Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS29 - Performance Measures and BenchmarksCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. S29 November 24, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Dave Kiff, City Manager 949 - 644 -3000, dkiffta').newoortbeachca.gov Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager 949 - 644 -3222, swood @newportbeachca.gov SUBJECT: Status Report on Performance Measures and Benchmarks RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. DISCUSSION: Background: The City Council received a final report on performance measures and benchmarks from our consultants, ICMA, on September 8, 2009. The Council accepted the report, and directed the City Manager to evaluate the data, determine how to use the data to structure his management approach, return to the Council with a plan for the future, respond to ICMA recommendations, and describe the next phase of the benchmarking project. This is the first status report on the organization's progress in implementing the performance measurement program, and the City Manager's initial thoughts on incorporating performance measure data into the management of the City. Performance Measurement Progress: Staff in every department/service area have made good progress in collecting data on their performance and benchmark measures, developing reporting programs and preparing reports, as shown in the following summary table. The table does not include the customer satisfaction measures that rely on a survey of either external or internal customers, as all departments have assumed that these surveys will be conducted for the entire City at one time. Does not include customer satisfaction measures that require survey. Performance Measures Benchmark Measures Total Number of Measures 100` 26' 126 Data being collected 83 25 108 Reporting ro ram available 66 21 87 Reports available 60 21 81 Does not include customer satisfaction measures that require survey. Status Report on Performance Measures and Benchmarks November 24, 2009 Page 2 For the relatively small number of measures on which staff has not made progress, departments indicate that they need more time to develop reporting mechanisms and more staff time to develop cost comparisons with other cities. Comparing costs of overall programs per 1,000 population or some other metric is not as straightforward as ICMA believed because of the variety of ways that different cities organize some functions. In order to make meaningful comparisons, staff will need to examine the budget of each comparison city to determine whether other cities are budgeting for the same package of services as Newport Beach. If not, adjustments to cost numbers will need to be made. Performance Measurement Reporting: Because the organization has made progress on collecting performance measure data and putting reporting systems in place, it is our intent to begin providing regular, quarterly reports on performance measurement to the City Council and the Newport Beach public. These reports would include all performance measures for which we have data and reports, and the number would grow as staff fills in gaps in data collection and reporting. In addition, one page of the City Manager's community newsletter will routinely report back to the community on performance measurement. This will be a more abbreviated report than the one Council receives, and may focus on different service areas each time it's included. About ICMA's Recommendations: ICMA made eight (8) recommendations in their September report. They are listed below, with a brief status report on each. Continue refining measures and benchmarks. A great deal of effort has been committed to establishing a solid base of measures for which data is currently being collected. Some measures will need to be refined as a better understanding of the work emerges, and some benchmarks will be abandoned or changed as discussion of what's important evolves. A measurement team should continue, and a person in each department should be designated as the "measurement coordinator." Staff has found that some measures need to be refined for clarity, measurability, meaningfulness and usefulness. No major issues have been identified, and staff will resolve them as we go forward with the program. Departments have now designated persons who will coordinate the measurements. Our measurement team has not met since September, but will be called together again in January 2010 as we prepare to report on the performance measures. 2. Conduct a debriefing session with the core team and facilitators. The purpose of the session would be for the City Manager and Department Heads to uncover issues and determine staff capacity to fully implement a performance management system. This should be followed by a Council study session regarding the costs and benefrts of managing with data. The debriefing session has not yet been held. Shortly after the September 9, 2009 briefing to Council, we started to see revenue shortfalls that pushed this meeting off into December 2010. Status Report on Performance Measures and Benchmarks November 24, 2009 Page 3 3. Decisions should be made regarding what measures and outcomes the Council will track on an on -going basis in order to establish a clear linkage to strategic planning /goal setting sessions. This is true, and we believe that these decisions as to what to track should be, for the short term, an iterative and developing process. As the Council and the public gets to know the measurements and benchmarks better, Council will be able to work with staff to determine which are the most useful to them. The twelve months of 2010 will be a time where we measure our performance and report on it, but also for us to dialogue to decide what is meaningful to the Council and what is not — by December 2010, we should have a set of benchmarks and measurements we all think work as