The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4c - Performance MeasuresCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 4c January 9, 2010 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager 949 -644 -3222, swood @newportbeachca.gov SUBJECT: First Quarterly Report on Performance Measures 1. Review report and provide feedback to staff on report format, usefulness of performance measures, and performance data. 2. Provide direction to staff on any changes to performance measures. 3. Consider performance measure data in setting priorities for 2010, and in strategic and budget planning for Fiscal Year 2010 -11. Background: The City Council approved the final report from ICMA on performance measures and benchmarks on September 8, 2009. Staff began collecting data for the majority of the measures (except those requiring internal or external survey data) at the start of Fiscal Year 2009 -10, and the City Manager and I provided a status report to the City Council on November 24, 2009. In that report, we expressed our intent to provide the first quarterly report on performance measures at this priority setting session. As a reminder, we differentiate performance measures from benchmarks this way: A performance measurement is a way to measure ourselves internally, including by comparing our actions against the same action over consecutive quarters or years, or our costs to provide a service against our cost in a previous period. Benchmarks are ways to measure ourselves externally against other jurisdictions that provide similar services. How Are We Doing? Attached is the performance measurement report for the first quarter of 2009 -10. It includes all of the performance measures approved by the Council in September, whether or not data is available yet. As we noted in November, data is available for the majority of measures, with the First Quarterly Report on Performance Measures January 9, 2010 Page 2 notable exception of measures requiring a survey. For some measures that are reported annually rather than quarterly, data is not yet available and will be reported later in the year. For annual expenditure measures, we have provided information in the first quarter, based on the 2009 -10 adopted budget. With only one quarter of data, it is not possible to see trends in performance yet. Nonetheless, the following positive performance highlights are shown in the report: • All reserve balances and annual contributions to replacement plans and long -term liabilities met or exceeded Council policy. The City's IT network and major subsystems were available for use 99.9% of the time. 100% of litigation matters were resolved in favor of the City or within Council approved settlement range. • Beach water quality warnings were posted for .73 beach mile day. • 32% of development plans were approved over the counter. • All development services departments met the first plan review goal of 30 days 95% of the time. • 95% of building inspections were provided on the day requested. • 93% of non life safety fire hazard complaints were responded to within 2 business days. • 100% of streets were swept on schedule. • 75% of Employee Performance Evaluations were completed on time. • Average Library Secret Shopper ratings were 91.38°% out of a possible 100 %. • 79% of all CIP projects were completed within two months of the approved baseline completion date. (Target: 85 %) • After school program recovery rate was 35 %. (Target: 30 %) • 99% of senior transportation clients were taken to their destinations within 5 minutes of scheduled time. • 85°% of streetlights were repaired within 7 days of notice. In addition, the report shows some areas that bear watching our performance over time, to see if there are ways we can improve. The percent of development plans approved after first review ranged from 6°% to 39° %, depending on department. The average number of review cycles for development plans ranged from 2 to 4, depending on type of project. 64% of CIP projects were completed within the original construction contract cost plus 10 %. (Target: 95° %) Performance Measure Issues: We have always known that the ease, clarity and usefulness of the performance measures would become more (or less) clear as we started to collect and use data on the measures. Staff's work to prepare the first quarterly report has started to show some issues, and we may make changes to our reporting format, or return to the Council with recommendations to change, replace or eliminate some measures. Some examples of issues are listed below: First Quarterly Report on Performance Measures January 9, 2010 Page 3 • Responsiveness by Office of the City Attorney to contract and ordinance review are not quantitative measures, and can only be measured subjectively through surveys. • Measures such as annual revenue from fees /charges (City Clerk) and application fees (Development Services) are not meaningful and/or difficult to compare with other cities to make them meaningful. • Percent of total services transacted on line (City Manager — Public Information) is too broad because so many departments