Citizens engaging the challenges faced by their City are essential to its livability.
In fact, effectively including the private sector in the provision of public goods and services expands the resource base available for production; gives the City access to specialized resources; offers opportunities for cost advantages and efficiencies; and helps government be more responsive. More importantly, citizen participation stimulates discourse, connects citizens to one another, informs the electorate about challenges facing the community, builds trust, expands our intellectual horizons and “allows democratic societies to function effectively.”
Despite these rewards, there are real obstacles to public-private partnerships.
A true partnership requires the sharing of responsibility and authority. So it is understandable that, unless the perceived benefits to partnerships are expected to substantially outweigh the costs, those charged with the responsibilities of governing are going to be reticent to embrace such partnerships. City government has a long institutional history. Without vigilance, city government can begin to make decision as “the Corporation” and ask, “What is in its best interests?” instead of “What is in the best interest of the community?” The City also has to manage its risks. Again, without consideration of the community’s best interests, well-intentioned risk management policies can stand in the way of public-private partnerships. Lastly, successful public-private partnerships require organizational capacity on the part of both private sector organizations and the City.
To foster an environment in which PPPs will flourish, first, the City must develop a transparent set of rules for working with City government so to (1) minimize uncertainty; (2) maximize effectiveness of private and public resources; and (3) cultivate a climate of constant improvement. Second, the City must market its commitment to be a “good partner.” Third, the City must also work cooperatively with citizens and local associations to (1) organize volunteer activities, (2) support others who leverage our volunteers and (3) regularly honor the efforts of those who endeavor to enrich our community. In short, the City must develop a straightforward approach to partnerships, market it and implement it.
The following are a few “simple” suggestions that would help to distinguish Sandusky as a desirable public partner:
• With input from the private sector, develop a workable template for joint management of infrastructure projects (e.g., park renovations or library improvements) that lays out how the best talents of both the City and its partner are utilized to get the “biggest bang for the buck” in every project; Offer private donors 100% effectiveness for every dollar they bring to a public investment or service project—no hidden taxes or City fees on the private dollars in a project;
• Establish, in the ex officio Mayor’s or City Manager’s Office, a public-private partnership coordinator who will provide a liaison between City government and any organization bringing $500,000 or more of private resources over a period of time (e.g., three years) to “fast track” projects that have Council approval; and
• Develop a feedback system with all private organizations that augment City resources (1) to continuously monitor how the City is perceived, (2) to determine how we can improve our relationships, and (3) to target where the City should invest to attract more organizations.
There are a number of obstacles to city governments embracing such partnerships. First, and perhaps the foremost, is that “partnership,” by its very nature, requires the sharing of responsibility and authority. Our city agencies are tasked with providing social services, education, parks and recreation, crime prevention, libraries, medical care, city infrastructure, transportation and utilities. It is understandable that, unless the benefits to partnerships are expected to substantially outweigh the costs, those charged with these responsibilities are going to be reticent to embrace such partnerships.
In this context, the challenge for our City is a subset of the “public good problem.” Simply put, benefits of PPPs may not be “captured” by the responsible agency. The quality of services might be better, but “public output” is often poorly measured and not always defined as an agency goal. The City’s citizens may be enriched by their participation, but rarely do City departments get credit for such outcomes. While PPP may also expand the overall resources available for production, the responsible department’s actual costs may—due to increased management and coordination—actually increase. So the decision to avoid PPPs is a logical one for a city agency whose objective is to minimize its costs, subject to meeting a set of goals that do not include the benefits discussed in the previous section. In addition, agencies with little experience dealing with PPPs may incur startup costs before they achieve the full benefits of such partnerships. Thus, leadership is required to internalize the benefits of PPP and to account for the budget impacts of fostering such partnerships.
Second, without positive and persistent action by the community, City government can begin to operate as “the Corporation” with its own self-serving goals. City government has a long institutional history. Its employees develop lifetime careers. The enormous amount of resources controlled by city government invariably generates a culture of power sharing among city management, labor and the community the government institutions were meant to serve.
For instance, during times of fiscal stress, each department develops its own “survival budget”: how can labor and management minimize layoffs? Likewise, if career “success” is measured by the size of ones budget or staff, then motivated career employees are likely to strive to protect or expand their fiefdoms. With budget constraints, choices easily evolve into a competition between different branches of “the Corporation.” While this competition may serve for-profit entities quite well, it can generate perverse outcomes in City government where the measure of public benefit is problematical.
The point is these are not actions motivated by pernicious government workers or career bureaucrats that do not care about the “public good.” Rather, they are the natural result of the organization of public production that fails to explicitly recognize the important role (and benefits) of real community involvement in the provision of public goods and services.
