The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-05-15 PACKET 04.E.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 5/15/13 • PREPARED BY Finance Robin Roland ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT HEAD ************�************�**�**************�**** COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Consider adopting resolution identifying ten performance benchmarks for the Local PerFormance Measurement program for 2013 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution fo rthe Local PerFormance Measurement program for 2013. BUDGET IMPLICATION: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE ❑ PLANNING ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES/RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � MEMO/LETTER: � RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: � OTHER: Recap of 2012 Performance measurements , `� ity Administrator ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS N/A ACTUAL AMOUNT APPROVED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ �� f Date ********��**�*�********************************:� COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER H:\Council items\CC Action Form.doc Cottage / Grove � Pride andPrOSPerity Meet To: From: Date: Subject: Mayor and City Council Members Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator Robin Roland, Finance Director � May 3, 2013 Local PerFormance Measurement and Reporting program Introduction The Council on Local Results and Innovation was created by the Legislature in 2010. The work of this Council resulted in the issuance of a standard set of ten perFormance measures for Cities and Counties in February 2011. The City of Cottage Grove chose to participate in this voluntary standards measure program in 2011 and must submit a new resolution each year it chooses to participate. Discussion Information on the "Local PerFormance Measurement and Reporting" program was provided to the City Council in June 2011 when the first resolution was adopted. Many of the model perFormance measures identified by statute are measures we already calculate as part of our annual budget process. Several of the measures call for input by citizens through a survey, which was conducted by Decision Resources in July 2012. The report of the "Standard Measures" results is attached with this memo and will be submitted as part of the required documentation to the Office of the State Auditor by July 1St Potential funding from this program in 2013 is $4,842; the City received $4,842 in 2012. Requested Action Adopt the Resolution adopting the ten performance benchmarks recommended by the Council on Local Results and Innovation for 2013. RESOLUTION NO. 13- RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATION IN COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, Benefits to the City of Cottage Grove for participation in the Minnesota Council on Local Results and Innovation's comprehensive perFormance measurement program are outlined in MS 6.91 and include eligibility for a reimbursement as set by State statute; and WHEREAS, Any city participating in the comprehensive perFormance measurement program is also exempt from levy limits for taxes, if levy limits are in effect; and WHEREAS, The City Council of Cottage Grove has adopted and implemented at least 10 of the perFormance measures, as developed by the Council on Local Results and Innovation, and a system to use this information to help plan, budget, manage and evaluate programs and processes for optimal future outcomes. NOW THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT, The City Council of Cottage Grove will continue to report the results of the perFormance measures to its citizenry by the end of the year through publication, direct mailing, posting on the city's website, or through a public hearing at which the budget and levy will be discussed and public input allowed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The City Council of Cottage Grove will submit to the Office of the State Auditor the actual results of the perFormance measures adopted by the city. Passed this 15h day of May, 2013. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk Standard Measures for Cities Local Performance Measures Program 2012. Measure Result Citizen rating of the overall quality of 2012 Decision Resources Survey — 79% services provided by the City. rated excellent or good. Percent change in the taxable property 2012 decreased from 2011 by 8.58% market value. Citizen rating of the overall appearance of 2012 Decision Resources Survey — 90% the city positive rating Part I and II crime rates 2012 Part I= 756 (4.3%); 2012 Part II = 1614 (9.3%). Total crimes reported = 17,348 Citizens rating of safety in their community 2012 Decision Resources Survey — 88% feel safe in the city. Insurance industry rating of fire services. ISO rating class 4 Average city pavement condition rating 82.4 Citizen rating the quality of snowplowing 2012 Decision Resources Survey — 64% on city streets. Positive rating Citizen