HomeMy WebLinkAbout10B Standard Measures ProgramPRIG r
U tr1
�4
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: JUNE 20, 2011
AGENDA #: 10B
PREPARED BY: JERILYN ERICKSON, FINANCE DIRECTOR
PRESENTED BY: JERILYN ERICKSON, FINANCE DIRECTOR
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S INTENT
TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA'S STANDARD MEASURES
PROGRAM AND ADOPTING THE TEN PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
DISCUSSION: Introduction
The purpose of this agenda item is for the Council to consider approval of a decla-
ration of intent to participate in the State of Minnesota's Standard Measures Pro-
gram and the adoption of ten performance benchmarks established by the Council
on Local Results and Innovation.
History
On June 1, 2011 the Office of the State Auditor mailed a letter to cities and coun-
ties to notify them of the Standard Measures Program. A copy of the letter and
corresponding documentation (State Statute and the Council on Local Results and
Innovation 2011 Legislative Report) are attached to this agenda report
Current Circumstances
The deadline for participating in the program for 2011 is July 1, 2011.
Participation in the program is voluntary. Each year, the City will determine if it
wishes to continue its participation.
To participate, the City must officially adopt the 10 performance benchmarks de-
veloped by the Council on Local Results and Innovation (included with this report)
and implement them in 2011. Some of the benchmarks are objective. Others are
subjective and based upon a survey instrument of one sort or another.
Direction from the Office of the State Auditor seems to indicate that there is a lot of
flexibility in determining how some of the information is gathered for the citizen
survey. Cities may use "surveymonkey.com" or a professional resource.
At this point in time, the State does not intend to compile a database with informa-
tion submitted by all of the cities and counties.
Conclusion
The City Council must decide at the meeting this evening whether or not the City
should participate in this program in order to meet the July 1S deadline.
ISSUES: Several issues to consider:
• The Council has expressed an interest in expanding and /or modifying its
current performance standards. The performance measures outlined in
this program may or may not be ones that the Council is interested in track-
ing but they do represent an addition to our current benchmarks.
• The list of ten performance measures is just a start for this program. The
number and scope of measures that are currently required to participate in
this program may expand.
• Tracking additional measures may require additional resources such as the
cost to conduct a citizen survey.
• The City will be required to report this information to the Office of the State
Auditor.
• The City will be required to report this information to the residents each
year through publication, direct mailing, posting on the jurisdiction's web -
site, or through a public hearing at which the budget and levy will be dis-
cussed and public input allowed.
FINANCIAL There are two incentives being offered to cities and counties to participate in the
IMPACT: Standard Measures Program:
1) Eligible for a reimbursement of $.014 per capita in local government aid,
not to exceed $25,000; and
2) Exemption from levy limits under sections 275.70 to 275.74 for taxes paya-
ble in 2012 (and future years), if levy limits are in effect.
The City's 2010 population was 22,796. The reimbursement would be approx-
imately $3,191 if we are eligible despite the fact that we receive no Local Govern-
ment Aid. The purpose of this reimbursement is to cover some portion of the cost
to compile this information.
Currently, the funds allocated to this Program are still available and have not been
reduced as a means to balance the State of Minnesota 2012 -2013 budget.
Levy limits for cities with over 2500 population have been presented as part of the
omnibus tax bill. The tax bill was vetoed by Governor Dayton.
By participating in this program and therefore, exempt from levy limits, the City will
have flexibility regarding its ability to fund local services with property tax reve-
nues.
While these incentives are offered, they were not the staff's reason for proposing
that the council consider adoption of the Standard Measures Program.
ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve a resolution declaring the City's intent to participate in the State of
Minnesota's Standard Measures Program and adopting the ten performance
benchmarks.
2. Deny the resolution.
3. Take no action and provide staff with direction.
RECOMMENDED Alternative #1.
MOTION:
REBECCA OTTO
STATE AUDITOR
June 1, 2011
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
SUITE 500
525 PARK STREET
SAINT PAUL,, MN 55103 -2139
(651) 296 -2551 (Voice)
(651) 296 -4755 (rax)
state.auditor a�state.mn.us (E -mail)
1 -500- 627 -3529 (Relay Service)
Dear City Clerk/Finance Officer /County Auditor:
In 2010, the Legislature created the Council on Local Results and Innovation. In February
2011, the Council released a standard set of 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' opinions of those services. By February of 2012, the Council must create
comprehensive performance measurement systems for cities and counties to implement in
2012. Cities and counties that choose to participate in the new standards measure program
may be eligible for a reimbursement in LGA, and exemption from levy limits.
