The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7B, Adopt Performance Measures as Recommended by the Council on Local Results and Innovation� EN HILLS Request for Council Action Prepared By: Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Adrninistrative Services Council Meeting Date: June 27, 2011 Adapt Performance Measures as Recommended by tl�e Council on Local Resnl#s and Innovation Budgeted A�xxount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: NA NA NA Recommendation: A motion to adopt Resoluiion 2011-031, a resolution adop�ing the 2011 Performance Measures as recommended by ihe Council on Local Results and Innovation. SuAAortin� Documents: 1. Memorand.urn dat�d June 27, 2011 from Sue Iversan. 2. Resolution 2011-031. 3. Model Performance Measures �or Cities. � EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 27, 2011 TO: Honarable Mayor and City Council�nembers Patrick Klaers, City Ac�zninistrator FROM: Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Aciministrative Services � SUBJECT: Adopting �'ex�ormance Measures as Recommended by th� Council on Local Res�lts and Innovation Back�rou€nd The Council on Local Res�lts and Iru�flvation was created by the 2010 Legislature ta set benchmarks for city and county operations. Through several naeetings, the gxoup adopted standards which are relatively easy to measure �tsing survey iools. The legislation comes with twa incen�tives to participate. There is a standing appropriation available for participants equal to 14 cents per capita (this equates to $1,337 a year for the City of Arden Hills). The Office of the State Auditor {OSA) recently realized ihat the appropriation is available for 2011. All we have to da to get the money this year (at the end of 2011) is to pass a resolution and mail it in to ihe OSA by 3uly 1— this deadline is f rtn and there are no excepiions or extension of tirne. The other incentive is that pat�icipating entities are exempt from levy limits. The OSA will not be looking far any results on th� performance measures until 2012 {for year ending 2011). It does not seem Iike there are any repercussions if w� don't actually fallow through other than we would not be able io participate in �he aid distribution for 2012 and would then would not be exempt from levy limits for 2013. The perforrtiance measures are mostly community s�rvey questions and the OSA is not going to dictate how yau get the results. This means that we could do something like using Survey Monkey on our website and adv�rtising it in our newsletter. Tt does not need to be a statis�ically valid swrvey Iike Decision Resources to qualify. We already use Survey Mor�key which cosis $199 a year vs. paying for a Cflminunity Survey from D�cision Resources which runs $10,000 plus. As part o�our budget pracess, v�re have been trying to incorporate performance measures into our p�racess az�d documents. At the May 1&, 2U11 �worksession, the Council also expressed theix intexest in developing perfarmance measures. This would be a starting City Council Meeting P:1AdminlCo�ncillAgendas & Packet Information120 1 116-27-1 1 RegularlPacket Information12011 Performance Measures.doc Page 1 of 2 point in that direction. Legislative staff has stated that elected officials are very interested in this type of reparting as they did consider and rejected the elinnination of the program this year. Participation in this program does not commit the City to exceeding the levy limit caps for Pay 2012, it merely gives us the potential to go beyond ihe existing levy limit rule if the Council wishes. Financial or Bud et Considerations The adoption of these standards will allow the City io collect about $1,337 in Local Government Ai� for both 2011 and 2012 to help defray what seems io be a developing consensus to survey the commur�ity. The anly additional condition is that we sutvey on tl�e exact questions stipulated in ti�e prograrn, we may add any other questions th� Council would like. Again, this would nat have to be dane until later in the year or early next year. Council Action Rec�uested Adoption Resolution 201. l-031, a Resolutian adopting the 2011 Performance Measures as Recommended by the Councii on Local Resulis and Inno�ation. City Council Meeting �:IAdminlCouncillAgendas & Packet Infarmation120 1 116-27-1 1 RegularlPacket Infornnation12011 Performance Measures.doc Page 2 of 2 � EN HILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE Ok' MINNESOTA RESOLUTION No. 2011-031. RESOLUT�ON ADOPTING 2011 PERFORMANCE MEASURES AS RECOMMENDED BY THE COUNCIL ON LOCAL RESULTS AND INNOVATION WHEREAS, in 2010, the Legislature created #he Council on I.,oca� ResuIts and Innovation (CLRI), and WHEREAS, in February 201 I, the CLRI re�eased a standard set of ten performance measures for cities interzded to aid residents, taxpayers, and state