City of
Richmond
Workforce Analysis:
Status Update and Overview
February 20, 2024
Photo courtesy of Benjamin Garcia (cropped - Flickr)
1. State Audit Recommendations
2. Overview of Workforce Analysis
3. Project Scope and Timeline
4. Citywide Staffing Overview
5. Workload vs. Work Planning
6. Prioritization
7. Preliminary Recommendations
8. Next Steps
2 Agenda
3 State Audit
• On April 4, 2022, the City of Richmond was notified by the State Auditor that they would be conducting an audit of the City as approved by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee on June 30, 2021.
• The State Auditor’s local audit program identifies and supports local government agencies that might be at high risk based upon analysis of a City’s audited financial statements. Richmond’s risk assessment began in February 2021 based upon the City’s June 2020 financial statements.
• The audit formalized eleven (11) recommendations to the City. The 6 th
recommendation pertained to conducting a Workforce Analyst to mitigate the costs of increasing salaries, the City should perform a workforce analysis by June 2024. • Based on the results of the analysis, the State recommended that the City Council should consider eliminating vacant positions that it deems no longer necessary.
Additionally, the City should assess its need for each vacant position before it seeks to fill the positions and eliminate any positions that it does not need. 4 Affordability Analysis in Progress
• Comfortable with 650 FTEs maximum until Workforce Analysis is completed
• Total of 753 budgeted FTEs for FY2024, of which 607 are General Fund
• FY2023-24 vacancy factor of 6% / $11.2M included in the adopted budget, which equates to 40 FTE
› $11.2M / $279,927 = 40 FTE
5 Overview
The City entered to a contract with Raftelis in May 2023 to conduct a Workforce Analysis. The purpose of the Workforce Analyst was to:
• Reassess the Size of the City Staff: Meet with Department Directors via the City Manager and Human Resources Director to assess staffing needs to determine if the department needs fewer additional staff than their vacancies would suggest. • Succession Planning and Vacancies: The City would like to take a measured approach to filling vacancies. By taking a measured approach to filling vacancies, this will allow the City time to determine whether any departments, including Police and Fire, should or could operate with a smaller staff. While taking a measured approach to filling vacancies there needs to be an analysis of potential retirements to determine proper succession planning.
• Department Analysis: Facilitate a variety of meetings between/among Department Directors to determine current workflow with the current staff in each division of each department to determine if the department is operating at optimum accuracy and efficiency. Produce a written document that summarizes this analysis with recommendations on workflow and staffing.
6 Project Scope
and Timeline
Project
Scope
7 • Reassess the size of City staff and
determine if vacant positions are needed
• Review succession planning and
recommend improvements
• Analyze department operations and
recommend improvements to workflow and
efficiency
8 BEGIN AND MANAGE
ENGAGEMENT
UNDERSTAND
CONTEXT
ANALYZE
STAFFING
PREPARE
PRELIMINARY
OBSERVATIONS &
RECOMMENDATIONS
PREPARE PROJECT
REPORT
Major Activities
• Hold kick-off
meeting
• Collect data and
documents
• Provide regular
status updates
Major Activities
• Interview City Council
• Meet with City
Directors
• Interview key staff
• Document key
processes
• Review documentation
• Prepare Service Level
Matrix
Major Activities
• Analyze staffing levels
• Develop succession
planning criteria
• Identify efficiency
opportunities
Major Activities
• Prepare preliminary
observations and
recommendations
• Conduct follow-up
research
Major Activities
• Update presentation to
City Council
• Prepare draft report
• Draft report reviewed
with City staff and
bargaining units
• Final report
presentation to City
Council
August - Conclusion September - October October - December November – January January - March Project Timeline
9 Raftelis’ Analysis
• High-level Citywide review; not scoped to do deep-dive in each department • City has limited data to inform workload and resourcing • Difficult to determine whether service level expectations are impacted most by vacancies, resource constraints, or both
• Raftelis’ approach leveraged our industry knowledge layered upon information from staff interviews, documents, and available data Proposed Report Outline
• Citywide Staffing Overview
› Vacancies
› Overtime
› Response to State Auditor
• For each Department, we will show:
› Staffing Level History
› Core Service Matrix showing programs breakdown and staffing levels › Key Observations
› Staffing Recommendations
› Operational Recommendations
10 11
Citywide
Staffing Overview
12 City Context
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
$0.0
$50.0
$100.0
$150.0
$200.0
$250.0
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 Authorized FTEs
Revenue in Millions
City Staffing and Revenue
2005 - Present
GF Revenue (Inflation Adjusted) Authorized FTEs
13 Vacancies
• Average number
of vacancies and
average vacancy
rate by department
or division from
2022-24
Department/Division
Average
FTEs
Vacant
Average
Vacancy
Rate
POLICE 50.0 23.1%
PUBLIC WORKS 18.5 9.2%
FIRE 12.1 12.2%
COMMUNITY SERVICES (Employment & Training) 8.9 37.2%
FINANCE 7.1 17.1%
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6.7 15.6%
COMMUNITY SERVICES (Library) 6.7 20.8%
COMMUNITY SERVICES (Office of Neighborhood Safety) 6.1 39.3% CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 4.2 27.3%
HUMAN RESOURCES 2.6 19.4%
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (Arts & Culture, Environmental Health, Real Estate, and Port) 2.6 14.0%
COMMUNITY SERVICES (Recreation) 2.5 7.5%
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1.9 8.9%
RICHMOND HOUSING AUTHORITY 1.6 21.7%
RENT CONTROL 1.0 8.0%
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 0.9 17.6%
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH 0.7 25.5%
CITY COUNCIL 0.7 9.5%
COMMUNITY SERVICES (Administration, Social Services, and Transportation) 0.3 5.6% MAYOR'S OFFICE - 0.0%
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE - 0.0%
GRAND TOTAL ALL DEPARTMENTS 135.0 17.0%
14 Vacancies
FY24 Authorized
Positions =
753 FTEs
January 2024 Vacancies =
119 positions
(16%)
• The City has been operating at 83% staffing for the past three years • Filling vacancies is a top priority
• Progress made in last year, positions being filled more quickly • Many positive comments about Human Resources improvements 15 Overtime
116,260
138,165 144,209
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2021 2022 2023 (Prorated)
Total Overtime Hours Citywide
288
318 335
-
50 100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2021 2022 2023 (Prorated)
Average Overtime Hours per Employee Citywide
• Average Overtime use from FY21-23 averages to approximately 63.7 FTEs • Almost half of the vacancies
• Top department overtime users:
• Fire Department (61,305 hours or 29.4 FTEs)
• Police Department (57,720 hours or 27.7 FTEs)
• Public Works Parks Division (5,827 hours or 2.8 FTEs) 16 Workload
vs.