a management and informational tool. 4. Conduct regular strategic planning. The City has committed to performance excellence, and to benchmarking against best in class" organizations. Developing a multi -year strategic plan with actionable objectives, linked to a business plan and annual budget will bring Newport Beach in line with best practice in this area. This will also help to define the strategic outcomes for measurement, and improve alignment with department operations. We recommend that the next City Council Goal- Setting Session (tentatively set for January 9 or 16, 2010) include a strategic planning discussion linked to budget planning for the next fiscal year. By that time, the Council will have seen a first report on performance measures, which should help to focus the discussion. Since this will be a new process for Newport Beach, we will probably start with fairly simple strategic planning, which will evolve as the Council and the organization gain more experience with it. 5. Consider leading an effort with the similarly situated cities to conduct benchmarking — focused on key Newport Beach measures. As noted, some of the benchmarking measures lack comparables. Although additional effort by staff will expand the comparable data, many of the measures important to Newport Beach are not collected by the peer cities. Our remedy would be for Newport Beach to lead a benchmark group. ICMA has numerous benchmark consortiums across the country. Newport Beach could set the standards for a southern California group. We will continue to work on this aspect of the recommendations, especially for those benchmarks that are not commonly used. The organization needs to become comfortable with our own performance measures, and incorporate them into our strategic planning and budgeting, before we take on another phase of the benchmarking program. In addition, with early retirements and the current hiring freeze, we will need to focus our staff resources on continuing to provide the services our residents expect. 6. Continue regular community and business surveys. Surveys of customer requirements and satisfaction are crucial to the measurement of various services. In addition, future surveys should be designed to elicit specific information concerning customer requirements so that systems can be designed properly and data can be collected to measure results related to meeting customer needs. 7. Conduct regular employee surveys. Much like the community and business surveys, an employee survey will enable management to understand employee requirements — particularty as they relate to internal service delivery and strategic alignment. Status Report on Performance Measures and Benchmarks November 24, 2009 Page 4 As the Council reminded us recently, it is time to conduct another community -wide customer survey. This should be a priority for early 2010 (for staff, even if not on the City Council list), and should include a survey of internal customers for our internal service departments. The survey is planned for February 2010. 8. Adopt a five year Capital Improvement Program (C1P). Because capital project management is a high priority for the City Council, and the staff delivers a high volume of projects, the establishment of a multi -year Capital Improvement Program is a prudent course of action. This should become part of the business planning/budgeting cycle. The Facilities Replacement Plan, if supplemented by other CIP items (water master plan, wastewater master plan, master plan to repair and maintain street, harbor projects, environmental compliance projects, may be the building block of the five -year Capital Improvement Program. I will ask the Public Works Director and Administrative Services Director to report back on the value of such a document by our January 2010 Goal- Setting Session. Performance Budgeting: As the Council is aware, we believe that there may be good value in a budgeting system that includes performance measurement. Generally, it means developing a program -based budget (as opposed to our line -item, department- and division -based budget) that shows performance measurements along with programs. Moving to a performance -based program budget includes these steps: 1. Identifying each program worthy of a program designation. a. What programs are too small to be separately designated? b. What programs are so large that they should be broken further into component parts? 2. Using the line -item budget, determine how to allocate resources (personnel, benefits, professional services, capital, etc) to each program. a. How should the costs of departments like the City Attorney, Human Resources, City Manager, and Administrative Services be apportioned amongst programs? b. Should they be addressed separately as separate programs? 3. Once resources are allocated by program, establish a system to expend and track resources quarterly. a. City must analyze our existing capability to move this way using existing information technology and budgeting programs — or are new programs needed? b. Interval could be at a different period that allows managers to make resource decisions based on meeting performance measurements associated with each program. 4. Align resource tracking system with performance measurement tracking system and disseminate the results in a meaningful manner and timeline. An example of how the performance measurements (as well as their context in a budget document) might work is shown as Attachment A. Status Report on Performance Measures and Benchmarks November 24, 2009 Page 5 What's Next? Staff will be preparing a Work Plan reflecting short -, medium -, and long -term objectives and actions to incorporate performance measurement and benchmarking in the City's operations. The Work Plan's framework is summarized as follows: Performance Measurement — Benchmarking Work Plan Framework (draft) A — Short-Term (0-12 months) 1. Debrief with department directors, measurement team (per ICMA Item #1 above); 2. Provide City Council with first report of performance measurement data, and any available benchmarking data, at Council's goal- setting effort (January 9, 2010) 3. Discuss 5 -year Capital Improvement Program and overall City Strategic Plan during Council's goal- setting effort (January 9, 2010), incorporate within Work Plan to achieve both if that is Council's desire; 4. City Manager to designate individual in the City Manager's office as "lead" for performance measurement and benchmarking effort, with assistance of Administrative Services Director (ASD). 