Figure 1 Ratings of Current Financial Condition of Cities/Villages … · 2017. 6. 29. · Public...

20.8% 58.7% 18.6% 1.9%

Figure 1Ratings of Current

Financial Condition ofCities/Villages by Population Size

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Ade

quat

ere

venu

es/a

ble

tore

duce

taxe

s

Ade

quat

ere

venu

es/n

ot a

ble

toex

pand

ser

vice

s

Inad

equa

tere

venu

es/n

ot r

educ

ing

serv

ices

Inad

equa

tere

venu

es/r

educ

ing

serv

ices

Less than 1,000

1,000 - 4,999

5,000 or greater

16.6% 59.2% 18.6% 5.7%

Figure 2Rating of Financial Prospects

for Cities/Villages for the Next Five Years

by Population Size

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Ade

quat

e re

venu

es/a

ble

tore

duce

taxe

s

Ade

quat

e re

venu

es/n

ot a

ble

to e

xpan

d se

rvic

es

Inad

equa

te r

even

ues/

not

redu

cing

ser

vice

s

Inad

equa

tere

venu

es/r

educ

ing

serv

ices

Less than 1,000

1,000 - 4,999

5,000 or greater

Number of respondents = 350 409 421 365 391

Public Works

Municipal Employees

Other Methods

Municipal Employees

Other Methods

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Figure 3

Municipal Solid Waste

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Yard waste collection

Res. solid waste coll.

Recycling

Comm. solid waste coll.

Solid waste disposal

��

Private for Profit��

Number of respondents = 158 364 433 395 413 258

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Public Work sStreets

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Meter maintenance/collection

Street parking lot cleaning

Snowplowing/sanding

Street sweeping

Street re

pair/maintenance

Traffic signal in

stallation/maintenance

��


Figure 4

Number of respondents = 302 205 345

Number of respondents = 65 52 34 39

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Figure 6 Public Works Transportation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Parking lot garage operation

Airport operation

Bus system operation/maint

Para-transit s

ystem operation/maint

��


Municipal Employees

Other Methods

Municipal Employees

Other Methods

��

��

��

��

��

��

Figure 5Public Works

Other Functions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Inspection/code enforcement

Cemetery administration/maint

Tree trimming/planting

��

Private for Profit

��

Number of respondents = 273 226 367 357 392 452

50

Number of respondents = 452 382 297 360 175

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Figure 8Public Utilities

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Utility

billin

g

Utility

met

er re

ading

Sludge

disp

osal

Street

light

ope

ratio

n

Hazar

dous

mat

erial

s disp


ElectricitGas

Water Water Sewage Sewage

��

Municipal Employees

Other Methods

Municipal

Other

Figure 7 Public Utilities Electricity, Gas, Water & Sewer

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

Private for

Figure 9. Intergovernmental Cooperation in Public Works: Percent of Wisconsin Municipalities Responding that Other Units of Government Produce Service [Number of respondents with service produced by another unit of governmentand total number of respondents shown in parentheses after service category]

1%2%3%3%3%3%3%

6%6%

8%9%

11%13%

24%

0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Residential solid waste collection (0/409)Tree trimming/planting (4/345)

Yard waste collection (7/350)Meter maintenance/collection (4/158)Inspection/code enforcement (9/302)

Street parking lot cleaning (11/364)Parking lot garage operation (2/65)

Commercial solid waste collection (12/365)Street repair/maintenance (25/413)

Snowplowing sanding (28/433)Street sweeping (30/395)

Cemetery admin./maintenance (18/205)Recycling (45/421)

Solid waste disposal (52/391)Traffic signal installation/maintenance (61/258)

Figure 10. Intergovernmental Cooperation in Public Utilities -- Percent of Wisconsin Municipalities Responding that Other Units of Government Produce Service [Number of respondents with service produced by another unit of government and total number of respondents shown in parentheses after service category]

2%

3%

3%

6%

6%

7%

9%

10%

12%

14%

47%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Utility billing (8/452)

Water distribution (10/367)

Utility meter reading (11/382)

Water treatment (20/357)

Sewage collection (23/392)

Street light operation (25/360)

Electricity (24/273)

Gas (29/226)

Sewage treatment (55/452)

Sludge disposal (43/297)

Haz. materials disposal (83/175)

Number of Respondents = 314 361 330 315 308 319 333

Number of Respondents = 184 360 370 245

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Figure 12Public Safety

Emergency/Ambulanceand Other Services

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Building services

Emergency medical services

Ambulance service

Vehicle towing/storage

��


Municipal Employees

Other Methods

Municipal Employees

Other Methods

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Figure 11Public SafetyPolice and Fire

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Traffic contro

l/parking enforcement

Crime prevention/patro

l

Fire prevention/suppression

Police communication

Police training

Fire communication

Fire training

��



�

��

�

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

Number of Respondents = 185 179 145 132 108 128 88 117 99

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Figure 14Health and Human Services

Public Services Program

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Public/elderly

housing

Programs for e

lderly

Public health

programs

Drug/alcohol tr

eatment p

rograms

Day-care fa

cility

operations

Child w

elfare programs

Hospita

l operatio

n/mgt

Mental health

/retardatio

n prog. & fa

cilitie

s oper.