offer online transactions. • Frequency of postings /edits to website (City Manager — Public Information) is not well defined and may not be useful. • Monitor corridor travel times (travel time /volume) for percent change (Public Works — Traffic and Transportation Management) needs further definition regarding over what period of time change is to be measured. During the Goal Setting Workshop's discussion of performance measurement and benchmarking, Dave and I encourage the Council to ask questions of the department heads about the measures and the usefulness of the measures as management tools. Comments as to the best way to communicate this information with stakeholder groups and with the general public are appreciated as well. This report does not delve much into benchmarking. Recall that our ICMA consultants proposed several areas where the City's staff should search for or set up benchmarking groups with other municipalities, in part because the data for the proposed benchmarks was not widely gathered, or not gathered in the same format. The City staff has not spent much time or resources on this group effort to date, in large part because of the time demands of our restructuring efforts. Submitted by: ids -!V Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager Attachment: Performance Measurement Report, 1" Quarter 2009 -2010 1� Qtr 2 "d Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Comments Jul -Sep Oct -Dec Jan -Mar Apr -June Administrative Services Budgeting Key Reserve balances meet or exceed target Council Yes reserve levels: Yes • General Fund Contingency Reserve . Yes • Equipment Replacement Fund Yes • Facility Replacement Plan Yes • General Liability Reserve Fund • Workers' Compensation Fund Yes Compensated Absences Annual Contributions toward replacement plans and Yes long -term liabilities meet or exceed the Council policy Yes requirement for each program: Yes • Equipment Replacement Fund Yes • Facility Replacement Plan • General Liability Reserve Fund Yes • Workers' Compensation Fund Yes • Compensated Absences Yes • Retiree Insurance Liabilities • Employee Pension Liabilities • Retiree Insurance Liabilities The City has received the GFOA Award for CAFR Award announcement to be made in May Excellence 2010 Administrative Services Information and Technology Services Percentage of time the City's network and major 99,9% subsystems such as email, voicemail, Pentamation Financial package, etc. are available for use Cost of central network support per hour the network is This will be in an annual report, but IT is available (for each major sub - system) still working on a tracking mechanism Cost of network support per workstation IT Operations and Maintenance (O &M) expenditures as percentage of jurisdiction O &M 15` Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Comments Jul -Sep Oct -Dec Jan -Mar Apr -June %timely resolution of IT issues: • Priority 1 — A problem impacting a significant None group of users or any mission critical IT service affecting a single user or group of users (30 minutes) • Priority 2 — Non - critical, but significant issue, or None an issue that could escalate if not addressed quickly (60 minutes) • Priority 3 — Routine support requests that 89% impact a single user or noncritical software or hardware error 8 hours Administrative Services Purchase Requisition /Ordering Percent of supplier bids awarded without delay due to 100% re -bid or protest Dollars saved on purchase orders compared to total $47,685 cost submitted on requisitions Purchasing administrative cost as percentage of total Information will be provided at end of fiscal purchase year Average number of calendar days from receipt of requisition to Purchase Order Issuance for bid amounts 9.89 of $10,000 to $25,000 City Attorney Contract Approval Cost of representation by in -house OCA compared with $17.46/ 7 cities in comparison group of 12 have benchmark cities and outside firms capita higher costs for in -house OCA Responsiveness by OCA to form contract review and 3.3 July survey of management team; 3 = approval as to form Meets Expectations; 4 = Exceeds Expectations Responsiveness by OCA to complex contract and Ordinance review and approval as to form City Attorney Litigation Matters % of Cases resolved in favor of the City and /or within 100% Council-Approved settlement range % of Code Enforcement cases referred to OCA which Reported to City Council in closed session result in substantial compliance 2� Qtr 2'' Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Comments Jul -Sep Oct -Dec Jan -Mar Apr -June Cost per case litigated City Clerk Records Management Overall expenditures to manage records Annual revenue from fees /charges $50.00 Internal Customers: % of permanent documents (ordinances, resolutions, minutes, agenda packets, 100% etc.) entered into Alchemy record system within six business days All Customers: Provide requested paper or electronic documents within time targets (TBD based on type, 100% accessibility and complexity of request). City Manager Community Code Compliance Rates of complaint resolution /compliance