Loading...
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)