5. City Manager will report back on analysis of staffs ability to lead benchmarking effort with "similarly situated" cities per ICMA Item #5 above) — today, staff has some concern that with staffing reductions, setting up benchmarking programs with other cities may be challenging; 6. Designee to select 8 -10 benchmarks or measurements that will be most meaningful to residents (see Attachment A for a preliminary list); 7. Provide these to the public and Council on one easy -to -read and identifiable page within City Manager's community newsletter; S. Work with department directors to apportion existing services into defined programs, with a percentage of overall department costs allocated to those programs; 9. Select 15 -20 key /meaningful measurements to be incorporated into the FY 2010 -11 budget document; 10. Continuous collection of measurements, continuous refinement of measurements based on value to staff, public, and Council; 11. Results of performance measurements used by City Manager and Council to identify areas needing additional management focus; and 12. Conduct communitywide survey (per ICMA Items #6 and #7 above). B — Medium -Term (next 12 -24 months) 1. Items #A4, #A7, #A10, and #A11 above continue; 2. ASD, with consultation from City Manager and Finance Committee, evaluates costs (time, staff, and technology) and benefits of transitioning to a Program -Based Budget (over 2 fiscal years). If a program -based budget with performance measurements is: • Recommended: a timeline will be included; • Not recommended: alternatives (such as retaining a line =item budget that has performance measures) will be suggested. 3. If appropriate, implement Work Plan for Item #A3 above (5 -year CIP and Strategic Plan); 4. Review and revise this Performance Measurement - Benchmarking Work Plan based on: • Community Survey Results; • Continuous review of benchmarks and performance measurements; • Strategic Plan, FRP & 5 -year CIP (if applicable); and • Budget. Status Report on Performance Measures and Benchmarks November 24, 2009 Page 6 C — Long -Term (24 months and beyond) 1. Items #A4, #A7, #A10, and #A11 above continue; 2. Community -wide survey every two years. 3. Program -based budget with performance measurements by program, if Item #132 recommends it and if resources allow. 4. Every two years, review and revise Performance Measurement - Benchmarking Work Plan based on: • Community Survey Results; • Continuous review of benchmarks and performance measurements; • Strategic Plan, FRP & 5 -year CIP (if applicable); and • Budget. At the November 24, 2009 Council meeting, we welcome the Council's input on the proposed Work Plan and on our performance measurement program generally. Submitted by: Sharon Wood Dav Kiff Assistant City Manager City Manager Attachment: A — Preliminary Listing of Benchmarks Status Report on Performance Measures and Benchmarks November 24, 2009 Page 7 Attachment A Preliminary Listing of Benchmarks and Measurements How Are We Doing ?(draft) MEASURING OUR PERFORMANCE �- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH- 2nd Quarter (Oct - Dec 2009) Are our roads and traffic management in good shape? Our Road Quality& Traffic Benchmarks: Where do we rank with similar cities in terms of pavement condition? How satisfied are surveyed residents with our road conditions? How satisfied are surveyed residents with our traffic move ment7 2W9 2010 2M zo 7 Are we keeping your home re model or construction project on schedule? Our Plan Check Indicators: astQuandr, 2nd Q.,arter rd Quz rter 4s4,Qdartei. -2010 wra. How many customers say they are satisfied with our process? (Goal = 85 %) How many plan checks received 1st Review within 28 days? (Goal =90%) How many of our plans were re- checked within 14 days (Goal = 9D%) Our Site Inspection Indicators: lws t Gua,ter 2rd Quaae, 3rd Quarrel oh a,aner 2010Wra P -u Are inspections provided on the day requested? (Goal =90%of time) Are complaints investigated on the next business day? (Goal =90%of time) Are we constructing our projects on budget and on schedule? Our Capital Project Indicators (roads, buildings, docks, etc) ist Quaiten 26d Cga'&Wl 3rd Qu6rt e. Are our capital projects completed under budget? (Goal = 90% of time) Are our capital projects completed on time? (Goal = 90% of time) Are we keeping our community safe and attractive? Our Safety Indicators: Percentage of Part l vlolent crimes cleared (Goal = 70%) PD: Time between dispatch and arrival at site (Goal = less than 5 minutes) Fire /EMS: Percentage of response times less than 5 minutes (Goal =100%) _Our Safety Benchmarks: Feeling of Safety in Community, Day (Goal = 100%safe orvery safe) Feeling of Safety in Community, Night (Goal =100% safe or very safe) Our Maintenance Indicators: Code Enforcement: Average days from complaint to first response (Goal =1 day) Refuse Collection: Resident rating of refuse service_ _ _ Refuse Collection: Costs per amount Street sweeping: Expenditures per residential curb -mile swept 1st Quarter 2n0 Qua e, 31d Quz¢es 4th QOEne /2011 -1v4 77- Are our beaches and waterways staying clean? Our Environmental Quality Benchmarks: _ How many of our beaches received "As" from beach ranking groups? What number of wastewater spills did we have per 100 miles of pipe?