Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13.F.1. Performance Measurement ProgramCity of Shakopee, MN Memorandum To: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Julie A. Linnihan, Finance Director Subject: Performance Measurement Program Date: June 13 2011 Introduction: The City of Shakopee was provided the attached information relating to the recently released standards for Performance Measures for Cities and Counties. These standards have been developed by the legislatively created Council on Local Results and Innovation. The intent of these Measures is to provide residents, taxpayers, state and local elected officials with data and information helpful in determining the efficacy of local units of government in providing services. Input from the residents as to their opinions on provided services is also an important component of this new program. Background: In 2010, the legislature created the Council on Local Results and Innovation. During 2010, this group met to establish and present 10 performance measures for Counties and Cities that would provide a guide for determination of the effectiveness and efficiency of existing services. This set of standards was released in preliminary form in February, 2011. To participate in this program, cities must submit a report to the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) by July 1, 2011, consisting of a declaration of intent to participate, which requires Council approval. This declaration will state that the Council has adopted the ten (10) performance measures attached. Measures specific to City operations may include changes in taxable property market values, police response times, insurance industry rating of fire services, street pavement conditions, operating costs of water systems, potential use of a citizen survey, etc. This form is then submitted to the OSA upon approval by the City Council. Performance Measurement Program 2011 Page 2 If the City chooses to participate in the program, they agree to the following: • Report initial participation to the OSA by July 1, 2011 • City will comply with reporting of the 10 performance benchmarks and performance measure systems by July 1, 2012 If the City elects to participate in this program, the City is eligible for a reimbursement of $.14 per capita in Local Government Aid ( LGA ) of which the City of Shakopee is NOT a recipient of; And; May also be exempt from levy limits under section 275.70 through .74 for taxes payable in 2013, if levy limits are in effect. Recommendation: The City may elect to participate in the Performance Measurement Program to benefit from the information that will be collected from a broad base of Cities, offering a variety of services and programs to a geographically and demographically diverse population base. Since the City receives no Local Government Aid, there is no receipt of funds anticipated for participation. The removal of the levy limit restriction is also unclear at this time, as the language simply states "may be exempt" which would not ensure the removal of this financial limit. Goal: This action ties to goals C- Maintain the City's strong financial health and D- maintain, improve and create strong partnerships with other public and private sector entities. Action Requested: Council is requested to review and approve participation in the Performance Measurement Program, created by the Council on Local Results and Innovation. This will result in the filing of the requested report with the Office of the State Auditor by July 1, 2011. As additional future reporting is requested, Council will receive the submitted information. Performance Measurement Program 2011 Kill February 14, 2011 February 14, 2011 To the Property and Local Sales Tax Division of the House of Representatives, Taxes Committee and the Taxes Division on Property Taxes of the Senate Tax Committee, Per the requirements of 2010 Minnesota Laws Chapter 389, Article 2, Sections 1 and 2, the Council on Local Results and Innovation is submitting its recommended "... standard set of approximately ten performance measures for counties and ten performance measures for cities that will aid residents, taxpayers, and state and local elected officials in determining the efficacy of counties and cities in providing services, and measure residents' opinion of those services." The recommended model performance measures are attached. Local government and public feedback was solicited on the proposed benchmarks. The members of the Council include: • Patricia Coldwell, Association of Minnesota Counties • John Gunyou, City of Minnetonka • Mark Hintermeyer, City of Moorhead • Jay Kiedrowski, Humphrey School, University of Minnesota • Katie Nerem, Blue Earth County • Rebecca Otto, Minnesota State Auditor • Jay Stroebel, City of Minneapolis • Matt Stemwedel, City of Woodbury • Wendy Underwood, City of St. Paul • Tim Walsh, Scott County • Ben Woessner, City of Pelican Rapids The Council received no funding to conduct their work. Meeting minutes were taken by volunteers, and the Office of the State Auditor posted all meeting materials and meeting dates on the Office of the State Auditor website. All meetings were open to the public. The Council sees value in having all counties and cities in Minnesota develop performance measures that they use to manage their jurisdictions and having results of those performance measures shared with citizens and property tax payers. Out recommended performance measures should be considered examples to assist counties and cities in developing their own performance measures. The Council was concerned about the misuse of these performance measures by the legislature or others in the appropriation of funds or for comparisons among counties and cities. The general performance measures recommended are simply inadequate for those purposes. i The Council on Local Results and Innovation is proceeding to meet the additional requirements of the statute, which is to "develop recommended minimum standards for comprehensive performance measurement systems by February 15, 2012." We interpret "performance measurement system" to mean more broadly a performance management system that uses performance measures to manage counties and cities. Representatives of the Council would welcome the opportunity to discuss the Council's work, our recommended model performance measures, and our concerns about the use of these measures. Sincerely, Jay Kiedrowski, Chair Minnesota Council on Local Results and Innovation Cc: House Speaker, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, and Senate Minority Leader Attached: Model Performance Measures for Counties, Model Performance Measures for Cities Model Performance Measures for Cities The following are the recommended model measures of performance outcomes for cities, with alternatives provided in some cases. Key output measures are also suggested for consideration by local city officials. General: 1. Rating of the overall quality of services provided by your city (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor) 2. Percent change in the taxable property market value 3. Citizens' rating of the overall appearance of the city (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor) Police Services: 4. Part I and II crime rates (Submit data as reported by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Part I crimes include murder, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Part II crimes include other assaults, forgery /counteifeiting, embezzlement, stolen property, vandalism, weapons, prostitution, other sex offenses, narcotics, gambling, family /children crime, D. UL, liquor laws, disorderly conduct, and other offenses) 1 Citizens' rating of safety in their community (Citizen Survey: very safe, somewhat safe, neither safe nor unsafe, somewhat unsafe, very unsafe) Output Measure: Police response time (Time it takes on top priority calls from dispatch to the first officer on scene) Fire Services: Insurance industry rating of fire services (The Insurance Service Office (ISO) issues ratings to Fire Departments throughout the country for the effectiveness of their fire protection services and equipment to protect their community. The ISO rating is a numerical grading system and is one of the primary elements used by the insurance industry to develop premium rates for residential and commercial businesses. ISO analyzes data using a Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS) and then assigns a Public Protection Classification from I to 10. Class I generally represents superior property fire protection and Class 10 indicates that the area's fire suppression program does not meet ISO's minimum criteria.) N Citizens' rating of the quality of fire protection services (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor) Output Measure: Fire response time (Time it takes from dispatch to apparatus on scene for calls that are dispatched as a possible fire). Emergency Medical Services (EMS) response time (if applicable) (Time it takes from dispatch to arrival of EMS) Streets 6. Average city street pavement condition rating (Provide average rating and the rating system program /type. Example: 70 rating on the Pavement Condition Index (PCI)) OR Citizens' rating of the road condition in their city (Citizen Survey: good condition, mostly good condition, many bad spots) 7. Citizens' rating the quality of snowplowing on city streets (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor) Water Citizens' rating of the dependability and quality of city water supply (centrally - provided system) (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor) Output Measure: Operating cost per 1,000,000 gallons of water pumped /produced (centrally - provided system) (Actual operating expense for water utility / (total gallons pumped 11, 000, 000)) Sanitary Sewer 9. Citizens' rating of the dependability and quality of city sanitary sewer service (centrally provided system) (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor) Output Measure: Number of sewer blockages on city system per 100 connections (centrally provided system) (Number of sewer blockages on city system reported by sewer utility / (population 1100)) Parks and Recreation: 10. Citizens' rating of the quality of city recreational programs and facilities (parks, trails, park buildings) (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor)