HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.e. State Auditor's Voluntary 2011 Performance Measurement ProgramAGENDA ITEM: State Auditor's Voluntary 2011
Performance Measurement Program
E A SECT N:
PREPARED BY: Dwight Johnson, City Administrator
AGENDA NO. e
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Legislative Report
APPROVED BY:
00.)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the attached resolution affirming the City's
participation in the Office of the State Auditor's Voluntary 2011 Performance Measurement
Program.
4 ROSEMOUNT
BACKGROUND
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Regular Meeting: July 5, 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2010 Legislature enacted legislation to promote performance measures for cities and counties. A
Council on Results and Innovation was established to create a standard set of performance measures.
Cities that participate may receive up to $0.14 per capita in LGA funding and also be exempt from levy
limits. The per capita incentive could be about $3,000 for Rosemount.
Rosemount implemented comprehensive performance management measures on its own in 2010. They
were included in the 2011 final budget document and are currently being updated for the 2012 draft
budget. A review of the proposed state performance measures shows that several of them require some
kind of survey. Staff's initial review was that the costs of developing and implement a survey would
exceed the benefits in LGA aid and relief from levy limits. Since Rosemount is anticipating reducing taxes
again for 2012, we do not anticipate any concern with levy limits that may be enacted in a special session
of the Legislature.
However, within the last two weeks, since our last Council meeting on June 21st, many cities have
indicated an interest in working together with help from the League of Minnesota Cites to develop a
common survey instrument. If we do not have to create and administer a survey on our own, the burden
of complying with the state's performance measures will be minimized. Accordingly, with this new
information, we propose that Rosemount participate in the program for one year. It is our understanding
that we can still drop out at any point in the process without any consequence if we wish to do so.
The deadline for entering the program has recently changed from July 1st to July 15th according to
information I received from the State Auditor's office, so Council action on July 5th would be timely.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council approve the attached resolution authorizing participation in the Office
of the State Auditor's Voluntary 2011 Performance Management Program.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2011
A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE OFFICE OF THE
STATE AUDITOR'S VOLUNTARY 2011 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, The 2010 State Legislature enacted legislation calling for the Council on Results
and Innovation to establish a standard set of performance measures for cities; and
WHEREAS, such performance measures will aid residents, taxpayers, and state and local
elected officials in determining the efficacy of cities in providing services; and
WHEREAS, the Council has established these performance measurements and is soliciting,
through the Office of the State Auditor, voluntary participation in the 2011 effort; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the results generated from participation, benefits to participating
cities include remuneration of $0.14 per capita and exemption from levy limits for the participating year;
and
WHEREAS, sufficient flexibility exists within the program to allow for Rosemount to
participate on both a cost effective and activity specific basis.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Rosemount, that
the City does hereby affirm its intention to participate in the Office of the State Auditor's Voluntary
2011 Performance Measurement Program and adopts the performance measures developed by the
Council on Results and Innovation.
Passed and duly adopted this 5th day of July, 2011 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount,
Minnesota.
ATTEST:
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
William H. Droste, Mayor
The Council on Local Results and Innovation 2011
Legislative Report
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. 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
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
General:
Police Services:
OR
Fire Services:
Output Measure:
OR
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.
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)
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 /counterfeiting, embezzlement, stolen property, vandalism, weapons,
prostitution, other sex offenses, narcotics, gambling, family /children crime,
liquor laws, disorderly conduct, and other offenses.)
Citizens' rating of safety in their community (Citizen Survey: very safe, somewhat
safe, neither safe nor unsafe, somewhat unsafe, very unsafe)
Police response time (Time it takes on top priority calls from dispatch to the first
officer on scene.)
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.)
Streets:
Water:
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)
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)
8. Citizens' rating of the dependability and quality of city water supply (centrally
provided system) (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor)
Sanitary Sewer:
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))
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)