Participation in the standard measures program by a city or a county is voluntary. Counties and
cities that choose to participate in the standard measures program must officially adopt the
corresponding 10 performance benchmarks developed by the Council, and implement them in
2011. They will be required to communicate the results of the measures to their residents the
following calendar year. A county or city that elects to participate in the standard measures
program for 2011 is eligible for a reimbursement of $0.14 per capita in local government aid, not
to exceed $25,000 and is also exempt from levy limits under sections 275.70 to 275.74 for taxes
payable in 2012, if levy limits are in effect.
In order to receive the per capita reimbursement in 2011, and levy limit exemption for
calendar year 2012, counties and cities must:
✓ File a report with the Office of the State Auditor by July 1, 2011. This report will
consist of a declaration approved by the city council or county board stating that the
city /county has adopted the corresponding 10 performance measures developed by the
Council.
Annual reporting will be required by the cities and counties that participate in the program. By
July 1, 2012, cities and counties will be required to report to the OSA that they have adopted
both the performance benchmarks, and the performance measure system released by the Council
in February of 2012. A declaration will be required that the city /county has reported or will
report the results for calendar 2011 of the 10 adopted measures to its residents before the end of
calendar year 2012.
To meet the reporting requirements for 2011, a copy of the declaration in a PDF format can be
attached to an email and sent to gid @osa.state.mn.us. Beginning next year, the Office of the
State Auditor will be using the State Auditor's Form Entry System (SAFES) for the local
performance measurement and improvement program reporting.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
To view the 10 performance measures for voluntary adoption for both cities and counties, please
go to the Office of the State Auditor's website at www. auditor. state.mn.us and then in the
middle of the home page under Meetings, click on Council on Local Results and
Innovation, and then on Measurements.
Please submit your declaration by July 1, 2011. There will be no extensions for the reporting
deadline. If you have any questions, please contact me at (651) 297 -3682 or email me at
Dave.Kazeck@osa.state.mn.us.
Sincerely,
C "&--
David R. Kazeck, Supervisor
Government Information Division
Encl: Legislation for new program
An Equal opportunity Employer
6.91 LOCAL PERFORMANCE MEA SUREMENT AND REPORTING.
Subdivision 1.Reports of local performance measures.
(a) A county or city that elects to participate in the standard measures program must report its
results to its citizens annually through publication, direct mailing, posting on the jurisdiction's
Web site, or through a public hearing at which the budget and levy will be discussed and public
input allowed.
(b) Each year, jurisdictions participating in the local performance measurement and improvement
program must file a report with the state auditor by July 1, in a form prescribed by the auditor. All
reports must include a declaration that the jurisdiction has complied with, or will have complied
with by the end of the year, the requirement in paragraph (a). For jurisdictions participating in the
standard measures program, the report shall consist of the jurisdiction's results for the standard set
of performance measures under section 6.90, subdivision 2, paragraph (a). In 2012, jurisdictions
participating in the comprehensive performance measurement program must submit a resolution
approved by its local governing body indicating that it either has implemented or is in the process
of implementing a local performance measurement system that meets the minimum standards
specified by the council under section 6.90, subdivision 2 , paragraph (b). In 2013 and thereafter,
jurisdictions participating in the comprehensive performance measurement program must submit a
statement approved by its local governing body affirming that it has implemented a local
performance measurement system that meets the minimum standards specified by the council
under section 6.90, subdivision 2 , paragraph (b).
Subd. 2.Benefits of participation.
(a) A county or city that elects to participate in the standard measures program for 2011 is: (1)
eligible for per capita reimbursement of $0.14 per capita, but not to exceed $25,000 for any
government entity; and (2) exempt from levy limits under sections 275.70 to 275.74 for taxes
payable in 2012, if levy limits are in effect.
(b) Any county or city that elects to participate in the standard measures program for 2012 is
eligible for per capita reimbursement of $0.14 per capita, but not to exceed $25,000 for any
government entity. Any jurisdiction participating in the comprehensive performance measurement
program is exempt from levy limits under sections 275.70 to 275.74 for taxes payable in 2013 if
levy limits are in effect.
(cyAny county or city that elects to participate in the standard measures program for 2013 or any
year thereafter is eligible for per capita reimbursement of $0.14 per capita, but not to exceed
$25,000 for any government entity. Any jurisdiction participating in the comprehensive
performance measurement program for 2013 or any year thereafter is exempt from levy limits
under sections 275.70 to 275.74 for taxes payable in the following year, if levy limits are in
effect.
Subd. 3.Certification of participation.
(a) The state auditor shall certify to the commissioner of revenue by August 1 of each year the
counties and cities that are participating in the standard measures program and the comprehensive
performance measurement program.
(b) The commissioner of revenue shall make per capita aid payments under this section on the
second payment date specified in section 477A.015 in the same year that the measurements were
reported.
