obtain executed
indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this section from each
and every sub -consultant / contract or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on
behalf of Consultant in the performance of this Agreement naming the Indemnified Parties as
additional indemnitees. In the event Consultant fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from
others as required here, Consultant agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms of this
section. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no additional
obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder. This obligation to
indemnify and defend City as set forth herein is binding on the successors, assigns or heirs of
Consultant and shall survive the termination of this Agreement or this section.
(c) Citv's Sole Neeliaence. The provisions of this Section 16 do not apply to Claims
occurring as a result of City's sole negligence. The provisions of this section shall not release
RIV #4822-7830-4520 v1 - 8 -
City from liability arising from gross negligence or willful acts or omissions of City or any and
all of its officials, employees and agents.
SECTION 17. INSURANCE.
Consultant agrees to obtain and maintain in full force and effect during the term of this
Agreement the insurance policies set forth in Exhibit `B" "Insurance," which is incorporated
herein by this reference. All insurance policies shall be subject to approval by City as to form
and content. These requirements are subject to amendment or waiver if so approved in writing
by the City Manager. Consultant agrees to provide City with copies of required policies upon
request.
SECTION 18. ASSIGNMENT.
The expertise and experience of Consultant are material considerations for this
Agreement. City has an interest in the qualifications of and capability of the persons and entities
who will fulfill the duties and obligations imposed upon Consultant under this Agreement. In
recognition of that interest, Consultant shall not assign or transfer this Agreement or any portion
of this Agreement or the performance of any of Consultant's duties or obligations under this
Agreement without the prior written consent of the City Council. Any attempted assignment
shall be ineffective, null and void, and shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement
entitling City to any and all remedies at law or in equity, including summary termination of this
Agreement. City acknowledges, however, that Consultant, in the performance of its duties
pursuant to this Agreement, may utilize subcontractors.
SECTION 19. CONTINUITY OF PERSONNEL.
Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of
Consultant's staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this
Agreement. Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant's staff and subcontractors,
if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any
such performance.
SECTION 20. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT.
(a) City may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, at any time by giving
thirty (30) days written notice of termination to Consultant. In the event such notice is given,
Consultant shall cease immediately all work in progress.
(b) Consultant may terminate this Agreement for cause at any time upon thirty (30)
days written notice of termination to City.
(c) If either Consultant or City fail to perform any material obligation under this
Agreement, then, in addition to any other remedies, either Consultant, or City may terminate this
Agreement immediately upon written notice.
(d) Upon termination of this Agreement by either Consultant or City, all property
belonging exclusively to City which is in Consultant's possession shall be returned to City.
Consultant shall furnish to City a final invoice for work performed and expenses incurred by
RN #4822-7830-4520 V1 -9-
Consultant, prepared as set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement. This final invoice shall be
reviewed and paid in the same manner as set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement.
SECTION 21. DEFAULT.
In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall
not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed
after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the
reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the
default. This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be extended, though not
reduced, if circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the
City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the
invoices. In the alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the
outstanding invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the
City may take necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under Section 20. Any failure on the
part of the City to give notice of the Consultant's default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver
of the City's legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 22. EXCUSABLE DELAYS.
Consultant shall not be liable for damages, including liquidated damages, if any, caused
by delay in performance or failure to perform due to causes beyond the control of Consultant.
Such causes include, but are not limited to, acts of God, acts of the public enemy, acts of federal,
state or local governments, acts of City, court orders, fires, floods, epidemics, strikes, embargoes,
and unusually severe weather. The term and price of this Agreement shall be equitably adjusted
for any delays due to such causes.
SECTION 23. COOPERATION BY CITY.
All public information, data, reports, records, and maps as are existing and available to
City as public records, and which are necessary for carrying out the work as outlined in the
Exhibit "A" "Scope of Services," shall be furnished to Consultant in every reasonable way to
facilitate, without undue delay, the work to be performed under this Agreement.
SECTION 24. NOTICES.
All notices required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and
shall be personally delivered, or sent by telecopier or certified mail, postage prepaid and return
receipt requested, addressed as follows:
To City: City of Temple City
Attn: City Manager
9701 Las Tunas Dr.
Temple City, CA 91780
To Consultant: Center for Priority Based Budgeting
720 S. Colorado Blvd., Suite 1000-N
RIV 44822-7830-4520 v1 -10-
Denver, CO 80426-1926
Notice shall be deemed effective on the date personally delivered or transmitted by
facsimile or, if mailed, three (3) days after deposit of the same in the custody of the United States
Postal Service.
SECTION 25. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE.
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant represents and
warrants that he/she/they has/have the authority to so execute this Agreement and to bind
Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
SECTION 26. ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
This Agreement shall be administered and executed by the City Manager or his or her
designated representative, following approval of this Agreement by the City Council. The City
Manager shall have the authority to issue interpretations and to make minor amendments to this
Agreement on behalf of the City so long as such actions do not materially change the Agreement
or make a commitment of additional funds of the City. All other changes, modifications, and
amendments shall require the prior approval of the City Council.
SECTION 27. BINDING EFFECT.
This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and
assigns of the parties.
SECTION 28. MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT.
No amendment to or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing
and approved by the Consultant and by the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement
for written modifications cannot be waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.
SECTION 29. WAIVER.
Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this
Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by
any party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any
other provision nor a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this
Agreement. Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a
waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement.
SECTION 30. LAW TO GOVERN; VENUE.
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed according to the laws of the
State of California. In the event of litigation between the parties, venue in state trial courts shall
lie exclusively in the County of Los Angeles, California. In the event of litigation in a U.S.
District Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in Los Angeles.
RIV #4822-7830-4520 V1 - 11 -
SECTION 31. ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES.
In the event litigation or other proceeding is required to enforce or interpret any provision
of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation or other proceeding shall be entitled to
an award of reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses, in addition to any other relief to
which it may be entitled.
SECTION 32. ENTIRE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement, including the attached Exhibits "A" through "C", is the entire, complete,
final and exclusive expression of the parties with respect to the matters addressed therein and
supersedes all other Agreements or understandings, whether oral or written, or entered into
between Consultant and City prior to the execution of this Agreement. No statements,
representations or other Agreements, whether oral or written, made by any party which are not
embodied herein shall be valid and binding. No amendment to this Agreement shall be valid and
binding unless in writing duly executed by the parties or their authorized representatives.
SECTION 33. SEVERABILITY.
If any term, condition or covenant of this Agreement is declared or determined by any
court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of
this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and the Agreement shall be read and construed
without the invalid, void or unenforceable provision(s).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date
and year first -above written.
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Lo
ATTEST:
Peggy Kuo
City Clerk
RN #4822-7830-0520 v1 -12-
Jose Pulido, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM
By:
Eric S. Vail
City Attorney
C
Its:
I:
Its:
NOTE: CONSULTANT'S SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND
APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS MAY BE
REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR
OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO DEVELOPER'S
BUSINESS ENTITY.
RN 44822-78304520 vl -13-
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
On before me, , personally appeared , proved to me on
the is of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature:
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
❑ INDIVIDUAL
❑ CORPORATE OFFICER
TITLE(S)
❑
PARTNER(S) ❑ LIMITED
❑ GENERAL
❑
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
❑
TRUSTEE(S)
❑
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
❑
OTHER
SIGNER
IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
RN #4822-78304520 vl
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES
INy YSLOTH101iZfl7]Tu Kin
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
On before me,
personally appeared
❑ personally known to me - OR - ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose
names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capachy(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon
behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(SIGNATURE OF NOTARY)
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
❑ INDIVIDUAL
❑ CORPORATE OFFICER
TITLE(S)
❑
PARTNER(S) ❑ LIMITED
❑ GENERAL
❑
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
❑
TRUSTEE(S)
❑
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
❑
OTHER
SIGNER
IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
RIV 44822-7830-4520 V1
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
Exhibit "A"
Scope and Deliverables
CONSULTANT will provide the following services and deliverables based on the 5 key
steps of the Priority Based Budgeting process:
Determine Results
Specific deliverables for this Phase include:
• Conduct a Results "Validation' workshop to confirm that the organization's
current Results are complete, and provide an opportunity to address any
Results that may not have been identified
• Based on input from the workshop, work with City staff to develop and finalize
the City's identified Results (including the Governance Results) to serve as
the basis for evaluation in the Priority Based Budgeting process.
2. Clarify Results Definition
Specific deliverables for this Phase include:
• Results Mapping Exercise, with department heads to clearly define and
articulate the "meaning" of the City's Results to internal as well as external
stakeholders, thus providing a "roadmap" that guides the City in the direction
of results -oriented resource allocation and decision-making
• Facilitate a collaborative work session to establish a "Governance Result" to
support the prioritization of internally focused programs (i.e. Finance, Legal,
Human Resources, Information Technology, etc.).
• Develop "Result Maps" for each of the identified Results for approval by
elected officials and/or staff, leveraging any work already completed to
articulate the associated definitions ("sub -results' for each of the stated
Results.
• City validates Result Maps
3. Identify Ongoing Programs and Services
Specific deliverables for this Phase include:
• Facilitating a workshop to help department heads and other identified staff
gain a better understanding of how to define and identity the individual
programs and services that are offered by each individual department and to
provide guidance in distinguishing between a task (too small to be considered
a program) and .a department/division (oftentimes too large to be considered
a program).
• Sharing an illustrative listing of program examples gathered from other
organizations that have worked with CPBB to use in developing and/or
refining its own "Program Inventory'.
• Providing worksheets, feedback and coaching in support of the City's overall
efforts in developing individual department's "Program Inventory" listings.
• Facilitating a workshop to help department heads and other identified staff
gain a better understanding of how to utilize CPBB's "Program Costing Tool'
to determine program costs
• Developing individualized department and/or division "Program Costing Tool'
templates to assist in the determination of program costs and associated FTE
needed to provide the program; effectively "flipping' your line item budget to a
program budget.
• Provide guidance and coaching to department heads, division directors,
managers and/or supervisors to train them on techniques and methodologies
used in calculating program costs (including direct and indirect costs) and
identifying the number of staff associated with each program offered through
the use of the Program Costing Tool.
4. Value Ongoing Programs Based on Results
Specific deliverables for this Phase Include:
• Evaluate and determine the degree to which those programs and services
contribute to the achievement of the identified Results (Program Scoring
and Peer Review Process)
o Prioritize those services which highly achieve those identified Results
as compared with those programs that are less of a priority in terms of
their impact on Results
o Validate and align resource allocation decisions with the most valued
and highly prioritized programs and services offered
• Facilitate a discussion to identify Basic Program Attributes with the Executive
Team to coach them through the process of deciding "what characteristics
would make a program a high priority?" "Basic Program Attributes" are
defined as additional program characteristics that influence the priority of a
program, beyond the program's ability to influence Results.
• Develop and create "Program Scorecards" that facilitate the City's effort to
score programs based on the program's influence on Results and on the
identified Basic Program Attributes.
• Conduct a workshop (either .onsite or through a webinar) for department
heads, division directors, managers and/or supervisors to train them on the
program scoring process.
• Develop and support the Peer Review process to engage the City's internal
stakeholders (and potentially external stakeholders) in evaluating program
scores, interviewing program managers to hear evidence to justify program
scores, and then recommending program score adjustments where
appropriate.
• Evaluate the City's efforts in performance management and performance
measurement to leverage existing measures in the process of justifying
program scores — linking performance management and measurement to
program scoring, and thus tying these measures into the budget process.
• Develop and create templates related to the Priority Based Budgeting
process that assists in facilitating the calculation of the organization's total
budget by quartile ranking (the summation of program costs by quartile
ranking).
5. Deliver "Resource Alignment Diagnostic Tool"
Specific deliverables for this Phase include:
• Provide the City with the Center's unique and interactive Resource
Alignment Diagnostic Tool that will guide all resource allocation
calculations based on the prioritization of programs and the amount of
revenue available (allowing allocations to be summarized by Fund, by
Departments, etc.)
