On 28-Jan-2017, San José, CA implemented another round of Citywide Participatory Budgeting. This implementation used a Zero-Based Budgeting format based on the Innovation Game® Buy a Feature along with soliciting fresh ideas on how to improve neighborhoods using the Innovation Game® Prune the Product Tree. Every Voice Engaged Foundation produced the event which was superbly facilitated by dozens of pro-bono facilitators.
2024: The FAR, Federal Acquisition Regulations, Part 30
2017 San Jose, CA Zero-Based Budgeting Results
1. City of San José
2017 – 2018 Community Budget Prioritization Exercise
Citywide Zero-Based Budgeting Exercise
Prepared for:
The City of San José
Prepared by:
Conteneo, Inc.
12-Feb-2017
21 in-person games
2. Event Overview
• 28-Jan-2017 – San José Convention Center
• 83 residents organized into 15 forums
• San José provided subject matter experts
• Conteneo provided volunteer Certified Collaboration
Architects Facilitators and Observers
• Two engagements:
• Zero-Based Budgeting
• Grow Our Community
3. Engagements
3
Zero-Based Budgeting
• 32 Neighborhood Service programs representing
$42,050,000 in spending from 2016-2017
• Residents collaborate to determine funding for
2017-2018
• Residents allowed to introduce new programs
Grow Our Community
• Residents were given trees representing
their districts and asked to identify “What
would make your community great”?
5. 32 Programs Were Tested
5
Item # Service/ Program 2016-2017
Budget
1 Illegal Dumping $900,000
2 Free Junk Pick-Up $2,500,000
3
Homeless Response Team /
Encampment Abatement $2,000,000
4 Business District Beautification $50,000
5 San Jose Creates and Connects $250,000
6 Plaza Activation and Maintenance $150,000
7
Code Enforcement: Abatement Officers
(General Code Enforcement) $2,300,000
8 Code Enforcement: Civil Action Attorneys $800,000
9
Neighborhood Clean Ups - City
Sponsored $850,000
10 Community Action & Pride grants $100,000
11 Anti-Graffiti $1,500,000
12 Anti-Litter $300,000
13
Park Volunteer Program
(Adopt-A-Park/Adopt-A-Trail) $400,000
14
Park Activation
$750,000
15 Neighborhood Park Maintenance $10,300,000
16 Regional Park Maintenance $3,350,000
Item # Service/ Program 2016-2017
Budget
17 Sports Field Program $250,000
18 Parks Water $4,900,000
19
Parks Restroom / Custodial
Services $850,000
20 "Pocket Park" Maintenance $600,000
21 Tree Maintenance $400,000
22 Adopt-A-Median $0
23
Adopt-A-Street
$0
24 Sidewalk Repairs $450,000
25
Streetlight Installation/
Additions $0
26 Streetlight Replacement $2,200,000
27 LED Streetlight Conversions $1,050,000
28 San Jose Gateways $0
29
Weed Abatement
$400,000
30
Streetscapes/Right-of-Way
and Median Maintenance $2,900,000
31 Urban Forest $400,000
32 Urban Forest: Tree Trimming $1,150,000
6. Each table was given the
chance to add two ideas to the
list of projects.
Write-In candidates do NOT
increase the total budget.
Instead, residents must fund a
write-in candidate like any
other project from the existing
budget.
Optional Write-In Candidates
Name
Description
Measure of Success
Required Resources
Additional Information
Investment
7. Counting Decreased/Increased Programs
The final funding of each program was grouped
and counted based on the following buckets:
Nearly all programs had some increases and some
decreases. We used the total number of increases
or decreases in funding to determine our final
sorting of items.
7
Significant
Decrease
0% to 74%
Decrease
75% to 98%
Fund As-Is
98% to 1.02%
Increase
1.02% to 30%
Significant
Increase
>30%
8. Programs Decreased/Increased
8
Decrease
More tables voted to
decrease these programs
Fund As-Is
Tables roughly equally
increased/decreased these
programs
Increase
More tables voted to
increase these programs
Programs are listed in decreasing order in each group
Green items were zero.