Homeless sh

elter m

anagement

��


��

��

��

��

Figure 13Health and Human ServicesSanitation and Animal Control

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Animal control

Sanitation inspection

Insect/rodent control

Animal shelter operation

�� Municipal Employees

Other Methods

Municipal Employees

Other Methods


Figure 15. Intergovernmental Cooperation in Public Safety: Percent of Municipalities Responding that Other Units of Government Produce Service [Number of respondents with service produced by another unit of government and total number of respondents shown in parentheses after service category]

8%

8%

9%

16%

27%

35%

36%

36%

36%

43%

47%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Building security (14/184)

Vehicle towing and storage (20/245)

Traffic control/parking enforcement (29/314)

Crime prevention/patrol (57/361)

Fire prevention/suppression (90/330)

Fire training (118/333)

Police training (110/308)

Emergency medical service (129/360)

Ambulance service (135/370)

Police communication (135/315)

Fire communication (151/319)

Figure 16. Intergovernmental Cooperation in Health and Human Services: Percent of Municipalities Responding that Other Units of Government Produce Service [Number of respondents with service produced by another unit of government and total number of respondents shown in parentheses after service category]

21%

21%

24%

32%

40%

43%

54%

66%

69%

79%

84%

85%

91%

95%

98%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Animal control (59/281)

Insect/rodent control (37/175)

Day-care facility operations (26/108)

Hospital operation/mgmt. (28/88)

Animal shelter operation (87/215)

Sanitation inspection (85/196)

Public/elderly housing (100/185)

Drug/alcohol treatment prog. (87/132)

Programs for the elderly (123/179)

Public health programs (115/145)

Homeless shelter management (83/99)

Ment. hlth/retard. prog.& fac. (100/117)

Child welfare programs (117/128)

Prisons and jails (154/162)

Parole programs (135/138)


Figure 17

Parks and Recreation60%

��

��

��

��

��

��

Figure 18Cultural and Arts Program

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Libra

ries

Mus

eum

s

Cultur

al/ar

ts pr

ogra

ms

��


Conve

ntion

ctrs

/aud

itoriu

m o

pera

tion

Number of Respondents = 278 102 64

Municipal Employees

Other Methods

Municipal Employees

Other Methods

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

70%

80%

90%

Parks

land

scap

ing/m

aint

Opera

tion/

main

t of r

ecre

ation

fac

Recre

ation

serv

ices

��


Number of Respondents = 374 198 332

��

��

��

��

��

��

Figure 19Support FunctionsBuilding Services

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Building/Grounds Maint

Building Security

Janitorial Services

��


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Figure 20Support FunctionsVehicle Operations

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

All other vehicles

Heavy equipment

Fleet mgt/vehicle maint

Emergency vehicles

��


Municipal Employees

Other Methods

Municipal Employees

Other Methods


Number of Respondents = 403 278 273 381 402 365

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Figure 21Support FunctionsFinancial Services

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Payroll administration

Data processing

Bill collection

Tax billing

Tax assessing

Delinquent tax collection

��

Number of Respondents = 307 276 224 239 276 36 358

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Figure 22Support Functions

Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Secre

taria

l ser

vices

Perso

nnel

serv

ices

Public

relat

ions/i

nfor

mat

ion

Labo

r rela

tions

Title re

cord

/plot

map

main

t

Food

serv

ices

Lega

l ser

vices

��


Municipal Employees

Other Methods

Municipal Employees

Other Methods


Figure 23. Intergovernmental Cooperation in Support Functions: Percent of Municipalities Responding that Other Units of Government Produce Service [Number of respondents with service produced by another unit of government and total number of respondents shown in parentheses after service category]

8%

11%

11%

41%

44%

53%

62%

3%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Legal services (9/358)

Tax assessing (15/402)

Data processing (23/278)

Emergency vehicles (28/257)

Fleet mgmt./vehicle maint.(32/291)

Tax billing processing (157/381)

Food services (16/36)

Delinquent tax collection(192/365)

Title record/plat map maint.(170/276)

Fig. 24 Comparison of Number of Municipal Contracts for Service Production

with Private Firms, 1996 vs 1991

��

��

More30%

Fewer1%

Don't Know12%

Same Number

57%

Figure 25. Future Privatization Plans (1998-2003)

��

��

Remain the same

48%

Don't know39%

Decrease0%

Increase privatiza-

tion13%

Fig. 26. Have Contracts for Municipal Services Been for New Services or Existing Services?