Provide staff with the ability to efficiently analyze programs by way of the
filtering capabilities of the Resource Alignment Diagnostic Tool, creating
unique perspectives on the City's programs including, but not limited to, the
following:
- Direct- versus- indirect costs for services
- Programs supported by specific user -fees - versus - those funded
through general government revenues
- Stringently mandated services - versus - programs without any
legislative requirement
- Programs that citizens depend exclusively on the organization to
provide - versus - programs offered by other entities in the
community (private, non-profit, etc)
- Programs that highly achieve one or more of the organization's stated
Results - versus - those programs that do not help to achieve any of
those Results.
Provide training on using the Resource Alignment Diagnostic Tool that will
offer a "new perspective' on the programs offered by the City, allowing for
better analysis and leading to more powerful and meaningful discussions that
address questions including, but not limited to:
- What services are truly mandated to be provided by the organization,
and how much does it cost to fulfill those mandates?
- What programs are most appropriate to consider a discussion about
establishing or increasing user -fees?
- What programs are most appropriate for discussions about
partnerships with other service providers in the community?
- What services might the organization consider "getting out of the
business of providing?
- Where are there apparent duplications in services offered across the
organization that might lead to a meaningful efficiency discussion?
- How can succession planning be incorporated to focus on training
staff providing lower priority programs to fill the positions left vacant in
higher priority programs?
Provide a high level interpretive analysis of the data available in the
Resource Alignment Diagnostic Tool and identifying opportunity areas for
discussion related to programs and their continued relevance to the City.
EXHIBIT "B"
INSURANCE
A. Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall provide and maintain insurance,
acceptable to the City Manager or City Counsel, in full force and effect throughout the term of
this Agreement, against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise
from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by Consultant, its agents,
representatives or employees. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's
rating of no less than AXII. Consultant shall provide the following scope and limits of
insurance:
1. Minimum Scone of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain professional
liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant's profession. This coverage may be written on a
"claims made" basis, and must include coverage for contractual liability. The professional
liability insurance required by this Agreement must be endorsed to be applicable to claims based
upon, arising out of or related to services performed under this Agreement. The insurance must
be maintained for at least 3 consecutive years following the completion of Consultant's services
or the termination of this Agreement. During this additional 3 -year period, Consultant shall
annually and upon request of the City submit written evidence of this continuous coverage.
2. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits of
professional liability insurance no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.
B. Other Provisions. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall be
endorsed and state the coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled by the insurer or either
party to this Agreement, reduced in coverage or in limits except after 30 days' prior written notice
by Certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to City.
C. Other Requirements. Consultant agrees to deposit with City, at or before the
effective date of this contract, certificates of insurance necessary to satisfy City that the insurance
provisions of this contract have been complied with. The City Attorney may require that
Consultant furnish City with copies of original endorsements effecting coverage required by this
Section. The certificates and endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that
insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. City reserves the right to inspect complete, certified
copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
1. Consultant shall furnish certificates and endorsements from each
subcontractor identical to those Consultant provides.
2. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and
approved by City. At the option of City, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such
deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects City or its respective elected or appointed
RN 44822-7830-4520 v1
C-11
officers, officials, employees and volunteers or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing
payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, defense expenses and claims.
3. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance shall not be
construed to limit Consultant's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions
and requirements of this Agreement.
RN 84822-7830-4520 v I
C-12
/,Ylil AGIMMIA I:1021 M 0.1
C
CENTER FOR
PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING
Using a Unique Lens to Focus Community Resources on Results
Achieving Fiscal Health and Wellness
through
PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING
A Proposal for
The City of Temple City, California
Center for Priority Based Budgeting
720 S. Colorado Blvd., Suite 1000-N
Denver, CO 80426-1926
SIPIRB Z
Executive Summary
"Challenges facing local governments today literally requires a new way to see. It's
c _= as if our vision has been blurred by the extraordinary stress of managing in this
complex economic environment. Whether attempting to rebuild in a post -recession
climate, or persevering through another year of stagnating or declining revenues, the
_ challenge remains: how to allocate scarce resources to achieve our community's
highest priorities. Through the new lens of Fiscal Health and Wellness through
Priority Based Budgeting, which provides powerful insights, local governments are
making significant breakthroughs."
Jon Johnson and Chris Fabian, Seeing Things Differently, Public Management (PM) Magazine, 2012
The Center for Priority Based Budgeting is extremely pleased to provide this proposal in response to the
City of Temple City's request for advisory, analytical and facilitation assistance in the development and
implementation of a Priority Based Budgeting (PBB) process. We believe that our unique and timely
results -based approach to resource allocation addresses the needs of local governments everywhere as
they struggle to deal with unprecedented budgetary constraints as well as strive to achieve long-term
financial sustainability.
' `
While serving as local government practitioners, ; �J
' iz
CPBB co-founders Jon Johnson and Chris Fabian =
developed the process and tools needed to Evolution of Budgeting
successfully implement this approach to Priority
Based Budgeting. We created this process to
address our belief that there needed to be a
methodology that would link the stated
strategic priorities that an organization
strives to
accomplish with the way resource allocation
decisions are made through the budget process. Line -'>-Un• incremental Zern Based Beeulta Based Priur;ty BaSed
Budgeting Budgeting Budgeting Budgeting Budgeting
Because of its specific relevance to local governments Eamsmog
needing to address their immediate short-term
budgetary distress, our Priority Based Budgeting process has gained nationwide recognition and has
been promoted by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), the Government
Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and the Alliance for Innovation.
In 2012, the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) recognized Fiscal Health and
Wellness through Priority Based Budgeting as a leading practice for local governments. Seeing that the
results of this process have helped over forty -plus (40+) communities from across the nation find a
common approach in their pursuit of results -oriented resource allocation has been overwhelmingly
rewarding. Having ICMA declare this work as a leading practice, encouraging every local government to
move toward the achievement and implementation of Priority Based Budgeting furthers the purpose
and mission of CPBB for the future.
In collaboration with GFOA, we were honored to co-author "Anatomv of a Prioritv Based Budget
Process", a white paper published by GFOA in 2011, which establishes and documents a step-by-step
methodology for any organization to successfully implement Priority Based Budgeting. This white -paper
S PIRB 3
relied heavily on our experiences and the lessons learned from the pioneering
organizations we assisted from 2009 through 2010 as they implemented this unique
and innovative process. Since that time, we have significantly enhanced the process
even further, incorporating citizen engagement strategies, addressing succession
planning, and assisting in the framing of labor negotiations.
In the forty -plus (40+) local governments that CPBB has provided advisory leadership in
the implementation of Fiscal Health and Wellness through Priority Based Budgeting,
we have seen that this process not only provide a way in which an organization can -- s
make better short-term resource allocation decisions based on the relative priority of
the various programs and services it offers, but also provide a new way to link budget decisions to the
strategic results and outcomes that the organization wishes to achieve for the long-term. Furthermore,
our "Resource Alignment Diagnostic TOOT" is truly unlike anything previously available to local
governments, providing (as the City Manager of Fairfield, California coined the phrase) "a new and
unique lens" on how government spending is aligned with priorities.
The following proposal was developed with the understanding that this project would begin in the
August/ September 2013 timeframe and that the final "Resource Alignment Diagnostic Tool" would be
completed by December 2013 / January 2014 in order to integrate directly in to the City's Strategic
Planning process and further assist the City in the development of its fiscal year (2014-15) Budget.
Conceptually, the following graphic depicts the approach to this process:
Department Engagement City Council and Department Engagement
City Council Engagement Identify Programs
Community Input Process Score programs, Peer Review and
Quantify Program Information
Public Program Services Weighted Rating Redirect Resources
With the delivery of the "Resource Alignment Diagnostic Toor, the City of Temple City will be ready to
engage in new and unique conversations as the information gathered during the Priority Based
OSPRB 4
Budgeting process is utilized to better inform and validate the City's budget decisions, as well as
demonstrate how this process might be used to engage the community in future budget cycles.
The City of Temple City is approaching Priority Based Budgeting with the objective of integrating it into
a robust Strategic Planning initiative. This will be one of the most in-depth efforts to "operationalize" the
outcomes of PBB into day-to-day work plan of staff, perhaps ever endeavored. Given the work that the
City has already accomplished by way of identifying Results that can be directly leveraged and the
conversations we've been fortunate to have with you to better understand process expectations and
timing, the total proposed budget for this project is $36,500.00. The City has also stated an intention to
take on components of implementation to potentially reduce the overall budget for the process; CPBB
will work with the City to explore all options in this approach.
It is gratifying and rewarding for CPBB to be able to offer its assistance to the City of Temple City. CPBB
very much respects the work that you have already accomplished and the vision you have in bringing
this leading practice to your organization. It will be an honor and a pleasure to work with you to help it
achieve all the benefits and outcomes of our Fiscal Health and Wellness through Priority Based
Budgeting process, which we believe will lead local governments to more open, transparent and
sustainable decision-making for years to come.
Best Regards,
JO -VV Jo4t.wy0-0-/ C A• 4 f4r..z•
Center for Priority Based Budgeting
Jon - 303-909-9052 or iiohnson(@obbcenter.or¢
Chris -303-520-1356 or cfa bia n (@ obbcenter.ore
Website - www.Dbbcenter.org
Scope of Implementation Services - Priority Based Budgeting
Fiscal trends and conditions, which are primarily beyond an organization's control, represent a reality
with which all local governments, school districts, special districts and non-profit entities must cope.
Addressing those fiscal realities while still meeting the objectives of the organization as well as the
expectations of its constituents represents the biggest challenge to any organization's long-term
sustainability.
Traditional responses to a financial crisis such as "across-the-board cuts,." employee furloughs, pay
freezes, selling assets, or mere cosmetic "accounting gimmicks" are typically not the most effective
treatments to turn to when trying to close an ongoing "gap" between ongoing revenues and ongoing
costs to provide programs and services. Local governments choosing to implement Fiscal Health and
Wellness as a treatment regimen are making substantial progress because they are doing the analytical
work required to more accurately diagnosis the reasons behind their fiscal issues and then determining
the best treatments that lead to a viable cure.
Fiscal Health can only be achieved by properly diagnosing the symptoms and causes of your
organization's budget issues, allowing you to "prescribe" the correct treatments that can alleviate your
fiscal distress. Applying the wrong treatment will not "cure what ails you" and may even make matters
worse. Once your organization is fiscally healthy, it can then become financially sustainable in the long
term by implementing a Fiscal Wellness regimen that revolves around the principles of Priority Based
Budgeting. Through this process, Jon Johnson and Chris Fabian have already helped dozens of local
governments achieve Fiscal Health and Wellness in this tough and unprecedented economic climate.
Additionally, by implementing Priority Based Budgeting, cities and counties alike have now found a way
to link their strategic goals and objectives with the budget process and with their performance
measurements.
Fiscal Health and Wellness through Priority Based Budgeting, is an objective and transparent decision-
making process, one that ensures programs of higher value - those that achieve an organization's
objectives most effectively — can be sustained through adequate funding levels regardless of the fiscal
crisis "du jour." Regardless of whether there are more resources to distribute or less, Priority Based
Budgeting leads decision -makers away from the traditional "across the board" reduction mentality and
guides them towards allocating available resources to those programs most highly valued by the
organization and the community it serves.
The creative, organic, and diagnostic process developed by the Center for Priority Based Budgeting
(CPBB) progresses from a diagnosis to a prescription that ultimately enables communities to link funding
decisions to their avowed priorities. The processes also bring together local government managers,
finance officers, elected officials, civic leaders, and community stakeholders to make decisions that
better align the community's resources with what the community and its leaders value the most.