29 Weed Abatement
18 Parks Water
30
Streetscapes/Right-of-Way and
Median Maintenance
32 Urban Forest: Tree Trimming
26 Streetlight Replacement
15 Neighborhood Park Maintenance
16 Regional Park Maintenance
28 San Jose Gateways
23 Adopt-A-Street
22 Adopt-A-Median
25 Streetlight Installation/ Additions
3 Homeless Response Team /
Encampment Abatement
1 Illegal Dumping
12 Anti-Litter
7 Code Enforcement: Abatement
Officers (General Code
Enforcement)
4 Business District Beautification
27 LED Streetlight Conversions
8 Code Enforcement: Civil Action
Attorneys
10 Community Action & Pride grants
21 Tree Maintenance
20 "Pocket Park" Maintenance
2 Free Junk Pick-Up
13 Park Volunteer Program
(Adopt-A-Park/Adopt-A-Trail)
14 Park Activation
6 Plaza Activation and Maintenance
17 Sports Field Program
5 San Jose Creates and Connects
24 Sidewalk Repairs
11 Anti-Graffiti
9 Neighborhood Clean Ups - City
Sponsored
9. Resident Proposed Programs
9
Homeless: 1
program, $3M.
Most programs
were associated
with
trash/beautificatio
n.
One program for
increasing
allocation to
police.
1-1: Job Placement and Assistance for Homeless $3,000,000
2-1: Creative “Open Space” for Graffiti $150,000
2-2: Small Biz Dump Credits $300,000
2-3: Small business Junk/Trash Credits $500,000
3-1: Increase Fire & Police Dispatcher $1,000,000
3-2: Landscape Neglected Properties $5,000,000
5-1: Historic Prevention $250,000
5-1: Pilot Streetlights $500,000
6-1: Community Center $200,000
6-2: Sanctuary City $0
7-1: Sidewalk repair $1,000,000
7-2: Streamline Trash/Blight Programs (#1, #2, #12) $0
10-1: <Name of program is unreadable> $1,250,000
11-1: Educate Safety for Pedestrians/Bicycle $0
14-1: Rain Day Fund $800,000
Note: Not every program was funded!
13. Litter / Dumping / Junk Are Top Concerns
Facilitators reported the most active
conversations concerned litter, dumping and junk.
Residents suggested program consolidation and
streamlining among (potentially disparate)
departments.
13
14. Safety is a Significant Concern
Residents tended to invest in programs perceived
to address safety directly (such as improved
sidewalk repairs) or indirectly (such as the
keeping parks healthy).
Notably, street lighting funding was significantly
reduced and the excess funds were used to
increase funding in several other areas.
14
15. Homelessness Was Uneven
In prior years homelessness was perceived as a
broad issue across many tables.
In this session only a few tables had passionate or
significant discussions regarding homelessness.
One table funded a significant homeless write-in
candidate.
15
16. Key Results
• There is insufficient data to recommend the
elimination of any program.
• All three programs with $0 in funding
experienced broadly supported significant
funding recommendations.
• All three “small programs” ($100K) experienced
an average increase in funding.
16
18. What Worked Well: Location & Diversity
18
Diversity
Residents were diverse, representing
different parts of the city and different
experiences.
Location
The Convention Center was
excellent! It was the best
space yet for the event.
19. What Worked Well
• The City provided content several days in
advance of the event!
• Subject Matter Experts continue to provide
valuable insight.
• Online spreadsheets for tracking bids
• Physical tracking boards and trees
19
20. Residents Suggestions for Improvement
• Reminders of the event via email & text
messages
• Reduce the number of projects
20
22. On behalf of our global team of Certified
Collaboration Architects, Thank You.
Luke Hohmann
Founder and CEO
Conteneo, Inc.
www.conteneo.co
www.everyvoiceengaged.org