rating of the dependability and 2012 Decision Resources Survey — 64% quality of city water supply Positive rating Citizen rating of the dependability and 2012 Decision Resources Survey — 64% quality of city sanitary sewer service. Positive rating Citizen rating of the quality of city 2012 Decision Resources Survey — 77% recreational programs and facilities (parks, excellent or good recreational programs trails & park buildings). and 90% excellent or good facilities Notes: The 20�2 Decision Resources Survey was conducted using 400 randomly selected residents in a phone survey with 51 questions in July 2092. Standard Measures for Cities General 1 Rating of the overall quality of services provided by your city (survey data, provide year compieted and totai responses) Example of responses: excellent, good, fair, poor 2. Percent change in the taxabie property market value County assessor's office data Citizens' rating of the overall appearance of the city (survey data, provide year 3 � completed and total responses) Example of responses: excellent, good, fair, poor 4.* Nuisance code enforcement cases per 1,000 population (Number of cases / Population) x 1,000= cases per 1,000 population 5.* Numberofiibraryvisitsper1,000population (Numberofvisits/Population)x1,000=visitsper1,000population 6.* Bond rating Standard & Poor's Ratings Services or Moody's Investor Services Citizens' rating of the quality of city recreational programs and facilities (survey �• Example of responses: excellent, good, fair, poor data, provide year completed and totai responses) 8.* Accuracy of post election audit (% of ballots counted accurately) Police 9. Part i andsll Crime'Rates Submit data as reported bythe Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Services 10.* Part I and'rrll Crime Clearance Rates Submit data as reported bythe Minnesota'Bureau'of Criminal Apprehension 11. Citizens' rating of safety in'their community (sunrey data, provide year compieted 6campie of responses: very safe, somewhat safe, neithersafe nor unsafe,'somewhat and total responses) unsafe, very unsafe 12. Average'police response time Average time it takes to respond to top priority calls from dispatch to officer on scene. Fire & EMS Insurance Service Office (ISO) Rating. The ISO issues ratings to fire departments Seroices throughoutthe countryforthe effectiveness oftheirfire protection services and 13. Insurance industry rating of fire services equipment. ISO analyzes data and then assigns a classification from 1to 10. Class 1 represents superior property fire protection and Class 10 indicates that the area's fire suppression program does not meet ISO's minimum criteria. Citizens' rating ofthe quality of fire protection services (survey data, provide year 14. Example of responses: excellent, good, fair, poor completed and total responses) 15. Average fire response time Average time it takes from dispatch to apparatus on scene for caiis that are dispatched as a possible fire 16.* Fire calis per 1,000 population (Number of calls / population) x 1,000= calls per 1,000 population 17.* Numberoffireswith loss resulting in investigation 18.* EMS calls per 1,000 population (Number of calls / population) x 1,000 =calls per 1,000 population 19. Emergency Medical Services average response time Average time it takes from dispatch to arrivai of EMS Streets ' Provi d e average rati ng and the rati ng syste m p rogram/type. F�cam pl e, 70 rati ng on the 20. Average citystreetpavementcondition rating Pavement Condition Index (PCI). ;' 21 ; Citizens' rating of the road conditions in their city (survey data, provide year Example of responses: excellent;good, fair, poor. Alternatively: good condition, mostly' completed and total responses) good contlition, many batl spots 22 *, Fxpendituresforroad reha'bilitation perpaved lane mile rehabilitated (jurisdiction ' ` ; only roads) Total costforrehabilitations/ lane milesrehabilitated 23.* : Percentage of all �urisdiction lane'miles rehabilitated in the year Lane miles rehabilitated in year/total numberof lane miles 24.* ! Average hoursto complete road system'during'snow event' Citizens' rating of the quality of snowplowing on city streets (survey data, provide ' 25- ° - Exampie of responses: excelient, good, fair, poor year completed and total 'responses) Water 26 Citizens'ratingofthedependabilityandqualityofthecitywatersupply (survey data, provide year completed and total responses) Example of responses: excellent, good, fair, poor Centrally provided system: (actual operating expense forwater utility /(total gallons 27. Operating cost per 1,000,OOOgallons of water pumped/produced um ed 1,000,000 p p / ))=costpermillion Sanitary 28 ; Citizens'ratingofthedependabilityandqualityofcitysanitarysewerservice Sewer ` (Provide year completed and total responses) Example of responses: excellent, good, fair, poor I29. Number of sewer biockages on citysystem per 100 connections Centrailyprovided system: (Number of blockages / number of connections) x 100= ' blockages per 100'connections *New or amended measure