HomeMy WebLinkAbout[09b] Performance Measures •
•
•
Cfl'V OP ST. JUSKPH Council Agenda Item 9(b)
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2011
AGENDA ITEM: Performance Measurement
SUBMITTED BY: Administration/Finance
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 2010 State Legislature passed Statute §6.91 allowing cities
to participate in a standard measures program to provide communication to its citizens on annual basis.
The Legislature directed the State Auditor to establish a committee to identify ten (10) standard
measurements as the minimum measurements each city should adopt. A copy of the committee's
report is attached. Additional performance measures can be tracked.
If the City declares the minimum ten (10) performance benchmarks listed in the report by July 1 2011
the City is eligible for a per capita reimbursement of $0.14 per capita in 2011. With the current
population the 2011 per capita reimbursement is approximately $ 917.76. There would be additional
staff time involved in this process including cost for preparing, distributing and tabulating the survey's.
Therefore, the Council needs to decide if they wish to be a part of the program.
The other advantage of being part of the 2011 initiative is that the City would be exempt for levy limits
for the payable 2012 levy if levy limits are enacted. Annual reporting is then required with the first
report for 2011 due by December 31, 2012. Participation is voluntary.
Note: This should not be interpreted that staff is proposing to present a budget that would require exemption from Levy
Limits, rather this is an opportunity that has been provided to staff and it is in turn being forwarded to the Counci.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: $914.76 per capita reimbursement, no payable 2012 levy limits
ATTACHMENTS:
RCA — Performance Measurement 9(b):1 -2
State Auditor Results and Innovation 2011 Legislative Report 9(b):3 -7
Resolution 2011 -014 Declaring Performance Measurements 9(b):8.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: The Council should decide if they want to be a part of the
voluntary program and if it is desired, execution of Resolution 2011 -014 would be required.
9(b):1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
9(b):2
The Council on Local Results and Innovation 2011
Legislative Report
February 14, 2011
9(b):3
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. Our 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.
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
9(b):4
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
9(b):5
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 I1 crimes include other
assaults, forgery /counterfeiting, embezzlement, stolen property, vandalism, weapons,
prostitution, other sex offenses, narcotics, gambling, family /children crime, D. U.I.,
liquor laws, disorderly conduct, and other offenses.)
OR
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:
5. 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 1 to 10. Class 1 generally represents superior
property fire protection and Class 10 indicates that the area's fire suppression
program does not meet ISO's minimum criteria.)
OR
9(b):6
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:
8. 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/1,000,000))
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/100))
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)
9(b):7
Resolution 2011 -014
City of St. Joseph
Resolution Declaring St. Joseph's Performance Measurements
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 6.91 cities may elect to participate in the standard measures
program established by the Office of the State Auditor; and,
WHEREAS, the City of St. Joseph acknowledges performance measurements provide feedback to their
citizens, taxpayers, elected officials, staff and other interested parties about the effectiveness and
efficiency of services provided by the City of St. Joseph; and,
WHEREAS, the City of St. Joseph elects to participate in the State program and declares ten
performance measures to review annually by June 15
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA
declares the following standard performance measurements:
1. Citizen's rating of the overall quality of services provided by the City of St. Joseph.
2. Percent change in the taxable property market value.
3. Citizen's rating of the overall appearance of the City of St. Joseph.
4. Citizen's rating of the safety in the City of St. Joseph.
5. Citizen's rating of the quality of fire protection services in the City of St. Joseph.
6. Citizen's rating of the road conditions in the City of St. Joseph.
7. Citizen's rating the quality of snowplowing in the City of St. Joseph.
8. Citizen's rating of the dependability and quality of the St. Joseph water supply.
9. Citizen's rating of the dependability and quality of the St. Joseph sanitary sewer service.
10. Citizen's rating of the quality of St. Joseph's recreational programs and facilities (including parks,
trails and park buildings).
Adopted by the council this 16 day of June 2011.
Rick Schultz, Mayor
Judy Weyrens, City Administrator
9(b) :8