and local e�ected ofFicials in determining th� efficacy of cities in providing services, and measure residents` opinions of those services. WHEREAS, participation in the standard measures program by a city is voluntary, and WHEREAS, cities that choose to participate in the standard measures program must officially adopt the ten perfarmance benchmarks dev�loped by �he CLRI, and implement them in 2Q11, and WHEREAS, according to the Offica of th.e State Auditor, a city that elects to participate in the standard measures prograrr� for 2011 is eIigible for a reimbursement of $0.14 per capita in lacal government aid, not to exceed $25,000 and is also exempt from lavy li:txtits under sections 275.70 to 275.74 for taxes payable in 2Q12, iflevy limits are in effect. WHEREAS, the pragranrz requires that a city file a report with th.e O��ce of the State Auditor by July 1, 20I 1 declaring that the City Council has adop�ed the ien performance measures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Councii of the City of Arden Hills, Rarnsey County, Minnesota, thai the ten performance rneasures for cities as described by the CLRI are hereby adopted for 2d11. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 27th DAY OF JUNE, 2011. David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: Patrick Klaers, City Administrator Model Performance Measures for Cities The following are the recommended model measures af performance outcomes for cities, with alternatives provided in some cases. Key autput measures are also suggested for consideration by lacal city oificials. GeneraL• 1. Rating of the overall quality of service� provided by your city (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor) 2. Percent change in the taxable proper�y market vaIue 3. Citizens' rating of the overall appearance of the city (Citizen Survey: excellent, go�d, fai�, poor) Police Services: 4. �'art I and iI cri�rte rates (Submit data as reported by the Minnesota Bureau of Crirrcinal Apprehension. Part I crimes include murder, rape, aggravated assault, bu�gla�y, larceny, moto� vehicle theft, and arson. Part 1'I crimes include other assaults, forgery/counterfeiting, errabezzlement, stolen property, vandalrsm, �eapons, prostitution, other sex offenses, narcotics, gambling, farnily/children crime, D. U.I., Iiquor Iaws, disorderly conduct, and other offenses.) OR Citizens' rating of safety in their community (Citizen Survey: very safe, somewhat safe, neither safe nor unsafe, sonzewhat unsafe, vety unsafe) Output Measure: Police response tirr�e (Time it takes on top priority calls fr�o�n dispatch to the first o�cer� on scene.) Fire Services: 5. �nsurance industry rating af fire services (The Insurance Service O�ce {ISO) issues ratings to FiNe Departments throughout the country fo� the effectiveness of their fire protection services ancl equipment to protect their community. The .ISO �ating 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 PYotection Classification from 1 to 10. Class 1 generally represents superzor property frre protectian and Class 10 indicates that the area's fire suppression program does not meet ISO's minimum crzterza.) � � _.. Citizens' rating of the quality oi fire protection services (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor) Out�ut Measure: Fire cesponse tizne (Tzme it takes from dispatch to apparatus on scene for calls that are dispatched as a possihle fire}. Emergency Medical S�rvices (EMS) response time (ii applicable) (Time it takes fi-om dispatch to arrival of EMS) Streets: 6. Average city street pavernent condition rating (Provide average rating and the rating system program/type. Example: 7(1 rating on the Pavement Condition lndex {PCI)J i: Citizens' rating o�the road condition in their city (Citizen Survey: good condition, mostly good condition, many bad spotsJ 7. Citizens' rating the quality oFsnowplowing on city streets (Citizen Survey.• excellent, good, fair, poor) Water: S. Citizens' rating of the dependability anc� quality of city water supply (c�ntrally-provided systern) (Citizen Survey.• excellent, goad, fair, poar) Outpuf Measure: Operating cost per I,000,000 gallons of water pumpedlproduced (centrally-provided system) (Actual operatrng expense for water utiliry /{total gallons purraped/1, 000, 000)) Sanitary Sewer: 9. Ciiizens' rating of ihe dependability and quality of city sanitary sewer service (centrally provided system) (Citizen SuYvey: excellent; good, fair poor) Output Measure: Number of sewer blockages on city system per 100 connections (centrally provided systetn} (Nurnber of sewe� hlockages on city system reported by sewer utility 1 (population✓100)) Parlis and Recreation: 10. Citizens' ratin.g of the quality of city recr�aiional programs and facilities {parks, trails, park buildings} (Citizen Sut-vey: excellent, good, fair, poor)