��

New services

only5%

Both existing and

new46%

Existing services

49%

Figure 27. Factors Causing Cities/Villages to Consider Privatization During the Past Five Years

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Inte

rnal

pres

sure

to d

ecre

ase

costs

Succe

ssfu

l use

in o

ther

juris

dictio

ns

Extern

al pr

essu

re o

n fin

ance

s, inc

luding

tax r

estri

...

Conce

rns a

bout

mun

icipa

l liab

ilities

Inte

rgov

ernm

enta

l man

date

s

Altere

d po

litica

l clim

ate

rega

rding

role

of g

over

n...

Unsoli

cited

pro

posa

ls fro

m p

rovid

ers

Other

Active

citiz

en g

roup

favo

ring

priva

tizat

ion

��

Second Most Important

Most Important

Third Most Important

Figure 28. Methods for Implementing/Promoting Privatization

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Analyz

ed fe

asibi

lity

Iden

tifed

succ

essfu

l use

in o

ther

juris

dictio

ns

Prom

oted

gen

eral

feat

ures

of p

rivat

izatio

n

Used

priva

tizat

ion o

nly fo

r new

or g

rowing

serv

ices

Imple

men

ted

priva

tizat

ion o

n a

trial

basis

Kept s

ervic

e co

mpla

int m

echa

nism

in h

ouse

Mini

mize

d ef

fect

of d

isplac

ed p

ublic

wor

kers

Recom

men

ded

chan

ges i

n sta

te a

nd lo

cal la

ws

Establi

shed

citiz

en a

dviso

ry co

mm

ittee

Other

Allowd

gov't

dep

ts to

com

pete

with

priv

ate

secto

r in

biddin

g

��


Most Important

Figure 29. Factors Contributing to Success in Privatizing Services



��

��

��

��

��

��

�� 0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Quality

of w

ork

Financ

ial co

nside

ratio

ns

Respo

nsive

nes

Timeli

ness

Flexibi

lity

Past e

xper

ience

Mon

itorin

g of

cont

ract

Sensit

ivity

to p

olitic

al sit

uatio

n

Other

��


Most Important

Figure 30. Reasons Why Municipalities Have Not Privatized Services

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Lack

of e

viden

ce o

n ef

fecti

vene

ss

Loss

of c

ontro

l

Insu

fficien

t sup

ply o

f com

pete

nt p

rivat

e de

liver

ers

Oppos

ition

from

elec

ted

offic

ials

Oppos

ition

from

citiz

ens

Restri

ctive

labo

r con

tracts

and

agr

eem

ents

Oppos

ition

from

unio

ns

Insti

tutio

nal r

igidit

ies o

r lac

k of p

rece

dent

Other

Oppos

ition

from

dep

t hea

ds

Lack

of c

ontra

ct m

gt e

xper

ience

am

ong

staff

Lega

l con

strain

ts

Other

from

line

emplo

yees

��


Most Important


Figure 31. If Municipal Employees Have Bid on Contracts, Have They Been Successful?

��

Few Times47%

Very Often12%

Never41%

Figure 32. If a Contract Monitoring System Is in Place, Who Is Responsible For Monitoring Contractor Compliance?

��

��

��

0.8%

4.9%

16.8%

25.8%

51.6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

��

City Administrator/Manager��

Inspector��

Department Head

Other

City Auditor

Figure 33. Has Privatization or Contracting Resulted in Cost Savings?

��

Yes, in all instances

15%

Yes, in some

instances69%

No16%

Figure 34. In Municipalities Where Employees Are Unionized, Does Contractor for Private Services Recognize Union?

��

Yes40%

No26%

Sometimes34%

Figure 35. Impact on Employees Displaced Due to Privatization or Contracting

��

��

Retired19%

Transfer to other gov't

job42%

Other27%

Laid off6%

Work for contractor

6%

Figure 36. If City/Village Has Contracted for Services,

How Do Private Firm Employee Wages Compare to City/Village Wages?

��

��

Higher than city/village

11%

Lower10%

About the same11%

Don't know68%

Figure 37. If City/Village Has Contracted for Services, How Do Private Firm Employee Benefits Compare to City/Village Benefits?

��

��

More6% About same

6%

Less than city/village provided

11%

Don't know77%

Figure 38. Source of Most Useful Privatization Information

��

��

5.1%17.5%

25.7%33.1%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%��

League of Wisconsin Municipalities

Private Contractors

ICMA

Figure 39. More Privatization Information Needed --What Topics?

Other Municipalities

Cost comparison between in-house and contracted services

Effective bidding system forcompetitive contracting

Evaluating performance andexperience of private contractors

��

��

��

42.8%

46.2%

60.7%

61.4%

78.2%

30.3%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

��

Performance review formunicipal services

��

Designing an effectivemonitoring systems forcompetitive contracting��

Transition strategies for publicemployees

Figure 1 Ratings of Current Financial Condition of Cities/Villages … · 2017. 6. 29. · Public...

Documents

Transcript of Figure 1 Ratings of Current Financial Condition of Cities/Villages … · 2017. 6. 29. · Public...