Work Planning
Most staff time is already pre-
programmed for day-to-day
operations.
There is limited capacity for
new programs and initiatives.
Mandates
What is the City legally
obligated to do?
Community
What service level
expectations have been
set for residents over
time?
Council Priorities
How is the work of staff
advancing policy
priorities?
City Growth
What is the change in
the population of
customers served?
Workload
Drivers
What drivers increase or change
workload?
18 Work Planning
Process of defining how to
meet City Council goals.
19 Resource
Allocation
Timeline
Development
Task
Identification
20 Prioritization
Priority Setting
• Guidance – with limited financial resources
what should be our focus?
• Policy decision – is it better to do a lot of
things “okay” or focus on fewer things and do
them “really well”?
• Fiscal equity – what is appropriate for
taxpayers to fund versus individual users?
• We recommend starting with specific criteria
against which to rank individual programs and
services to focus the discussion
22 Core Service Level Matrix
• Subjective ranking system to begin to prioritize programs and services › There is no “right” answer
• Raftelis ranked City programs and services using six criteria:
1. Is this service or program mandated at the local, state, or federal level?
2. Is this service or program necessary for life safety?
3. Does this service or program preserve existing City assets or infrastructure?
4. Does this service or program provide direct service to the public?
5. Does this service or program support City Council goals or the strategic plan?
6. How many customers does this program serve?
23 Core Service Levels Matrix Results
Department Ranking
Fire 3.2
Public Works 2.8
Community Development 2.7
Police 2.6
Community Services 2.5
Executive Offices* 2.3
Economic Development 2.1
Internal Services** 1.8
• Raftelis team ranked each
criterion on a scale from 1 (low)
to 5 (high)
• Results slightly atypical; police is
usually at the top
• Impacted by City Council’s
goals
*Executive Offices = City Manager’s Office, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney’s Office, and City Clerk’s Office **Internal Services = Human Resources, Information Technology, and Finance 24 Preliminary
Recommendations
25 Response to the State Auditor
• Current staffing levels do not support current service level expectations › Heavy reliance on overtime to meet certain core services due to vacancy levels – As noted earlier, primarily in Fire, Police, and Public Works • Meeting current service level expectations and Council goals requires additional authorized staff
• To provide best practice service for the current menu of programs and services, the City needs additional positions beyond filling the existing vacancies • Financial analysis is required to determine what level of staffing the City can afford
• Fill vacancies first and then add staff only as ongoing revenue growth can support the positions
• Critical not to use one-time funds for ongoing staff positions Looking Ahead…
• City’s ability to provide service is rooted in two paths:
1. Limited Revenue Growth = Reallocate Existing Resources Improve service quality by prioritizing services and programs and reallocating limited financial resources, or
2. Growing Revenues = Consider Adding New Programs
Address community needs and Council priorities with augmented staffing and outside contractor use
26 Reallocate Existing Resources
• Fill vacancies in core service areas first
› Police, Fire, Public Works
• Increase investment in technology to streamline internal business process efficiency and data to drive decision-making
• Decrease general fund investment in programs serving fewer residents in favor of grants, cost recovery, and non-profit sector • While the City’s unassigned General Fund reserves are increasing, current-period (annual budget) resources remain limited › Some of the increase in reserves may be the result of salary savings and not “real” revenue growth
› Invest in those areas that will pay off in the future 27 Grow Revenues
• Increase investment in economic development to grow future revenues and local job opportunities
• Increase investment in public safety (fire and police) • Increase service levels related to property safety and quality of life issues
• Safety is an economic development investment;
businesses need assurance of safety to settle in a
community
• Increase investment in code enforcement to improve
community safety and aesthetics
28 • Finalize draft report
• Review with staff to ensure
accuracy
• Provide final report by end of March
• Ensure City Council Goals and
Workforce Analysis align
29 Next Steps
Contact:
Rebekka Hosken, Project Manager
818.632.4086 / [email protected]
Thank you!