Through this unique results -based resource allocation process, organizations successfully:
• Identify and define the strategic Results that their organization seeks to achieve to meet community
expectations
SPRB 6
" I f d e s i r e d , p r o v i d e a f r a m e w o r k f o r i n v o l v e m e n t o f c o m m u n i t y s t a k e h o l d e r s i n v a l i d a t i n g a n d / o r
h e l p i n g t o d e f i n e t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s R e s u l t s
" D e v e l o p a c o m p r e h e n s i v e l i s t o f p r o g r a m s a n d s e r v i c e s o f f e r e d b y t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d i d e n t i f y t h e
c o s t s o f t h o s e s e r v i c e s
" E v a l u a t e a n d d e t e r m i n e t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h o s e p r o g r a m s a n d s e r v i c e s c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e
a c h i e v e m e n t o f t h e i d e n t i f i e d R e s u l t s
" P r i o r i t i z e p r o g r a m s t h a t h i g h l y a c h i e v e t h o s e i d e n t i f i e d R e s u l t s a s c o m p a r e d w i t h p r o g r a m s t h a t a r e
l e s s o f a p r i o r i t y i n t e r m s o f t h e i r i m p a c t o n R e s u l t s
" A l i g n r e s o u r c e a l l o c a t i o n d e c i s i o n s w i t h h i g h e r p r i o r i t y p r o g r a m s
" P r o v i d e a " n e w l e n s " t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n c a n c l e a r l y s e e w h e r e o p p o r t u n i t i e s e x i s t t o
r e f o c u s a t t e n t i o n o n p r o g r a m s t h a t a r e o f t h e h i g h e s t p r i o r i t y t o t h e c o m m u n i t y a n d s h i f t r e s o u r c e s
a w a y f r o m t h o s e p r o g r a m s t h a t a r e n o t h i g h l y r e l e v a n t i n t e r m s o f a c h i e v i n g t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s
R e s u l t s f o r t h e c o m m u n i t y
" L e a d t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f m e a s u r e s a n d m e t r i c s t h a t d e m o n s t r a t e h o w a
p r o g r a m a c h i e v e s t h e i d e n t i f i e d R e s u l t s
T h e m e t h o d o l o g y a n d a p p r o a c h i n v o l v e d i n t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f C P B B ' s u n i q u e a n d i n n o v a t i v e
a p p r o a c h t o P r i o r i t y B a s e d B u d g e t i n g ( P B B ) a r e a s f o l l o w s :
S t e p 1 ) D E T E R M I N E R E S U L T S - a c c u r a t e p r i o r i t i z a t i o n o f p r o g r a m s , r e f l e c t i n g t h e
o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s s t a t e d p u r p o s e , d e p e n d s o n t h e c o m p r e h e n s i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e R e s u l t s i t
e x i s t s t o a c h i e v e .
R e s u l t s h e l p t o i d e n t i f y t h e v e r y f u n d a m e n t a l r e a s o n s t h a t a l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t e x i s t s a r t i c u l a t i n g a l l t h e
w a y s i t s e r v e s t h e n e e d s o f t h e c o m m u n i t y ( a s o p p o s e d t o a l i s t o f s p e c i f i c p r o j e c t s o r i n i t i a t i v e s t h a t
n e e d t o b e c o n s i d e r e d d u r i n g t h e n e x t b u d g e t c y c l e ) . T h e y a r e m e a n t t o a n s w e r t h e q u e s t i o n , " W h a t a r e
w e , a s a n o r g a n i z a t i o n , i n b u s i n e s s t o d o ? " R e s u l t s a r e m o r e o v e r a r c h i n g i n n a t u r e a n d w i l l " s t a n d t h e
t e s t o f t i m e , " a s o p p o s e d t o m o r e s h o r t - t e r m n e e d s o r t a s k s t h a t n o r m a l l y h a v e a t a r g e t e d " f i n i s h - l i n e . "
F i n a l l y , R e s u l t s a r e t r u l y u n i q u e t o y o u r c o m m u n i t y , i n t h a t t h e y a t t e m p t t o r e p r e s e n t w h y y o u r l o c a l
g o v e r n m e n t e x i s t s a n d w h y i t o f f e r s t h e t y p e s o f u n i q u e s e r v i c e s i t d o e s t o t h e c o m m u n i t y .
A s R e s u l t s a r e d e v e l o p e d , t h e r e i s a d i s t i n c t i o n m a d e .
b e t w e e n " C o m m u n i t y - o r i e n t e d R e s u l t s " , w h i c h h e l p d e f i n e
w h y c e r t a i n p r o g r a m s a r e o f f e r e d d i r e c t l y t o t h e
c o m m u n i t y , a n d " G o v e r n a n c e - o r i e n t e d R e s u l t s " , w h i c h
h e l p d e f i n e w h y i n t e r n a l l y f o c u s e d p r o g r a m s a r e o f f e r e d b y
v a r i o u s s u p p o r t f u n c t i o n s s u c h a s F i n a n c e , H u m a n
R e s o u r c e s , a n d I n f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y . T h r o u g h i t s
r e s e a r c h a n d w o r k w i t h o t h e r l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t s , C P B B h a s
f o u n d i t i m p e r a t i v e i n a c h i e v i n g t h e b e s t o u t c o m e s f r o m i t s
P r i o r i t y B a s e d B u d g e t i n g p r o c e s s t h a t a n o r g a n i z a t i o n
d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n " C o m m u n i t y P r o g r a m s " ( i . e . p r o g r a m s
t h a t d i r e c t l y s e r v e t h e c o m m u n i t y ) a n d " G o v e r n a n c e
f S P I R B
Programs" (i.e. programs that are more internal in nature and generally support the administration,
elected officials and departments within the organization). In order to understand the relevance of
Governance Programs, we need to evaluate them against different Results than Community Programs,
because Governance Programs exist within the organization for fundamentally different reasons than do
the Community Programs. Even though the scoring criteria might be different for each of these two
types of programs, the process allows you to ultimately look at all offered programs from an overall City-
wide perspective in the eventual program prioritization array.
The main deliverable for Step 1 includes the identification of Results for both "Community focused"
programs and "Governance focused" programs, against which programs and services can be validated to
establish priorities for the City as the PBB process unfolds.
It appears that the City of Temple City has established a starting place for Results that can be leveraged
for use in the PBB process. From the City's work in identifying Results, CPBB will recommend that the
City go through a "validation" process, rather than developing Results from scratch.
CPBB will help the City of Temple City validate its Results by:
• Leveraging the Vision, Mission and Strategy development efforts already completed by the City
as it works to articulate the City's stated Results for the purposes of program prioritization
• Conducting a "Results Validation" exercise to confirm that the City's current Results are
complete, and provide an opportunity to address any Results that may not have been identified
• Assisting in distinguishing those Results from more specific (and short-term) objectives, tasks,
and projects, for the purposes of facilitating program prioritization.
Step 21 Clarify Result Definitions - precision in Priority Based Budgeting depends on the
clear articulation of the cause and effect relationship between a program and a defined
Result. With clearly defined "Result Maps," detailing the factors that influence the Results the
City is in business to achieve, it can seek to minimize subjectivity in the process of linking
those Results to programs or services offered to the community.
CPBB will lead the City's elected officials, Executive/Leadership Team; Budget staff, department heads,
management staff and/or community stakeholders (if desired) through a facilitated exercise to develop
comprehensive definitions for the City's Results that were identified as outlined in Step 1. Participants in
the "brainstorming" exercise will contribute by expressing all of the many ways that the City's Results
can be achieved, with CPBB then organizing all of those answers into similarly themed groups that form
the basis for each of the Result Definitions. The technique is called Affinity Diagramming - a proven and
powerful method that: a) gathers large and comprehensive amounts of information about all of the
different ways the City's Results can be defined, and b) does so in an extremely efficient manner that
makes the most optimal use of the participant's time while still producing complete definitions.
These pictures demonstrate the CPBB "Strategy Mapping" workshop with
the City of Sacramento, California
Following the exercise, CPBB will produce draft "Result Maps"
for each of the City's stated Results. These "Result Maps"
provide a simple, graphic way to organize and articulate the
concepts identified in the facilitated exercise as the
definitions around each Result. "Result Maps" serve as one of
the key criteria for program scoring, which will take place in
Step 4 outlined below.
CPBB prides itself on its ability to train organizations it has
worked with on the Affinity Diagramming approach. Staff will
not only participate in the development of the City's "Result
Maps", but will also be trained so that they may conduct their
own "Result Mapping" sessions when facilitating their own
"brainstorming" sessions involving staff or citizens.
Specifically, CPBB will help the City of Temple City clarify Result Definitions by:
Utilizing the proven "Result Mapping" exercise, CPBB will facilitate a workshop with the City's
Budget Team, administrative staff, department heads and/or other identified stakeholders to
define outcomes and objectives relative to each Result. The process uses affirmative inquiry and
open-ended questioning to garner a specific response that helps better define the City's Results.
(If desired, the workshop lends itself well to involving community stakeholders.)
• Leveraging information included in any of the City's existing strategic documents, vision
statements and/or mission statements to ensure that this work is incorporated in the
development of the Result Definitions.
• Facilitating a collaborative work session to establish "Governance" Results to support the
prioritization of internally focused programs (i.e. Finance, Legal, Human Resources, Information
Technology, etc.).
• Developing "Result Maps" for each of the determined Results for review and approval by staff
and/or elected officials.
• Summarizing the responses provided during the "Result Mapping" exercise to capture the
entirety of ideas offered by the participants.
• Facilitating, if desired, a process with elected officials, Administrative staff, Department Heads,
and/or other internal or external stakeholders to "weight" the relative importance of the City's
stated Results, which establishes the Result weighting factors utilized in the calculation of
program scores. This is another effective exercise proven to engage community stakeholders in
the process of validating the organization's Result Definitions.
This graphic illustrates a "Result Map"from the City of Boulder,. Colorado that clearly defines their Result of
achieving a 'Safe Community."
Encourages an lnclvsive
mnmpnhr cat is
accepting, connected and
pmshared
responsibility
Pmmetas envlronmentel
safety entl community
heahh
Pravrdes sere and wet!-
.a,,Wrwdpub)b
inhastructum
Safe Community
�a
Plans for andprevides
Nmelyantl efiecdve
mspanse to emergencies
and natural disasters
F.,.e d cNmafe orsdrdty
for/ndivlduals In homes,
businesses, nelghborhppds
entl public places
Eefwces the Iaw, taMng
Into account the needs or
IndlNduals andcpmmualty
calves
Step 3) Identify Ongoing Programs and Services - differentiating programs and services
offered by the City to the community, as opposed to drawing only a comparison between
each of the individual departments that provide services to the community, builds a common
understanding of exactly what the entire City offers to its constituents and leads to a more
effective means of making discrete resource allocation decisions through the Priority Based
Budgeting process.
One of the key objectives that the City will achieve with this process is the identification of programs
and services it offers, as well as the cost for these programs. The "Program Inventory' will clarify the
breadth of services provided by your City, and highlight key characteristics of each program (e.g., the full
cost of providing the program and level of revenues that program directly generates to support its
operations). The "Program Inventory" is a tremendously valuable tool in and of itself but also serves as
the basis for discussion of prioritizing resources — programs are prioritized based on their influence on
Results (which will be the focus of Steps 4 and 5).
Many cities attempt to "prioritize" their spending by comparing one department or division against
another rather than determining which of the typically hundreds of programs and services offered
across the organization are more highly valued than others. By developing a comprehensive list of
programs offered by the City and identifying the costs of those services, your City will be able to better
understand at a more discrete level what programs it provides and how much it costs to provide them.
CPBB founders wrote the guidelines for developing a "Program Inventory", as published by the
Government Finance Officers' Association (GFOA) white paper on Priority Based Budgeting, entitled
"Anatomy of a Priority Based Budgeting Process" (GFOA, 2011). These guidelines form the basis for
CPBB's work with an organization in developing a "Program Inventory". Critical to this process is finding
the right level of detail when identifying discrete programs. If a program is too big or encompasses too
much, it will not provide sufficient perspective and information — that is, it will be very difficult to
describe the precise value the program creates, or to use program cost information in decision making.
