Accountability
The City of Lethbridge has a duty of care to ensure taxpayers are receiving good value-for-money.
a dollar saved is two dollars earned
Business and residential property taxes are among the highest in Canada. Even so, it can seem as though there are areas for improvement. How do we know we are getting all that we are paying for? Read on…
second major plank
Operation Accountability
Lethbridge’s Residential Tax Rate is 1.14% of the assessed value. Calgary enjoys a much lower rate of 0.64% while Red Deer is 0.72%
Lethbridge’s Non-Residential Tax Rate is 2.54% of the assessed value. Calgary enjoys a much lower rate of 2.06% while Red Deer is 1.4%.
According to the most recent CFIB report on Property Tax Fairness and Trends in Operational Spending in Alberta, Lethbridge ranked 10th out of 17.
Ensuring ratepayers are getting good value-for-money through a program of reporting and continuous improvement is long overdue.
Lethbridge collects some of the highest business and property taxes in Canada. We are also among the biggest municipal spenders per capita in Canada.
Overview
One thing you certainly can’t fault the Lethbridge for is a willingness to spend money. In 2020 we spent $3,956 per person for the 3rd highest in Alberta. This compares with the Calgary at $3,044 and Red Deer at $3,544 and a Provincial Average of $3,401. This only tells half the story. More important is whether we are getting good value-for money. The problem is figuring out if this is always the case.
Financial Accountability is different from Operational Accountability. Financial Accountability makes sure all the money gets spent in exactly the right places. Operational Accountability makes sure that in return we receive back in goods and services exactly what we paid for.
THE BIG THREE OF OF OPERATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
MEASUREMENT
1
Even before government decides to spend money a system of performance needs to be in place. Otherwise any old job will do.
REPORTING
2
Traditional accounting focuses on making sure the actual numbers all add up. This ignores ensuring value-for-money is received.
ADJUSTMENT
3
A valid set of metrics and accurate data collection is meaningless. An adjustment mechanism supports continuous improvement.
Measurement
There’s an old axiom that says, “If you don’t measure something there’s no way of knowing you’re makin any progress. Operational Accountability ensures that taxpayers receive fair value-for money. To do this requires a set of performance parameters are put in place before delivery. By establishing clear expectations in advance the likelihood of effective results is greatly improved. This preparation can be applied equally to internal and external suppliers. The expectation of jobs for life without regard for performance has been a hallmark of civil servants for to many decades. I should know.
There are actually two aspects to performance metrics we need to be concerned with. Most people are familiar with the quantitative aspects of procurement, i.e. tons of steel, cubic meters of concrete and board-feet of lumber. Equally important in transactions and employment are the qualitative measurements, especially in services agreements. Ensuring quality of service delivery requires a system of monitoring and measurement such as level of client satisfaction, number of contacts, responsiveness and completeness.
Reporting
Assuming we have collected the requisite qualitive and quantitative data accurately, we need to ensure the results get into the hands of the people who need them. These may be purchasers, contract administrators and payables departments. Also City Council, media and the public need to be kept informed.
Reporting needs do be done in such a way that stakeholders get a very accurate picture of not just the quantity but also the quality of the work. In addition to being done in a timely manner, reporting needs to show that good value-for-money is being received. Are the expected benefits of the work or materials meeting the needs? Has anything new or unexpected been uncovered?
In addition to being timely and accurate, reporting needs to be comprehensive and comprehendible. Reporting should not just tell us that the minimum expectation was achieved. This should also be a process of discovery and education for stakeholders.
Adjustment
Measurement and reporting are valuable and interesting enough in their own right. The real benefits are not simply academic. Purchasing managers, contract administrators, program managers and human resource administrators need to take performance reports into consideration.
Good quality reports will help to ensure future work is conducted in a way that provides increased value-for-money. When combined with appropriate performance incentives we can create a culture of innovation and continuous improvement. Eventually, “good enough” will cease to be the standard for performance.