Cutting through the Clutter

There is a well‑worn adage that there is always more work to do than resources available to do it. Local governments are no exception. Councils, administrations, and even citizens often want to do more, but municipal budgets rarely allow us to be everything to everybody.

There are a few common ways governments try to resolve this tension, many of which are unpalatable. Increasing capacity by raising taxes typically meets strong resistance, and the same is true for increasing user fees for municipal services. Both approaches focus on growing revenue to enable more work.

Another frequently cited solution is to “find efficiencies” or “trim the fat.” These phrases are just as worn out as the adage about limited resources, and they are just as unrealistic. They have been used for decades, meaning that most efficiencies have already been realized and most of the so‑called fat is long gone.

This leaves one approach that does have merit: reviewing what we do and stopping the things we no longer need to do. Many municipal programs were created 15 to 20 years ago or even longer, to meet a genuine need at the time. Over the years, that need may have diminished, but the program often continues unchanged. Until a conscious decision is made to reduce or eliminate those legacy programs, there are no savings to redirect to emerging priorities.

Legacy Programs

Every municipal program began as a response to a need or a want from some segment of the population. Establishing those programs was a political decision made by the council of the day, one that committed scarce resources to a particular purpose. Years later, that need may be waning, but the program endures. Reducing service levels or eliminating programs is also a political decision, as difficult as it may be. Doing so requires both awareness and courage, but it is essential for maintaining a viable and responsive municipality.

One of the challenges in doing this work is that programs rarely end with a clear signal that their usefulness has expired. Participation often declines gradually, relevance erodes quietly, and costs continue in the background. Without intentional review, these programs become part of the municipal default setting, funded because they always have been, not because they still serve a clear purpose.

Over time, this crowds out new ideas and emerging needs, even when those needs are clearly articulated by the community. Regularly asking why a service exists, who benefits from it today, and what problem it is solving creates the discipline required to make thoughtful, defensible decisions.

A commonly used example is pickleball. Decades ago, communities built tennis courts in response to growing demand. More recently, as interest in tennis has declined and pickleball has surged, those same communities have been asked to build pickleball courts.

When funding is available, the decision is relatively easy. When it is not, some councils have chosen to repurpose tennis courts for pickleball. That decision may satisfy pickleball players, but it understandably frustrates legacy tennis players who now have reduced access to facilities. In each case, councils made trade‑offs because resources were limited.

Finding Out What Matters

This leads to the central point: decisions about what to fund require a clear understanding of what a municipality currently does, how community demands are changing, and what financial capacity exists to deliver services.

In several provinces and territories, we are now roughly six months removed from the last municipal election. Some councils have refreshed their strategic plans, while administrations are developing corporate business plans for the coming year and beyond. These exercises are valuable because they help cut through organizational clutter. Reflecting on the past year, or the past term, often reveals what needs to change. Work completed (or abandoned) frees up capacity to focus on what lies ahead, while narrowing the “to‑do” list to a smaller number of priorities based on importance and timing sharpens focus even further.

Keeping the Focus

For administrators, one of the greatest challenges when working with council is helping them stay focused on the plan they approved. It is tempting to veer off course when a new grant becomes available, or a neighbouring municipality launches an interesting initiative. While these opportunities may be appealing, they can dilute focus and divert attention from achieving the municipality’s long‑term vision. In effect, clutter re‑enters the system. New decisions compete for attention and funding, consuming energy that would otherwise be spent executing the original plan—and creating challenges for both council and administration.

What’s your experience with clutter?

Do you have suggestions for what has removed clutter in your local government? Are there tricks you use to maintain focus on what’s important and timely?

I’d be interested in hearing about it. You can reach me at ian@strategicsteps.ca.