However, if program definitions are too small, decision makers can become overwhelmed with detail
and be unable to see the big picture. CPBB will work with your City to establish the right level of
discretion in the creation of "Program Inventories".
If your City already has a head start in developing a "Program Inventory" or estimating program costs,
that information can be directly leveraged as part of this effort. As part of its work, CPBB will conduct a
more comprehensive review of your City's listing of programs and offer additional comments and
guidance with respect to specific programs identified. The City will be provided an illustrative listing of
program examples gathered from other organizations that have worked with CPBB for its review and
use in refinement of its own "Program Inventory".. This will provide your City with the assurance that it
has developed a complete and comprehensive listing of all activities at a level discrete enough to offer
the full benefit of the PBB process. CPBB will also evaluate the "Program Inventory" listing to ensure
that it reflects only programs and services of an ongoing nature as opposed to one-time initiatives or
capital -related projects.
With respect to identifying costs for each of the programs identified, CPBB will provide a workshop and
provide templates in order to train staff on how to derive these program costs, as well as serve as a
resource to staff in providing assistance in the estimation of these costs. CPBB will provide guidance and
coaching that will offer your City techniques and methodologies used in calculating indirect and direct
49 PIRB 11
Individual elements of the Priority Based Budgeting approach can actually be valuable, in and of
themselves. Getting to a program level understanding of "what you do," and a transparent and
accurate understanding of "how much it costs" to provide those programs is a critical ingredient for
understanding what options you have as an organization to change what you're currently doing.
Furthermore, the only way to get to the answer of questions like "can we provide this program more
efficiently," or "are we the best source to offer this service," or "are we truly recovering the direct
AND indirect costs for providing this service" requires a more complete understanding of what the
program "is" and how much it costs.
Besides being useful for Priority Based Budgeting, you'll have a Tool that:
• allows you to evaluate established or potential fees, rates and charges on a program -by -
program basis;
• allows you to compare your organization with other public or private sector providers to
help evaluate the efficiency or appropriate sourcing of your programs;
• allows departments to gain a better understanding and more clearly communicate, at a
program level, what they do and how much it costs;
• allows you to clearly see how your workforce is associated with programs (i.e. - what are
staff spending their time doing);
• and ultimately allows you to transition your approach to budget development from "line -
item budgeting" to "program budgeting" - a key breakthrough!
4Y M Wl�rt IiNp.C.air�M
�arr��awrr�rwntr.�
rMwu rteiwsw mT'�a/.�ca�..wyn
Specifically, CPBB will help the City of Temple City develop an effective "Program Inventory' listing and
determine program costs by:
• Facilitating a workshop to help department heads and other identified staff gain a better
understanding of how to define and identity the individual programs and services that are
offered by each individual department and to provide guidance in distinguishing between a task
(too small to be considered a program) and a department/division (oftentimes too large to be
considered a program).
• Sharing an illustrative listing of program examples gathered from other organizations that have
worked with CPBB to use in developing and/or refining its own "Program Inventory'.
• Providing worksheets, feedback and coaching in support of the City's overall efforts in
developing individual department's "Program Inventory" listings.
• Facilitating a workshop to help department heads and other identified staff gain a better
understanding of how to utilize CPBB's "Program Costing Tool" to determine program costs
• Developing individualized department and/or division "Program Costing Tool" templates to
assist in the determination of program costs and associated FTE needed to provide the program;
effectively flipping" your line item budget to a program budget.
• Providing guidance and coaching to department heads, division directors, managers and/or
supervisors to train them on techniques and methodologies used in calculating program costs
(including direct and indirect costs) and identifying the number of staff associated with each
program offered (if desired).
Step 4) Value Ongoing Programs Based on Results - with the right Results, and with clear
definitions of those Results, the City of Temple City is now ready to more accurately place a
value on individual programs (and potentially one-time initiatives) relative to its influence on
achieving the City's stated Results.
In evaluating programs through the scoring phase, it is essential to give departments the first
opportunity to score their own programs, relative to the City's Results and demonstrate why they
believe their programs are influential in achieving those Results. This gives departments the chance to
provide their own unique intelligence on their own programs that no one else but the program
providers would have known. Not only does this help solidify organizational buy -in but at the same time
provides a more thorough and complete understanding about everything the City does and how those
programs help achieve the identified Results (i.e. "why' we offer the program).
The Peer Review phase then provides for an authentication process to validate (and question) the
department's belief that their programs are indeed relevant to your City's Results. Several organizations
have commented that, unlike other more conventional approaches to performance measures, Peer
Review provides a forum for a far better discussion that leads to a clearer understanding of how
programs truly influence Results. Furthermore, departments gain a City-wide perspective about
programs being offered across the organization, which has led to uncovering program redundancies.
This step in the process has also led to cross -departmental collaboration, as departments discover that
they provide similar programs to other departments. Additionally, this process has contributed to a
change in the organizational culture as departments are tasked with the duty of objectively analyzing
programs that aren't their own (i.e. a 'fury of their peers").
OPRB 13
The effect of Peer Review has been remarkable, not only for the purposes of PBB, but for bringing an
organization together to look at the programs they offer in the context of how they collectively achieve
the Results that the community finds meaningful. In a sense, Peer Review begins to break down the old
departmental "silos" and lets staff see the world from a more global perspective. Ultimately, it is
through this step that more accurate program scores emerge, that a better understanding of programs
is developed, and an assurance that the outcome of the entire process is objective and valid. For the
long-term, this phase in the process sparks the discussion of how to determine what measure, metric or
"key indicator" will substantiate the fact that a program's desired outcome is achieving that objective.
Specifically, CPBB will help the City of Temple City value programs based on their stated Results by:
• Developing and creating individual department "Program Scorecards" that facilitate the City's
effort to score programs based on the program's influence on Results and on the identified
"Basic Program Attributes".
• Conducting a workshop for department heads, division directors, managers and/or supervisors
to train them on the program scoring process.
• Facilitating a discussion to identify "Basic Program Attributes" to help the City determine "what
characteristics would make a program a high priority?" "Basic Program Attributes" are defined
as additional program characteristics that influence the priority of a program, beyond the
program's ability to influence Results.
• Assisting the organization with the development of Peer Review Teams to ensure they are
cross -functional in nature and maintain the level of objectivity needed to make this phase of the
process successful. This is another part of the process where including external stakeholders
from the community is a potential area of interest.
• Providing coaching and support to the Peer Review Teams in the evaluation of program scores,
encouraging them to interview program managers to hear evidence that justify assigned
program scores, and then in recommending program score adjustments where appropriate.
• Evaluating the City's efforts in performance management and performance measurement to
leverage existing measures in the process of justifying program scores — linking performance
management and measurement to program scoring, and thus tying these measures into the
budget process.
• Accumulating the information provided through the program scoring and peer review phases
into a "Master Program Scorecard"
• Developing a "Peer Review Exception Report" to identify the impact of changes to the
department's initial program score made by the Peer Review Teams.
• If desired, coaching the City on how to utilize a similar process in evaluating significant capital
projects and other one-time initiatives to determine which of these are of the highest priority in
terms of accomplishing the City's overall Results.
J&P RB 14
Step 5) Allocate Resources Based on Priorities —ultimately, the Results identified and
defined by the City and the programs that achieve those Results become clearly articulated in
the budget through a process in which resource allocation decisions are linked to the
prioritization of those individual programs and services.
Once programs have been scored against the Results and a relative value determined, the entire list of
the City's offered services can be arranged in order of "highest priority" (those programs most relevant
in achieving the City's stated Results) to "lowest priority" (those programs that are less relevant in
achieving those Results). The programs are then grouped into four"Quartiles" based on the similarity of
the scoring ranges, with Quartile 1 representing those programs of the highest priority and Quartile 4
including those programs of the lowest priority.
Individual costs are then associated with each program in order to develop a final "Spending Array by
Quartile." CPBB takes this information and develops a customized "Resource Alignment Diagnostic
Tool" that can be utilized by the City in 1) assessing its spending profile in terms of aligning resources
with identified priorities; 2) developing "target budgets" for departments based on their individual
prioritized spending profile and 3) analyzing programs using the "Resource Alignment Diagnostic Tool's"
unique filtering capabilities.
This graphic depiction from the City of Cincinnati, Ohio of its "Resource Alignment Diagnostic Tool"
helps illustrate how the Results of an City's Priority Based Budgeting work can be used to derive
EveryCity Pragrnm
City-wide
Nl OeyaRments and0ivisians
0 Total Estimated Budget
Priority Based Budgeting: Spending Arrdy Pe(Wecb.es
= i z
.2y
i I SII$.M4,51e
I
I
I
I
3 15146145875
�
i "MM
$10"Xim
$1 Am $MUM0.0
$2K"I,MO 5300.0'p.IXn $35 ,M
departmental resource allocation "targets." With the "Resource Alignment Diagnostic Tool," the City
has a "unique lens" through which to view its programs, not only in terms of their relevance to Results,
but also in light of mandates, fee structures, citizens' reliance and community partnerships.
OIPIBB 15
This unique lens allows staff to efficiently analyze programs and gain insights into areas such as:
• Programs supported by specific user fees VS. those funded through general government
revenues (taxes)
• Stringently mandated services VS. programs without any legislative requirement
• Programs that the community depends exclusively upon the local government to provide VS.
programs offered by other entities in the community (private, non-profit, etc.)
• Programs that highly achieve one or more of the local government's stated Results VS. those
programs that do not help to achieve any of those Results.
• Direct VS. indirect costs for services (potentially, if desired)
In addition, the "Resource Alignment Diagnostic Tool" provides staff and the City's City Council
members with a way to engage in more powerful and meaningful discussions that address questions
such as:
What services are truly mandated to be provided by the local government, and how much does it
cost to fulfill those mandates?
What programs are most appropriate to consider a discussion about establishing or increasing
user fees?
What programs are most appropriate for discussions about partnerships with other service
providers in the community?
• What services might the City consider "getting out of" the business of providing altogether?
Where are there apparent duplications in services offered across the organization that might
lead to a meaningful efficiency discussion?
• How can succession planning be incorporated to focus on training staff providing lower priority
programs to fill the positions left vacant in higher priority programs?
Specifically, CPBB will help the City of Temple City develop a resource allocation methodology based on
priorities by:
• Calculating final program scores and developing the quartile rankings for all the City's programs
and services based on their relative score.
• Calculating and applying the "weighting factor' to each Result as determined by the responses
from the "Results Weighting Exercise" (if desired).
• Associating program costs and associated FTE counts with the scored programs to develop a
final calculation of the City's total budget by quartile ranking (the 'Spending Array by Quartile" —
a summation of program costs by quartile ranking).
• Providing the City with an interactive "Resource Alignment Diagnostic Tool" that will guide all
resource allocation calculations based on the prioritization of programs (allowing allocations to
be summarized by Fund,. by Departments, etc.)
• Training staff on how to use the "Resource Alignment Diagnostic Tool" to provide them with
both the ability to efficiently analyze programs by way of the filtering capabilities of the
"Resource Alignment Diagnostic Tool," creating unique perspectives on the City's programs as
OFBIB 16
outlined in the discussion above, and to gain a new perspective on the programs offered by the
City, allowing for better analysis and leading to more powerful and meaningful discussions.
• Offering guidance in using the "Resource Alignment Diagnostic Toor' to identify which of the
City's highly relevant programs should be evaluated in terms of effectiveness and efficiency and
how to use the Priority Based Budgeting process to continuously refine performance metrics to
ensure the identified Results are being achieved.
• Providing a high level interpretive analysis of the data available in the "Resource Alignment
Diagnostic Toor' and identifying opportunity areas for discussion related to programs and their
continued relevance to the City.