(c) The commissioner of revenue shall notify each county and city that is entitled to exemption
from levy limits by August 10 of each levy year.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
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
Model Performance Measures for Counties
The following are the recommended model measures of performance outcomes for counties,
with alternatives provided in some cases. Key output measures are also suggested for
consideration by local county officials.
Public Safety:
1. Part I and 11 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, D. U.I., liquor laws, disorderly conduct, and other offenses)
,1
Citizen's rating of safety in their county. (Citizen Survey: very safe, somewhat safe,
neither safe nor unsafe, somewhat safe, very unsafe)
Output Measure:
Deputy Response Time (Time it takes on top priority calls from dispatch to the first
officer on scene)
Probation /Corrections:
2. Percent of adult offenders with a new felony conviction within 3 years of discharge
Public Works:
3. Hours to plow complete system during a snow event
4. Average county pavement condition rating
M'
Citizen's rating of the road conditions in their county. (Citizen Survey: good
condition, mostly good condition, many bad spots)
(Under legislation passed in 2009 (Minn. Stat. § 402A.15), counties are engaged with the
Department of Human Services and community organizations in a three -year process to
develop comprehensive performance measures across all areas of human services, for which all
counties will be held accountable. The following measures here are intended to serve as `place -
holders', not to replace the more comprehensive measures scheduled to be completed by
December 2012.)
Public Health
5. Life Expectancy generally and by sex and race
M
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance system rating (Citizen Survey: excellent, very
good, good, fair, or poor)
Social Services
6. Workforce participation rate among MFIP and DWP recipients
7. Percentage of children where there is a recurrence of maltreatment within 12 months
following an intervention
Taxation
8. Level of assessment ratio (If the median ratio falls between 90% and 105%, the level
of assessment is determined to be acceptable.)
Elections:
9. Accuracy of post- election audit (Percentage of ballots counted accurately.)
Veterans' Services:
Output Measure:
Percent of veterans surveyed who said their questions were answered when seeking
benefit information from their County Veterans' Office
Parks:
10. Citizens' rating of the quality of county parks, recreational programs, and/or facilities.
(Citizen survey: excellent, good, fair, poor)
Library:
11. Number of annual visits per 1,000 residents
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.
General:
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)
Police Services:
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, D. U.I.,
liquor laws, disorderly conduct, and other offenses)
W
Citizens' rating of safety in their community (Citizen Survey: very safe, somewhat
safe, neither safe nor unsafe, somewhat unsafe, very unsafe)
Output Measure:
Police response time (Time it takes on top priority calls from dispatch to the first
officer on scene.)
Fire Services:
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 I 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.)
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)
Streets
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)) .
M'
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)
Water
8. Citizens' rating of the dependability and quality of city water supply (centrally -
provided system) (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor)
Output Measure:
Operating cost per 1,000,000 gallons of water pumped/produced (centrally- provided
system) (Actual operating expense for water utility / (total gallons
pumped11, 000, 000))
Sanitary Sewer
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 /
(population1100))
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)
U rrf
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RESOLUTION 11 -xxx
RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S INTENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA'S STANDARD MEASURES PROGRAM AND ADOPTING
THE TEN PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Motion By: Second By:
WHEREAS, The Council on Local Results and Innovation has established a Standard Measures
Program which identifies ten performance measures (Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, Cities electing to participate in the Standard Measures Program are eligible to receive a
$.014 per capita reimbursement (not to exceed $25,000); and
WHEREAS, Cities electing to participate in the Standard Measures Program are exempt from levy
limits under sections 275.70 to 275.74 for taxes payable in 2012, if levy limits are in effect;
and
WHEREAS, The City Council must declare its intent to participate in the Standard Measures Program
and adopt the ten performance measures by July 1, 2011.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA as follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. Adoption of this resolution affirms the city council's intent to participate in the State of Minnesota's
Standard Measures Program.
3. The ten performance benchmarks are herby adopted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 20th DAY OF JUNE, 2011.
YES
Esi
M ser
M ser
Erickson
Erickson
Hedberg
Hedber
Keeney
Keene
Soukup
Souku
Frank Boyles, City Manager
EXHIBIT it A\
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.
General:
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)
Police Services:
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, D. UJ,
liquor laws, disorderly conduct, and other offenses)
OR
Citizens' rating of safety in their community (Citizen Survey: very safe, somewhat
safe, neither safe nor unsafe, somewhat unsafe, very unsafe)
Output Measure:
Police response time (Time it takes on top priority calls from dispatch to the first
officer on scene)
Fire Services:
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 I 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.)
XV
Pea e—
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)
Streets
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)
Water
8. Citizens' rating of the dependability and quality of city water supply (centrally -
provided system) (Citizen Survey. excellent, good, fair, poor)
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 11, 000, 000))
Sanitary Sewer
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 1100))
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)
���e.2�Z