The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.b. HiPP Update1 xvi �lOUl 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: April 13, 2011 AGENDA ITEM: HiPP Update A N A SECTION: PREPARED BY: Dwight Johnson, City Administrator AGE IDA NO ATTACHMENTS: Project Evaluation Scorecard, Proposed Projects Rankin APPROVED BY: paj RECOMMENDED ACTION: Update Item ISSUE Rosemount is a member of the Countywide Hipp collaborative which is looking at new opportunities for increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of local government services by working together. The group is now proposing to embark on some possible new projects. This is an update on their activities. BACKGROUND Hipp stands for High Potential Project. It is a countywide collaboration that began in 2003 and resulted in the agreements to build and operate the Dakota Communications Center (DCC) which consolidated five 911 dispatch centers into one. In early 2009, after six years, various City and County leaders suggested a "reset" for the HiPP initiative was needed. Each City and the County was asked to re- commit to the process, clarify who would represent each jurisdiction, and review possible new projects. The City Council passed the new Hipp resolution in March 2009. Since then the HiPP group, which consists of one elected official and the Administrator /Manager of each jurisdiction, engaged the same consultant that helped start the original HiPP project. We have conducted surveys to share information among ourselves, and also have held four focus groups and an electronic town hall meeting to engage the general public. The project ranking system was reviewed (see first attachment) and possible projects were nominated. From a list of over 30 projects, 12 were identified for further review and scoring (see second attachment). After more discussion and debate, the following six areas have been identified as the initial priorities for the coming year: 1. Shared technical expertise 2. Public safety facilities 3. joint training programs 4. E- government platforms 5. Dark fiber 6. Administrative court We will keep the Council updated as one or more of these project ideas develops into a specific plan of action. Dakota County High Performance Partnerships (HiPP) Project Dakota County High Performance Partnerships Project Evaluation Scorecard Final Report 1 July 30, 2004 Project: Dakota County Evaluation High Performance Partnerships (HiPP) Project As noted above, each of the 20 opportunities was evaluated and assigned a letter grade (of A through F) against each of the ten criteria. Following, first, is a rough interpretation of the letter grades on each criteria and, secondly, the rating, ranking and scores for each of the 20 opportunities on page 21. A detailed discussion of the six recommended opportunities follows beginning on page 23, and a discussion of the other 14 opportunities also follows beginning on page 38. These discussion sections will provide a fuller rationale for the rating and ranking shown on the next three pages. Table 4: Evaluation Criteria and Grades Quality of Service A = quality may improve significantly B = quality may improve some C = maintain existing quality of service D = reduce the quality in order to save money, or because people don't really care, etc.) F = reduce the quality significantly Note that no opportunity was rated as a D or F. Each of the 20 candidate opportunities would at least maintain current service levels. Cost Savings A = save a lot of money B = save some money C = maintain current spending, but get more service for the same price) D = spend more F = spend a lot more No opportunity was rated as an F. Fourteen of the 20 opportunities show the potential to reduce costs and are therefore rated as an A or B. No Other Way to Deliver the Service This item was rated as a Yes/No. Four of the 20 opportunities were rated as a Yes on this dimension. Transferability A = every community in the county could benefit B = many communities could benefit C = some communities could benefit D = a few communities could benefit F = very few communities could benefit Only two of the opportunities were rated as low as a D on this criteria. Qualitative Advantages A = lots of/very significant spin -offs -- e.g. centralized 9 -1 -1 dispatching might lead to new deployment schemes that could provide better service and/or further lower costs of EMS, fire or police deployment Final Report 2 July 30, 2004 Dakota County High Performance Partnerships (HiPP) Project Table 4 continued Qualitative Advantages continued B = some spin -offs C = not clear D = probably not F = might even constrain future flexibility in other areas No opportunities were rated lower than a C on this criteria. Short-Term Manageability A = this is easy and not very costly to do B = somewhat easy and/or costly C = significant complexity and/or costs (but not both) D = significant complexity AND costs F = extremely complex and or costly Several opportunities were rated as a D, but none was rated an F. Longer -Term Manageability A = easy to manage longer -term and local governments retain flexibility B = easy to manage longer -term OR local governments retain flexibility C = some management complexity OR local governments lose some flexibility C = some management complexity and local governments lose some flexibility F = significant management complexity and local governments lose much flexibility None of the opportunities was rated lower than C. Political Feasibility Support for the opportunity among the general public, and among government officials and employees are evaluated separately. But the letter grades may be interpreted similarly. The grades are based primarily (but not solely) on the surveys, public participation and focus group discussions. Only two items rated below a C, those reflecting potential public opposition building inspections /code enforcement and police deployment. A = significant support for this opportunity, and no known opposition B = some support; and while there is no known opposition at this time (in Dakota County), this type of consolidation has generated opposition elsewhere C = some support was expressed, but some concerns and/or opposition also was voiced D = either a lack of support or demand, or definite opposition F = a lack of support or demand, and definite opposition Measurement A = very easy to measure results, to determine whether successful or not B = easy to measure C = not easy to measure, may not be able to fully determine success D = difficult to measure F = impossibly to measure, to know whether successful or not No opportunity was rated below C. Final Report 3 July 30, 2004 N OD C C m L L U N L O U N t N L CL C O U L L O L 00 m L L- N U N O L N O Q O L C) N