• Recommending ways to incorporate PBB into the City's budget development process as well as
providing "Budget Transmittal Form" templates to guide departments in communicating their
recommended program level budgets within the context of PBB and to demonstrate the
allocation of general government resources is being focused on higher -priority programs. (if
desired)
9PRB 17
Implementation Plan and Approach to Pricing
Once the start date for the project is confirmed, CPBB will develop an implementation timeline that
normally spans a four to five month time period in which it can guide the City of Temple City through
the Priority Based Budgeting process. This time frame might vary slightly depending on the level of
citizen engagement that might be desired OR the amount of information that might already be in place
before the work begins. Typically, CPBB works with staff to ensure that the process concludes before
the City's normal budget development process begins. Once the process is in place and ready to be
utilized for the upcoming budget cycle, CPBB remains available for questions, guidance and general
advisory assistance until the City completes its' budget process.
While the duration of the implementation process is anticipated to span several months, the actual
workload placed on staff in the City is by no means of a "day -to -daffy' nature. The timeline allows for
staff to manage their own internal workload and still participate effectively in the process. This timeline
also provides for the scheduling of workshops, team meetings and the tasks performed off-site by CPBB
in the development of the various templates used as well as the final "Resource Alignment Diagnostic
Tool." Having experienced processes that burdened organizations with more intense time requirements
and having been practitioners in a local government environment ourselves, CPBB has specifically
designed this process to require staff to devote manageable amounts of time along the way as each step
is completed.
CPBB's commitment as a mission -driven entity is to make this process available and affordable to any
organization that wishes to receive the benefits it can provide. The necessary budget for any
organization will depend on the size of the organization and the amount of work that has already been
started before CPBB is engaged. Typically the budget required for the full implementation of Priority
Based Budgeting, exclusive of travel related expenses, is between $38,500 and $50,000. However, we
pride ourselves in being flexible and reasonable as we engage in conversations with organizations about
the implementation process and will work with you in negotiating costs.
Given the work that has already been accomplished and can be leveraged for this implementation the
total proposed budget for this project with the City of Temple City is $36,500.00. Travel costs will be
billed separately on an occurrence basis and will include airfare, lodging, ground transportation (rental
car, fuel, taxi service); airport parking and a modest per diem ($60 per day). CPBB agrees to work
cooperatively with you to reduce travel costs to the greatest extent possible while still meeting the
requirements specified in this proposal.
The City of Temple City may be asked and should be prepared to provide certain office supply items for
use in onsite workshops such as paper, markers, white boards, and other needs as requested by CPBB.
These items are estimated to cost no more than $300.
The quotation of fees and compensation shall remain firm for a period of 120 days from the submission
of this proposal.
SIPIBIB 18
Company Credentials
The Center for Priority Based Budgeting, formed in 2010 by Jon Johnson and Chris Fabian, prides itself
in providing creative solutions to local governments struggling to address their own fiscal realities. Our
mission is to share our experience and technical knowledge of government financial operations and
budget development with organizations that are seeking to achieve Fiscal Health and Wellness that is
sustainable for the long-term. Above all, CPBB strives to be viewed as a trusted advisor and a
dependable, objective resource that assists local governments who are seeking service excellence,
transparency to their stakeholders and a strong desire to achieve the Results that are important to their
community. In particular, our experience in dealing with finance -related issues combined with our
backgrounds in performance measurement, achievement of efficiencies, and genuine community
engagement, makes the Center for Priority Based Budgeting a truly unique and beneficial partner in
dealing with fiscal issues and budgetary concerns, especially in these unprecedented and turbulent
times.
Prior to the creation of CPBB, Jon and Chris worked as independent local government advisors during
2009 after leaving their positions with Jefferson County, Colorado. During that time they were
associated with the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) as consulting contractors
as well as serving as trainers and speakers for the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and
the Alliance for Innovation. Before becoming local government advisors, Jon served local governments
as a finance/budget practitioner for over 28 years, while Chris served as both a local government budget
professional and a management consultant to government organizations, specializing in outcomes -
based budgeting initiatives.
The Center for Priority Based Budgeting, a mission -driven organization, is located at 720 S. Colorado
Blvd., Suite 1000-N, Denver, Colorado, 80246, proudly offers its services in helping local government
organizations address their fiscal realities both in the short-term and long-term through a new and
creative process that is actively being implemented across the country. These "hands-on" practitioners
have developed the Fiscal Health and Wellness process to help cities counties; school districts, special
districts and non-profit agencies find the answers to the most relevant questions of the day:
How do we "stop the bleeding" and properly diagnose our fiscal issues in order to apply the
proper treatments?"
• How can our organization "spend within its means?"
• How do we allocate scarce resources to "top priority" programs?
• How can we link our budget with our strategic goals/objectives and then "measure" their
performance?
• How does our organization head down a path of long-term 'financial sustainability?"
CPBB offers the professional expertise, analytical skills and diagnostic tools needed to help your
jurisdiction turn these tough times around. For the short-term we can provide you with the tools and
techniques you need to assess and monitor your organization's "picture of Fiscal Health". For the long-
term, we can assist your organization in clearly defining its goals and objectives and lead you in a
process that prioritizes your spending to align with these goals. Our objective is to help you:
• Diagnose the root cause of your fiscal problems
• Identify effective treatment options
SPIBB 19
" E s t a b l i s h c l e a r l y d e f i n e d g o a l s f o r y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n
" P r i o r i t i z e r e s o u r c e a l l o c a t i o n t o y o u r m o s t v a l u a b l e p r o g r a m s a n d s e r v i c e s
" E n g a g e t h e c o m m u n i t y i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h a t t h e y h i g h l y v a l u e a n d e x p e c t
" P r o v i d e d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s w i t h b e t t e r i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e i m p a c t s o f t h e i r d e c i s i o n s
" D e v e l o p t h e t o o l s y o u n e e d t o s e e t h i n g s m o r e c l e a r l y t h r o u g h a " n e w l e n s ' w i t h o u r u n i q u e
" F i s c a l H e a l t h D i a g n o s t i c T o o l " a n d o u r " R e s o u r c e A l i g n m e n t D i a g n o s t i c T o o l "
T h e C e n t e r f o r P r i o r i t y B a s e d B u d g e t i n g o f f e r s e v e r a l l e v e l s o f s e r v i c e s t o m e e t t h e i n d i v i d u a l n e e d s o f
y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n a s i t a d d r e s s e s i t s s h o r t - t e r m a n d l o n g - t e r m f i s c a l c o n c e r n s . T h e s e f l e x i b l e a n d
a t t a i n a b l e a p p r o a c h e s c a n b e t a i l o r e d t o w o r k w i t h a n y l e v e l o f e n g a g e m e n t y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n i s r e a d y
t o e m b a r k u p o n . J o n a n d C h r i s a r e a v a i l a b l e t o t a l k t h r o u g h t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e a p p r o a c h e s a n d f i n d t h e
b e s t o n e t h a t m e e t s y o u r p a r t i c u l a r n e e d s w i t h t h e m a i n o b j e c t i v e b e i n g t o f i n d t h e b e s t w a y t o a s s i s t
y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n i n d e a l i n g w i t h i t s f i s c a l s t r e s s a n d r e a c h i n g a s t a b l e a n d s u s t a i n a b l e l e v e l o f F i s c a l
H e a l t h a n d W e l l n e s s .
A m o n g t h e w i d e r a n g e o f s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e t h r o u g h t h e
C e n t e r f o r P r i o r i t y B a s e d B u d g e t i n g :
- d . P r i o r i t y B a s e d B u d g e t i n g P r o c e s s I m p l e m e n t a t i o n
" R e s o u r c e A l i g n m e n t D i a g n o s t i c T o o l " D e v e l o p m e n t
- m �� F i s c a l H e a l t h D i a g n o s t i c A s s e s s m e n t s
a �� " F i s c a l H e a l t h D i a g n o s t i c T o o l " D e v e l o p m e n t
��k U t i l i t y R a t e M o d e l i n g ( u s i n g o u r " F i s c a l H e a l t h D i a g n o s t i c T o o l " )
4 - F a c i l i t a t e d G o a l - S e t t i n g / S t r a t e g i c P l a n n i n g R e t r e a t s a n d W o r k s h o p s I
C i t i z e n E n g a g e m e n t F a c i l i t a t i o n
_ - 4 i 6 F i s c a l H e a l t h a n d W e l l n e s s W o r k s h o p s
4 �� F i n a n c i a l P o l i c y D e v e l o p m e n t
R e v e n u e F o r e c a s t i n g S u p p o r t
- m L R e v e n u e M a n u a l a n d P r o g r a m I n v e n t o r y D e v e l o p m e n t
4 1 , C a p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t P l a n ( C I P ) D e v e l o p m e n t a n d P r i o r i t i z a t i o n
4 I n t e r n a l S e r v i c e F u n d A n a l y s i s a n d D e v e l o p m e n t
V P r o g r a m C o s t i n g S u p p o r t ( d i r e c t , i n d i r e c t a n d o v e r h e a d c o m p o n e n t s ) -
P l V P l e a s e v i s i t o u r w e b s i t e : w w w . P b b c e n t e r . o r a
S P I B S 2 0
The CPBB Team
JON JOHNSON
Jon is the co-founder of the Center for Priority Based Budgeting, a Denver-based organization whose
mission is to help local governments achieve `fiscal health and wellness" during these challenging
economic times. Jon has more than 28 years of experience as a practitioner in financial administration
for municipalities, counties, school districts and public universities. Throughout his career as a
finance/budget director, he has been responsible for the management of all aspects of local government
finance operations for both small and large organizations. Jon brings with him not only the "hands-on"
technical skills associated with the day-to-day financial operations of local governments, but also the
ability to apply a diagnostic approach to the analysis needed to assess the fiscal health of an
organization and the management experience to implement the resulting solutions from that diagnostic
analysis.
Most recently, Jon served as the Director of Budget and Management Analysis for Jefferson County,
Colorado. Previous to that position, he was Assistant Director of Finance for Douglas County, Colorado.
Prior to moving to Colorado in 2002, Jon served as the Director of Finance for several municipalities in
Missouri, including the City of Blue Springs, the City of Joplin, and the City of Kansas City (MO) Aviation
Department. He has also been associated with ICMA as a Senior Management Advisor and with GFOA as
a regional trainer and workshop presenter. Jon holds a B.A. in political science and a B.S. in accounting
from Missouri Southern State University, as well as a master's degree in College Administration from
Pittsburg (KS) State University.
CHRIS FABIAN
Chris co-founded the Center for Priority Based Budgeting, a mission -driven firm located in Denver, CO,
which is dedicated to assisting local governments address their fiscal reality in an entirely new way.
During his career, Chris has provided consulting and advisory services to numerous local governments
across the country. His consulting experience has focused on public entities at all levels, advising top
municipal managers, department heads and program directors from over 60 organizations concerning
the fundamental business issues of local government. Of most significance, his work has centered on
the budget process as a lever to produce results, accountability and change; performance and outcome -
based management; purpose, productivity, and efficiency in operations; and rigorous financial analysis
and strategy. Pursing the objectives of Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO), Chris was a partner of the
consulting team that implemented BFO in Ft. Collins, Colorado, one of the leading organizations using
this approach and is now assisting with their conversion to the priority based budgeting model he
developed in partnership with Jon.
Most recently Chris has served as a budget practitioner with Jefferson County, Colorado, where he
incorporated the lessons learned from BFO into the development of the Priority Based Budgeting
process. He holds a B.S. in engineering from the Colorado School of Mines.