Third, in a society that has become much more litigious, risk management has emerged as an important concern of City government. The implementation of a risk management process can have the unintended affect of limiting community participation. Cracked sidewalks, maintenance lapses, police misconduct, poorly provided services or faulty public infrastructure all introduce potential liabilities that increase the cost of public services. When the City decides to offer any public service, it must budget the “full cost” of that service to include lifetime capital, maintenance, and operating costs. Included in these costs are the inherent liabilities associated with any activity. For instance, tot lots in our parks are valuable elements of what make our City livable; but they include some inherent risks (kids can fall, the structures can break, or poor maintenance can cause other injuries). The most advantageous government behavior would incorporate (1) effective risk management and (2) proper inclusion of risk in the full cost of providing public services. It would rarely be in the City’s interest to require that citizens protect the government against any and all additional liability. This approach would undoubtedly reduce the level of participation below the optimum. By requiring volunteer organizations, for instance, to have 100% liability insurance or to self-insure all risk exposure, the City is holding private sector participants to a higher standard than the peer government agencies. It increases the cost of participation and discourages the very partnerships that we should be trying to encourage.
Fourth, successful public-private partnerships require organizational capacity on the part of both private sector organizations and the City. The private sector must understand and adapt to the constraints facing City agencies, be aware of the legal requirements that working with the public sector might bring, and be mindful of the political process that shapes many City decisions. At the same time, City government needs to be able to develop more streamline decision making to take advantage of smaller organizations’ ability to respond quickly to opportunities and obstacles.
What Can Sandusky Do to Become a Model of Cooperation?
In a perfect world, City government should enable its citizens to succeed. The City should enable the least advantaged to learn about her possibilities and achieve them; should enable City businesses to prosper; should enable neighbors to create safe neighborhoods; should enable willing volunteers to make a difference in their community; and should enable all of us to accomplish as much as our potential allows. But, in most cases, government cannot accomplish this alone.
Recognizing both the advantages of and the obstacles to effective public-private partnerships, how can Sandusky distinguish itself as a leader in working with the private sector? How can we create an environment in which government is not just another competitor for scarce resources, but a partner in making our community a better place to live? How can we attract those organizations and individuals interested in working with city governments to come to Sandusky?
To foster an environment in which PPPs will flourish, first, the City must develop a transparent set of rules for working with City government so to (1) minimize uncertainty; (2) maximize effectiveness of private and public resources; and (3) cultivate a climate of constant improvement. This requires that Sandusky’s public sector develop straightforward and simple ways for the private sector to partner with City government. Second, the City must market its commitment to be a “good partner.” Letting foundations and private sector organizations know that Sandusky will match their interest with public resources and opportunities for success sends a clear message that Sandusky is the place for innovative public private partnerships.
The City must also work cooperatively with citizens and local associations to (1) organize volunteer activities, (2) support others who leverage our volunteers and (3) regularly honor the efforts of those who endeavor to enrich our community. In short, the City must develop a straightforward approach to PPP, market it and implement it.
To these ends we have identified many areas in our parks where PPPs would substantially benefit the Parks.
· Private Partnerships with restaurants to sell food and beverages within the parks add to the better utilization of the park. These restaurants will then maintain the public restroom facilities and pay for trash removal within the parks. Letting the restaurants organize recreational leagues and partnering with them for services for large concerts would benefit residents as well by providing a service more professional than what a government agency might achieve.
· Private Partnerships with Landscaping businesses give these businesses a large area to display their craft to a large audience and helps offset the cost of maintaining the park’s landscape.
· Private Partnerships with Sporting Goods stores that would sponsor recreational fields give them a large audience to advertise to.
· Private Partnerships with Pet supply stores for a dog park give them a large audience to advertise to as well as setting up training seminars and a small booth from which to sell products from
· Private Partnerships with other government agencies such as the library to provide WIFI to each of the parks for a fee would help generate badly needed revenue for the library. The Library may sponsor speakers to speak at an entertainment pavilion in the parks and the fees they collect from the speaking engagement would help bolster their finances. As well as having movies in the park night where they could project old movies on to a big screen for a small fee so families may bring their children a cooler and popcorn for some cheap entertainment.
· Partnerships with advertising firms to set up large video billboard that can be used to advertise the parks and events as well as other local and non local businesses.
· Partnering with local amusement parks might get donations of old amusement park rides such as carousels or large slides in exchange for some advertising space.
· Sponsorship of the Parks security camera website that allows parents to check to see if their kids are at the parks.
Building facilities and leasing out their operation to local professional businesses only help the utilization of the park and businesses do what is in the best interest of the people otherwise their business suffers. So a landmark like the Cameo restaurant may partner with the city to develop an adjacent athletic club that could potentially greatly expand their business. A coffee house may partner with the dog park to serve coffee at a French market style pavilion so residents may let their dogs run wild and have fun whilst they are reading a newspaper or are getting work done on their laptop thank to a Wifi connection. These are only but a few of the possibilities that we have thought of and we are sure many residents will think of many more once the City Commission embraces PPP’s.