G PIBIB 21
Jon and Chris have been featured speakers at numerous national and regional conferences webinars, and
workshops sponsored by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), the National
League of Cities (NLC), the National Association of Counties (NACo), the Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA), and the Alliance for Innovation as well as numerous state and regional organizations
such as the Municipal Managers Association of Southern California (MMASC), the Municipal Managers
Association of Northern California (MMANC), the Virginia Local Government Managers Association
(VLGMA) the Tennessee Municipal League (TML), the Colorado Government Finance Officers Association
(CGFOA), the Oregon Emerging Local Government Leaders and the Senior Executive Institute at the
University of Virginia (SEI). They have co-authored several articles describing their approach to Fiscal
Health and Wellness through Priority Based Budgeting for local governments including:
• "Gettina Your Priorities Straiaht" published by ICMA in the June 2008 issue of PM Magazine
• "Leadina the Wav to Fiscal Health" published by Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
in their December 2008 issue of the Government Finance Review
• "It's All in the Questions: The Manaaer's Role in Achievina Fiscal Health" a two-part article
appearing in the September and October 2009 issues of PM Magazine
• 'Anatomv of a Prioritv Based Budaet Process." co-authored with Shayne Kavanagh of GFOA,
published in the May, 2010 issue of the Government Finance Review
• "Anatomv of a Prioritv Based Budaet Process." a white paper on "Priority Based Budgeting" as
a best practice, published by GFOA in March 2011, co-authored with Shayne Kavanagh
• "Seeing Things Differently," published by ICMA in the September 2012 issue of PM Magazine
S P R B 22
Who's Looking through the "Unique Lens"_?
The Priority Based Budgeting process was first developed by Jon Johnson and Chris Fabian for Jefferson
County, Colorado, where both of them served prior to April, 2009. After publishing an article in ICMA's
professional journal "Public Management" ("PM) magazine, Jon and Chris were contacted by several
organizations seeking assistance in implementing their Fiscal Health and Wellness through Priority Based
Budgeting initiative. We are honored to be working with some of the most notable local governments in
the country to implement and integrate our process and have learned so much because of the work we
have accomplished together. Non-profit associations such as the International City/County Management
Association (ICMA), the Alliance for Innovation, the National League of Cities (NLC), the Government
Finance Officers Association (GFOA), and the Institute for Local Government (ILG) in California are among
the most prominent organizations endorsing Priority Based Budgeting as a best practice — publishing case
studies, journal articles and hosting seminars and conferences to promote the accomplishment of cities
and counties implementing this work. Among those local governments that have worked with Jon and
Chris to introduce Priority Based Budgeting to their organization are:
• ARIZONA -
Chandler (2 years); Queen Creek
• CALIFORNIA-
Walnut Creek (3) ; San Jose (3); Sacramento (2) ; Monterey (2);
Salinas, Seaside; Fairfield; Placentia; Mission Viejo
• CANADA-
Edmonton; Alberta Ministry of Health
• COLORADO -
Boulder (3); Longmont (3); Fort Collins (2); Wheat Ridge (2);
Thornton; Manitou Springs; Victor; Mountain View Fire Protection District;
Denver International Airport; Dillon Valley Water/Sewer District
• FLORIDA-
Lakeland (3); Delray Beach (2); Plantation; Pasco County
• IDAHO-
Post Falls
• ILLINOIS-
Boone County
• KANSAS-
Shawnee
• MISSOURI -
Branson
• MONTANA-
Billings
• NEBRASKA-
Grand Island (3)
• NEW MEXICO-
San Juan County
• NEVADA-
Douglas County (2)
• N. CAROLINA
Cary
• OHIO -
Blue Ash; Cincinnati
• OREGON-
Springfield, Tualatin
• PENNSYLVANIA-
Lehigh County
• TEXAS-
Plano (2); Southlake
• VIRGINIA -
Chesapeake (2); Christiansburg
• WYOMING
Green River
The following examples of engagements with local government entities are meant to be illustrative
of the types of advisory services offered by CPBB. While we pride ourselves in tailoring the process
to the needs of each organization, the work done with all of our organizations is of a similar nature.
Based on the number of local governments that have introduced our process into their culture, we
feel we have the technical and creative skill set to work with any entity that wishes to embrace the
concepts of Priority Based Budgeting.
61PIRB 23
Project Anticipating significant budget shortfalls–even before the national recession unfolded –the
Scope City of Walnut Creek began exploring in the summer of 2008 a variety of ways to achieve a
balanced budget for 2010-12 and beyond.
CPBB's project scope was described in a memo to staff: "The process first identifies and
defines community Goals; and then scores city programs based on their ability to achieve
those Goals. Council, staff and the community each play a specific and important role in the
prioritization process. Figuring out together what should change as resources shrink reflects
the City's mission of working in partnership with the community." The City outlined the
following notes on the process:
Involves both the community and the staff in the process in an appropriate way.
The Council as representatives of the community should set the overall goals for
what we try to achieve—it's their appropriate role—and involving the community at
large is part of our way of doing business. Staff knows the programs best—which are
mandated, which generate revenue, which increase efficiency, etc. Figuring out
together what should change as resources shrink makes sense.
It's a positive process, not a negative one. The community process focuses on
determining what's most important from a high level, value -based perspective that
focuses on common ground and identifying what folks like and want most. It doesn't
ask them what programs should be cut which instantly brings out defensiveness and
competition. From staff perspective, the process provokes discussion of and learning
about programs and activities in a deeper way designed to weaken silo -thinking.
The prioritization process is just a tool not something magic. It's not intended to cut
of all the 4th quartile programs nor leave all the 1st quartile programs untouched. The
process has helped us, all of us, have conversations about the how and the why of
programs, services and activities in a new and very effective way. But it's not a
machine that spits out automatic decisions made without tempering by experience
and judgment.
The process is useful both when making reductions and when deciding where to
allocate new revenues. This is not a one time investment of time and energy into a
new process. This is a new way to make sure we're spending community resources
in ways that match community priorities.
And lastly, we believe the prioritization process is a good fit for the "new normal"
that we face. The shortfalls between our revenues and our expenses that we have
been dealing with for many years, and most dramatically in the last two, are not
likely to subside. As we look ahead, a permanent reset back to revenues of 10 years
ago or more are what we see. Neither uniform across the board cuts nor major
influxes of one-time funds are suited to address the new situation in which we find
ourselves.
CONTACT: Ms. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager
925-943-5899 or TinfoWCa)walnut-creek.oro
24
Project The City of Boulder engaged CPBB in November, 2009 to assist them with the
Scope implementation of a Priority Based Budgeting process in order:
• To establish the core goals results and/or objectives (the "results') of the City of Boulder
and its citizens and also to articulate them to external as well as internal stakeholders, thus
providing a "roadmap" to determine that decisions made are leading the City in the
direction of Prioritization;
• To implement a holistic process that will align strategic planning with resource allocation
decisions (i.e., the budget process) as well as performance measurement and management;
• To provide a process by which programs and services offered by the City can be evaluated
in order to identify those areas that are of the highest priority in terms of accomplishing the
City's overall results;
• To provide a process by which significant capital and other one-time expenditures for the
foreseeable future can be evaluated in order to identify those projects and initiatives that
are of the highest priority in terms of accomplishing the City's overall results; and
• To undertake a strategic process that will achieve the identified results
Now entering its fourth budget cycle using the Priority Based Budgeting process, the City of
Boulder continues to work with the CPBB in using this process to link resource allocation
decisions with their strategic goals and objectives.
CONTACT: Mr. Bob Eichem, Chief Financial Officer
303-441-1819 or Eichemb(@bouldercolorado.¢ov
25
Project "We have cut millions of dollars out of the City budget over the last two years, and there really
Scope isn't anything left to cut that won't be painful for our residents and our employees," said Cit
Manager Fred Meurer. "That is why we have worked diligently this year to get the all of our
stakeholders involved in the priority -based budgeting process."
In 2010, the City of Monterey engaged staff and residents in a priority -based budgeting process
to determine how to best address reduced revenues and a five million dollar budget gap. Rather
than make across the board cuts, the city brought in The Centerfor Priority Based Budgeting to
help them engage staff and residents in transparently crafting a budget linked to results and
values most important to the community. The city hired CPBB because of the proven and
refined process for aligning city resources and services with community values that had been
implemented successfully in neighbouring California communities. Residents were asked to
further define broad goals set by the City Council, and then to prioritize how they wanted their
tax dollars spent to achieve those goals.
According to "Strong Cities, Strong State," a California think-tank:
"Using a mathematical model developed by consultants with the Center for Priority -based
budgeting, the priorities given to specific City programs were considered by executives and
the City Council during budget deliberations. The Monterey City Council adopted a balanced
2011-2012 budget and closed a $5 million gap between expenses and revenues with public
support and a more informed citizenry.
"The success of the program encouraged the City to continue its commitment to priority -based
budgeting. During the current fiscal year, the program focuses internally as departments analyze
their programs, staffing and costs. Next year, the City will once again reach out to its citizens for
feedback through a comprehensive community survey. Ultimately, the City hopes its new
approach to budgeting will monitor the performance of individual programs, help set fees more
accurately, and assist in decision-making about where to invest and / or withdraw City
resources."
CONTACT: Mr. Don Rhoads, Director of Finance
831-646-3940 or rhoads(a)ci.monterev.ca.us
SIPIBIB 26
Project Scope Confronted with the'new normal' of flat or declining revenues, spiraling health care and
pension costs, and persistent structural imbalances, the City of Cincinnati chose Priority
Based Budgeting an alternative to the traditional incremental budgeting approach that
automatically makes this year's budget the basis for next year's spending plan.
Council approved the administration's recommendation to hire the Center for Priority
Based Budgeting (Center for PBB) to help with the intensive citizen engagement that
drives the new approach. According to Council: "Priority -driven budgeting offers a
common-sense, strategic alternative to conventional budgeting. It creates a fundamental
change in the way resources are allocated by using a collaborative, evidence -based
approach to measure services against community priorities. By bringing together
community leaders and citizens to determine strategic priorities, the city can align
resources with what the community values most, and create service efficiencies and
innovation."
For 2013, the City faces a projected $34.0 million budget deficit for the General Fund
Operating Budget and will need to cut spending and increase revenues to fill this need.
CONTACT.., Ms. Lea Eriksen, Director of Budget
513-352-1578 or lea.eriksen(@cincinnati-oh.eov
SIRRB 27
Additionally, the following individuals may also be contacted for more information about the
implementation of the Priority Based Budgeting model in their communities:
• City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado— Ms. Heather Geyer, Administrative Services Director at
303-235-2826, or hgeyer@ci.wheatridge.co.us
• Douglas County, Nevada — Mr. Stephen Mokrohisky, County Manager at 775-782-9821
or smokrohisky@co.douglas.nv.us or Ms. Christine Vuletich at 775-782-9097 or
cvuletich@co.douglas.nv.us
• City of Fort Collins, Colorado — Mr. Darin Atteberry, City Manager at 970-221-6505 or
datteberry@fcgov.com
• Town of Cary, North Carolina— Mr. Scott Fogleman, Budget Director at 919-462-3911 or
Scott. Fo al e m a n Ptownofca rv. o re
• City of Chandler, Arizona — Ms. Dawn Lang, Management Services Director at 480-782-
2255 or Dawn. Lang(@chandleraz.eov
• City of Edmonton, Alberta — Mr. Todd Burge, Branch Manager, Client Financial Services
at 780-423-1362 or todd.burge@edmonton.ca or Ms. Jodie Buksa, Director of Financial
Strategies and Budgeting Planning at 780-5342 or jodie.buksa@edmonton.ca
• City of Shawnee, Kansas — Ms. Carol Gonzales, City Manager at 913-742-6200 or
cRonzalesCa)ci.shawnee.ks.us
• City of Sacramento, California — Ms. Leyne Milstein, Director of Finance at 916-808-
8491, or LMilstein(@citvofsacramento.ore
• City of Billings, Montana — Ms. Tina Volek, City Administrator at 406-657-8430 or
VolekCCaci.billin¢s.mt.us
• City of Blue Ash, Ohio — Mr. David Waltz, City Manager at 513-745-8538 or
DWaltz@BlueAsh.com, or Ms. Kelly Harrington, Assistant City Manager at 513-745-8503
or kharrington@blueash.com
• City of Seaside, California — Ms. Daphne Hodgson, Deputy City Manager at 831-899-
6718 or dhodeson(r)ci.seaside.ca.us
• City of Plano, Texas — Ms. Karen Rhodes -Whitley, Finance Director at 972-941-7472 or
Ka re n r(d) o la no.aov
• City of San Jose, California — Ms. Kim Walesh, Chief Strategist at 408-535-8177 or
Kim.Walesh@sanjoseca.gov
49PRB 28
... and What have they seen!
"Councilmen Larry Carney and Scott Dugan praised Pederson and Brown for the prioritization process.
They called it a logical and understandable method of making some difficult decisions to come."
- Grand Island (Nebraska) Independent Newspaper
Using ROI for City Budgeting: Business Planning Meets Government Spending - the city of Boulder is
going about this full spectrum analysis of the highest ROI where "return on investment' is the return of
City programs on the results our citizens expect in the community.
- "Boulder Tomorrow"— Colorado Business Association on Priority Based Budgeting process
Budget process requires clear priorities, vision - By examining each of the 365 programs that are
directed out of City Hall, the administration, mayor and city council are looking under every rock for ways
to save taxpayer dollars and keep core services intact. It is a responsible and rational ways to control
expense growth on programs that may be well intended, but do not significantly support the community
in the four core areas.
- Grand Island (Nebraska) Independent Newspaper
"I read with both pleasure and envy the recent article on the city's (Grand Island) new Program
Prioritization process. Pleasure because a discerning approach like this is the type of focused decision-
making model that successful businesses use. I am glad to see its use in our city's governance. I am
envious because it is the type of approach the Unicameral is moving toward with our recently initiated
planning committee process. In this instance, the city of Grand Island is well ahead of the state of
Nebraska."
- Nebraska State Senator Mike Gloor on the Priority Based Budgeting Process
Walnut Creek, California, which must close a $20m (€14m, £12.5m) deficit for the 2010 financial year, is
polling citizens on what services they value most, so it can make targeted cuts. Lorie Tinfow, assistant
city manager, also expects the expansion of volunteer programs such as checking on the elderly at
home. "We are rethinking what services the city provides, what we are paying for them and what we are
expecting as American taxpayers to get for that dollar," Ms. Tinfow said.
- Financial Times, quoting Lorie Tinfow, City of Walnut Creek, California
The City of Monterey is launching a public review of its budget priorities this fall and your participation is
vital to the success of the Priority -based Budgeting project. In good times, the City allocated its
resources to a wide range of programs and services. Now, the City needs to adjust to "the new normal"
of reduced revenues. In Monterey, revenue from hotel, sales and property taxes have fallen to levels not
seen in years. Significant recovery is unlikely for the next several years. So, the City needs to tighten its
belt just like other municipalities, businesses and citizens have done.
- Press Release -City of Monterey, California
"The process is called Priority based Budgeting and it recasts the budget into programs instead of line
items."
- Monterey County (California) Herald Newspaper
@1PIBIB 29
The city of Boulder is looking to change the way it manages its annual budget. Under the new model, the
programs that best help the city achieve the community's goals of having a safe, economically
sustainable and socially vibrant place to live will receive top priority for funding. Those programs that
are duplicated, waste money or don't meet the community's goals could be cut.
Boulder (Colorado) Daily Camera Newspaper
"Although Boulder is in a better financial condition than many of its peer cities, the economic outlook
continues to be uncertain," said City Manager Jane Brautigam. "in response; we're taking a prudent and
strategic approach to the 2011 recommended budget by focusing on achieving greater efficiencies in
how services are delivered to the Boulder community. In many cases we have been able to reallocate
staff and funding to those areas most likely to achieve community goals, and are reducing duplication of
services to hold the line on spending at 2010 levels."
Boulder (Colorado) Daily Camera Newspaper
The new list divides the city's 443 programs into four categories, ranking them from highest to lowest
priority, based on whether they help meet the community's general goals of cultivating a safe,
economically sustainable and socially thriving community.
- Boulder (Colorado) Daily Camera Newspaper
With budgets getting tighter across the country, more cities are turning to Prioritization. "I just feel like
we need to begin to put proactive steps in place so we can prepare the organization for what is ahead,"
said William Harrell, City Manager. "Sure, we can just start eliminating things. But then is that what the
citizens are saying? Is that what council is saying to us? This is a more disciplined and analytical
approach. "
(Chesapeake) Virginia Pilot Newspaper
"It sounds intuitive but what we found was there was no real methodology to connect all of the things
that government does" to what policymakers want to see for their cities."
- (Chesapeake) Virginia Pilot Newspaper
Recent information from Moody's (the nation's largest bond rating agency) confirms that prioritization
processes such as what Blue Ash is going through demonstrate a strategic approach to managing the
current fiscal environment. So where do we go from here? The local government advisors developed a
unique tool that Blue Ash can utilize for years to come as a part of the city's annual budgetary planning
process. This tool will be valuable in assisting the council and administration in determining what
services and programs contribute directly to the city's overall objectives, including the evaluation of any
future new programs or services being considered.
- Press Release - City of Blue Ash, Ohio
Even cities with a relatively well-off population are facing difficult choices due to falling revenues. In the
eastern San Francisco bay area city of Walnut Creek, as in many other cities around the state, local
officials faced the unpleasant task of cutting programs in 2009 due to budget shortfalls, and the more
unpleasant task of explaining this to the public. Building on an ongoing tradition of collaboration with
residents and community building programs, city staff and officials worked with consultants and
adopted a multi -stage public engagement Fiscal Health and Wellness prioritization process to educate
and gather informed input from hundreds of residents.
- Institute for Local Government on Priority Based Budgeting process
J&PIB B 30
"PBB is attractive to the City because it relies on community input and the work of employees to be
successful. In contrast to past years, decisions on potential funding reductions are expected to occur at
the program level rather than at the level of individual budget line items that run across multiple
programs. The results of this process are anticipated to enable decision makers to reallocate funding
between programs based upon changing needs and priorities."
- Internal Memo -City of Fairfield, California
San Jose Outcomes of Prioritization Approach:
• Increased connection of budget to City's Priority Results
• Stakeholder engagement in program priorities
• Rationale for reducing or eliminating programs that have the least impact on achieving the City's
Priority Results
- City Manager's Budget Message, City of San lose, California
The Program Prioritization effort will inform the development of the City's 2010-2011 Proposed Budget
and serve as a tool to identify potential service reductions and eliminations. The evaluation of programs
as part of this process may also identify potential duplication of efforts or opportunities to consolidate
similar programs and/or services that can delivered through partnership with other governmental
agencies, non-profit agencies, or the private sector.
It is important to note that a high rating of a program will not guarantee that a program will be retained;
nor does it guarantee that a lower -ranking program will be proposed for elimination. Also, the rankings
do not reflect whether a program is being delivered in the most efficient manner. The prioritization
process will provide valuable information for budget proposal development and City Council
deliberation. It will not be the 'only answer" to how best to rectify the City's budget shortfall.
- City Manager's Budget Message, City of San lose, California
This document contains proprietary and confidential information of Chris Fabian and Jon Johnson d/b/a the Center
for Priority Based Budgeting and cannot be used without their express written consent. Altering, copying,
distributing or reproducing any of these proprietary materials in whole or in part is expressly prohibited.
Copyright 02009 by Chris Fabian and Jon Johnson d/b/a the Center far Priority Based Budgeting.
SIR
IBB 31
ATTACHMENT "C"
CONTRACT NO,
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Cincinnati, Ohio, a municipal corporation,
with an address of 801 Plum Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (hereinafter referred to as "City") and National
Environmental Health Association, for the purposes of this Agreement d/b/a The Center for Priority Based
Budgeting, a non-profit corporation registered in the State of Colorado, with an address of 720 S. Colorado Blvd,
Suite 1000-N, Denver, Colorado, 80246 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant").
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2012, the City issued an RFP seeking a consultant to provide priority based
budgeting consulting services; and
WHEREAS, Consultant timely submitted a Proposal on February 15, 2012; and
WHEREAS, Consultant's Proposal was recommended by the Selection Committee as the "Most
Advantageous" on February 27, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City selected the Consultant from proposals received by following the guidelines of
Cincinnati Municipal Code, Section 321-51 through Section 321-65; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into an agreement with the Consultant to provide priority based
budgeting consulting services; and
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the promises, covenants and agreements herein
contained, the parties mutually agree as follows:
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Consultant shall, in a satisfactory and proper manner as determined by the City Manager of the City, perform
all the necessary services under this Agreement in connection with the provision of priority based budgeting
consulting services outlined by the Office of Budget R Evaluation in its Request for Proposals. The Consultant
shall perform the services as outlined in Exhibit A.
2. TERM
The services of the Consultant are to commence upon execution of this Agreement by both parties hereto, and
shall be completed by December 31, 2012.
3. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT
a. Compensation. Compensation shall be provided in an amount not to exceed One Hundred Thousand and
00/100 Dollars ($100,000), in accordance with the budget attached hereto, marked Exhibit B, Budget, and
Page 1
by this reference made a part hereof. In the event, the City and Consultant determine it is necessary to
amend the Budget, the City may do so administratively so long as the total amount stated in this
paragraph is not exceeded.
b. Method of Payment. The City shall make payment under this Agreement in accordance with the
payment schedule as established in Exhibit B. upon submission of a requisition for payment ( City Form
No. 37 - Claim Voucher/Invoice) specifying that the required services have been performed, accompanied
by data satisfactory to the City to document entitlement to payment. The requisition for payment shall
indicate the services or tasks performed, the hours to complete the task, and the date upon which each
task was completed. No later than sixty (60) days after the expiration or termination of this Agreement,
the Consultant shall submit to the City, in a form and manner acceptable to the Director of Budget &
Evaluation, vouchers for payments for all remaining payments or monies due under the terms of this
Agreement.
c. Prompt Payment System. This Agreement is subject to and the Consultant shall comply with the
provisions of Chapter 319 of the Cincinnati Municipal Code that provide for a Prompt Payment System.
4. SUBCONTRACTS, SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGNS
a. Subcontracts — The Consultant agrees that none of the work or services covered by this Agreement shall
be subcontracted without the prior written approval of the City. The City understands that the Consultant
will use the services of The Novak Consulting Group. The City approves the use of The Novak
Consulting Group. Any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be specified by written contract or
agreement and shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement.
b. Assignment —The Consultant shall not assignor transfer Consultant's interest in this Agreement without
the prior written consent of the City.
5. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PROGRAMS
a. Generally — The Consultant in the performance of services under this Agreement shall comply with all
applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, and rules of the Federal Govermnent, the State of Ohio, the
County of Hamilton, and the City of Cincinnati.
b. Equal Employment Opportunity Program - This Agreement is subject to the City's Equal
Employment Opportunity Program contained in Chapter 325 of the Cincinnati Municipal Code. Said
chapter is hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement.
c. Small Business Enterprise Program
i. This Agreement is subject to the provisions of the Small Business Enterprise Program
contained in Chapter 323 of the Cincinnati Municipal Code. Section 323-99 of the
Cincinnati Municipal Code is hereby incorporated into this Agreement.
ii. Details concerning this program can be obtained from the Office of Contract Compliance,
Two Centennial Plaza, 805 Central Avenue, Suite 234, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, (513)
352-3144.
iii. The Consultant shall utilize best efforts to recruit and maximize the participation of all
qualified segments of the business community in subcontracting work, including the
Page 2
utilization of small, minority, and women business enterprises. This includes the use of
practices such as assuring the inclusion of qualified Small Business Enterprises in bid
solicitation and dividing large contracts into small contracts when economically feasible.
d. Living Wage Provisions
This Agreement is subject to the Living Wage provisions of the Cincinnati Municipal Code. The
provisions require that, unless specific exemptions apply or a waiver is granted, all employers (as
defined) under service contracts shall provide payment of a minimum wage to employees (as
defined) of $11.08 per hour with health benefits (as defined) or otherwise $12.58 per hour. Such
rate shall be adjusted annually pursuant to the terms of the Municipal Code.
Under the Living Wage provisions, the City shall have the authority, under appropriate
circumstances, to terminate this Agreement and to seek other remedies.
6. CERTIFICATION AS TO NON -DEBARMENT
The Consultant certifies that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for
debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in the transaction covered by this
Agreement. The Consultant acknowledges and agrees that if he or it or its principals is/are presently debarred
then he/it shall not be entitled to compensation under this Agreement and that he/it shall promptly return to the
City any funds received pursuant to this Agreement. In such event, any materials received by the City pursuant to
this Agreement shall be retained as liquidated damages.
7. CONSULTANT'S INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
a. Workers' Compensation —The Consultant shall secure and maintain such insurance as will protect the
Consultant from claims under the Workers' Compensation Laws.
b. General Liability Insurance - The Consultant shall secure and maintain such general liability insurance
as will protect the Consultant from claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage which may arise
from the performance of the Consultant's services under this Agreement, with a combined single limit for
bodily injury and property damage liability of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence and
One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) in the aggregate. The City shall be named as an additional named
insured, and the policy shall contain a provision prohibiting the insurer from canceling any policy without
notifying the City in writing at least ninety (90) days prior to cancellation.
c. Errors And Omissions Insurance — The Consultant shall secure and maintain during the entire
Agreement period errors and omissions insurance with a combined single limit of One Million Dollars
($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a maximum deductible not to exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars
($25,000.00) for each occurrence.
d. Indemnification of the City - The Consultant shall indemnify, defend and save the City, its agents, and
employees harmless from and against any and all losses, damages, settlements, costs, charges, professional
fees, or other expenses or liabilities of every kind and character arising out of or relating to any and all
claims, liens, demands, obligations, actions, proceedings, or causes of action of every kind and character in
Page 3
connection with or arising directly or indirectly out of errors or omissions or negligent acts by the
Consultant including by the Consultant's employees and agents in the performance of this Agreement.
8. NON-PERFORMANCE
a. If through any cause, the Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under
this Agreement, or if the Consultant shall violate any of the covenants or agreements of this Agreement,
the City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the Consultant
specifying the effective date of the termination, at least five (5) days before such effective date. In such
event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, reports, and/or information prepared by the
Consultant under this Agreement shall, at the option of the City, become the City's property and the
Consultant shall be entitled to receive equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed at the
date of termination.
Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall not be relieved of liability to the City for damages
sustained by the City by virtue of the breach of this Agreement by the Consultant, and the City may
withhold payments to the Consultant for the proposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of
damages due the City from the Consultant is determined. Exceptions may be made by the City with
respect to defaults of subcontractors.
b. Any periodic payments from the City specified in this Agreement will be contingent upon performance of
contractual obligations to date, including the proper receipt of supporting receipts, invoices, reports,
statements, or any other supporting information as required by the City in this Agreement. Failure to
satisfactorily meet any one of the Agreement obligations by the Consultant may result in the City not
approving periodic payments to the Consultant and/or filing liens as may be necessary against the
Consultant's assets or future assets, until the Consultant satisfactorily fulfills its obligations under the
Agreement or satisfactorily reimburses the City for any prior payments. The City also reserves the right
to seek any other legal financial remedies as necessary pursuant to any damages the City may have
encountered through the Consultant's default on any of the Agreement obligations until all or part of the
City's prior payments have been recouped as the City deems appropriate but not to exceed the total
amount of any prior payments. The City also reserves the right in the event of non-performance of this
Agreement to prohibit any future or limited contractual relationships with the Consultant either directly or
indirectly.
If the Consultant terminates this Agreement after the work has begun, the City shall not be required to
compensate the Consultant for services/work not fully completed.
9. OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY
The Consultant agrees that at the expiration or in the event of any termination of this Agreement that any
Memoranda, Maps, Drawings, Working Papers, Reports, and other similar documents produced in connection
with this Agreement shall become the property of the City and the Consultant shall promptly deliver such items
to the City. The Consultant may retain copies for the Consultant's record. This excludes specialized software and
software models created and developed by the Consultant which contain trade secrets and proprietary information
Page 4
developed by the Consultant, which are protected by copyright. The Consultant hereby grants the City a non-
exclusive, non -transferable license ("License") to use such specialized software and software models at no
additional cost to the City. No title to, ownership interest in or proprietary rights over the software or related
materials are granted to the City by such License, and the software shall remain the Consultant's exclusive
property. The City agrees not to distribute, disclose or otherwise share the software or these models with any
other entity, individual, agency or private firm without the prior consent of the Consultant.
The materials used by the Consultant for work performed under this Agreement are specific and unique methods
of fiscal management and budget prioritization. As such, these materials are protected by copyright. The City
agrees and understands that these materials and all methods, models and applications resulting from the use of
said materials are the sole, complete and absolute property of the Consultant. As such, any use, future use or
application or any publication (either oral or written) of these materials by the City will be at the discretion of the
Consultant and in any event will not occur without the express and prior written permission of the Consultant.
All legal rights and protections afforded by copyright and the Consultant's ownership of all the underlying
intellectual property associated with these fiscal management and budget prioritization materials are retained and
reserved exclusively by the Consultant, reserving all legal rights and remedies incident to its ownership of these
materials. It is understood that the City may utilize these methods, models and applications for their own specific
use but are not free to share these methods, models and applications with other individuals or entities.
The parties acknowledge that City is governed by the Ohio Public Records Laws. Records (as defined by Ohio
Revised Code §§ 149.011 and 149.43) related to this Agreement may be subject to disclosure under the Ohio
Public Records Laws. The City shall have no duty to defend the rights of Consultant or any of its agents or
affiliates in any records requested to be disclosed. Upon receipt of a public records request, the City will notify
Consultant of its intent to release records to the requestor. Consultant shall have a maximum of five (5) business
days begimuing with the date it receives notification to respond to the City by either accommodating the requestor
or pursing legal remedies to stop the City's release of requested information. Said notification shall relieve the
City of any farther obligation under any claim of Consultant or any of its agents or affiliates in any j urisdiction in
connection with the disclosure of such records. Consultant and its agents and affiliates shall have the right to
pursue legal and/or equitable remedies to stop or limit disclosure at their sole expense.
10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
a. Employee Or Agent Of City — The Consultant agrees that no officer, employee, or agent of the City
who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and carrying out of the
program, nor any immediate family member, close business associate, or organization which is about to
employ any such person, shall have any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in the Consultant or
in this Agreement and the Consultant shall take appropriate steps to assure compliance with this
provision.
b. Subcontractors — The Consultant agrees that it will not contract with any subcontractor in which it has
any personal financial interest, direct or indirect. The Consultant further covenants that no person having
any conflicting interest shall be employed in the performance of this Agreement.
11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Page 5
The Consultant shall perform all work and services described herein as an independent contractor and not as an
officer, agent, servant, or employee of the City. The Consultant shall have exclusive control of and the exclusive
right to control the details of the services and work performed hereunder and all persons performing the same and
shall be solely responsible for the acts and omissions of its officers, agents, employees, contractors, and
subcontractors, if any. Nothing herein shall be construed as creating a partnership or joint venture between the
City and the Consultant. No person performing any of the work or services described hereunder shall be
considered an officer, agent, servant, or employee of the City, nor shall any such person be entitled to any
benefits available or granted to employees of the City.
12. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
a. Termination for Convenience of City. The City may terminate this Agreement by giving ninety (90)
days notice in writing from the City to the Consultant. If this Agreement is terminated by the City as
provided in this subsection, the Consultant will be paid an amount which bears the same ratio to the total
compensation as the services actually performed by the Consultant bear to the total services of the
Consultant covered by this Agreement, less payments previously made by the City to the Consultant.
b. Alternatives to Termination. In the event the Consultant fails to fulfill the terms and conditions of this
Agreement in a timely and diligent manner, the City reserves the right. at its sole option, as an alternative
to termination of the Agreement, to reduce the services required herein of the Consultant and reduce the
projected budget in a manner which reflects such a reduction, by giving notice of such in writing, stating
the date such reduction will become effective.
13. NOTICES
Service - This Agreement requires that all notices shall be personally served or sent by U.S. mail, postage
prepaid, addressed to the parties as follows:
i. To the City:
Office of Budget and Evaluation
Division of the City Manager's Office
City of Cincinnati
801 Plum Street, City Hall, Room 4142
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
ii. To the Consultant:
Jon Johnson
Principal and Senior Manager
Center for Priority Based Budgeting
720 S. Colorado Blvd., Suite 1000-N
Denver, CO 80246-1926
Page 6
14. WAIVER
This Agreement shall be construed in a manner that a waiver of any breach of any provision of this Agreement
shall not constitute or operate as a waiver of any other breach of such provision or of any other provisions, nor
shall any failure to enforce any provision hereof operate as a waiver of such provision or of any other provision.
15. LAW TO GOVERN
This Agreement is entered into and is to be performed in the State of Ohio. The City and the Consultant agree
that the law of the State of Ohio shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this
Agreement and shall govern the interpretation of this Agreement.
16. FORUM SELECTION
The Consultant and its successors and assigns acknowledge and agree that all state courts of record sitting in
Hamilton County, Ohio, shall be the exclusive forum for the filing, initiation. and prosecution of any suit or
proceeding arising from or out of, or relating to, this Agreement, or any amendment or attachment thereto,
including any duty owed by the Consultant to the City in connection therewith.
17. AMENDMENT
This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written contract duly executed by the parties hereto or
their representatives.
18. ENTIRETY
This Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto contain the entire contract between the parties as to the matters
contained herein. Any oral representations or modifications concerning this Agreement shall be of no force and
effect.
19. SEVERABILITY
This Agreement shall be severable, so if any part or parts of this Agreement shall for any reason be held invalid
or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, all remaining parts shall remain binding and in full force
and effect.
20. REPORTS, INFORMATION, AND AUDITS
The Consultant, at such time and in such form as the City may require, shall furnish the City such reports as may
be requested pertaining to the services undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, the costs and obligations incurred
or to be incurred in connection therewith, and any other matters covered by this Agreement. The Consultant shall
retain all financial and administrative records for a minimum of three years following completion of the
Agreement, and shall permit the City or any of its representatives or auditors access to such records.
21. PROPRIETARY MATERIALS
Page 7
The City of Cincinnati acknowledges that in the course of performing services, the Consultant may use products,
materials, or proprietary methodologies. The City of Cincinnati agrees that it shall have or obtained no rights in
such proprietary products, materials, and methodologies except pursuant to a separate written agreement executed
by the parties.
The Consultant acknowledges that in the course of performing services for the City of Cincinnati, the materials
and information obtained, used, and/or produced for the City of Cincinnati are the exclusive properties of the City
of Cincinnati and may not be disseminated in any manner without prior written approval of the City of
Cincinnati.
22. POLITICAL ACTIVITY PROHIBITED
This Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of the Partisan Political Activity Ordinance of the City of
Cincinnati Ordinance No. 358-1992.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has executed this Agreement on March , 2012, and the
Consultant has executed this Agreement on March , 2012.
National Environmental Health Association
d/b/a The Center for Priority Based Budgeting
By:
Print Name:
Its:
Date: 2012
and
By:
Print Name:
Its:
Date: .2012
RECOMMENDED BY:
Lea D. Eriksen
Budget Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM
City of Cincinnati
By:
Print Name: Milton Dohoney, Jr.
Its: City Manager
Date:
APPROVED FOR COMPLIANCE
Contract Compliance Officer
, 2012
Page 8
Assistant City Solicitor
CERTIFICATION OF FUNDS
Date:
Funding:
Amount:
Reginald Zeno, Finance Director
Page 9