obtained through: • Phone call, meeting, letter • Notice of Violation (NOV) 100% No new code enforcement cases referred • Administrative Citation to the City Attorney's Office Code Compliance expenditures per capita $5.35 Average days from complaint to first non- inspection response 35 City Manager Water QualitylEnvironmental Protection # of Beach Mile Days when beach water quality warnings are posted during the summer (AB411) 33 period Average Star Rating (5 Star maximum) of City Beaches Data for this measure is reported annually by the Natural Resources Defense Council Annual in arrears Beach Report (Newport Beach at Balboa Pier and Newport Beach at Newport Pier Costs for compliance with NPDES permit regulations $5.8M As reported in NPDES Annual Report for FY 1009 -10 City Manager Public Information /Communication Percentage of customers that were able to find the Survey tool available through website in information desired on the City Web site January 2010 1$` Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Comments Jul -Sep Oct -Dec Jan -Mar Apr -June City web site usage - % of total services transacted on Measure is too broad; needs to be refined liner for meaningful data collection Frequency of postings/edits to City Web site Data will be available for 2 "d quarter Development Services Plan Check • of projects approved over the counter 32% Does not include permits issued over the counter without plans • of projects approved after first review, after being taken in for review (by dept) 6.3% • Building 27.8% • EMP 39% • Fire. 26.4% • Planning • Public Works 24 3°/ % of corrections required due to: • Incomplete submittal 12.6% • Staff error 0 • Lack of code compliance 87% • Project changes .43% Average number of review cycles, by project type: • Residential w/ valuation < $200,000 2 • Residential w/ valuation > $200,000 4 • New Commercial 4 • Commercial addition /alternationfTl 3 Application fees Budget expenditures per $1,000 valuation of permits $17.18 issued Percentage of first plan reviews completed in 30 days, by department: • Building 98% • EMP 95% • Fire 974 • Planning 95% • Public Works 95% 5 Sn Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Comments Jul -Sep Oct -Dec Jan -Mar Apr -June Number of days with City/applicant, by project type: Average number of days are cumulative, • Residential w/ valuation < $200,000 23/32 not consecutive • Residential w/ valuation > $200,000 109/117 • New Commercial 92/180 • Commercial addition /alternation/TI 50/37 Development Services Building Inspections Application fees Budgeted expenditures per $1,000 valuation permits $9.50 issued • of inspections provided on the day requested 95% • of construction related complaints investigated on 95% the next business day after the complaint is received Fire Fire and Life Safety Hazard Complaint Resolution Cost per complaint investigated. $139 % of non -life safety complaints responded to within 2 93% business days. • of complaints resolved within 10 business days. 53% • of complaints resolved within 10 -20 business days 60% • of complaints unresolved 0 Fire Emergency Response Percentage of'structure fires confined to room /structure 8090 of origin Fire & EMS operating expenditures per 1000 $318,399 Excludes all lifeguard costs population Fire & EMS Staffing — FTE's per 1000 population 1.58 Percentage of emergency calls in which the first unit 65% arrives within 5 minutes of call entry b Fire Cis atch I — % of structural fire calls in which the first Truck 87.59'0 — _r Company arrives within 8 minutes of call entry by Fire Dispatch 5 M V Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Comments Jul -Sep Oct -Dec Jan -Mar Apr -June General Services Beach and Pier Maintenance # of service requests by type & area: • Type: • Infrastructure (restrooms, fire rings) 0 • Appearance (natural debris on sand, 16 foreign debris on sand) • Area: o Beach Areas 1 -6 13 o Little Corona 0 o Balboa Island 0 o Bayside /Misc. 1 Total annual maintenance cost: • per beach -mile N/A • per acre $1,544 Staff - hours /month 1,926 General Services Park Maintenance # of service requests by type & facility: • Type: • Infrastructure (restrooms, irrigation) 11 • Appearance (natural debris in $ landscaping, foreign debris in landscaping, natural debris on turf, foreign debris on turf, foreign debris in native /sensitive areas • Maintenance cost/contract acre $3,965 • Maintenance costlin -house acre $4,705 • Maintenance cost/developed acre $4,049,640 • Maintenance cost/undeveloped acre $1,455,339 General Services Refuse Collection Recyclables as % of all tons of residential refuse Delayed reporting. CIWMB changed the collected reporting methodology beginning with the 2007 report. Recommend changing the measure to "In compliance with state - mandated recycling rate - yes /no." M V Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Comments Jul -Sep Oct -Dec Jan -Mar Apr -June Number of non - routine issues /requests for service 104 Operating and maintenance expenditures for refuse $55.70 collection per refuse collection account Comparison of costs /expenditures to annual HF &F Study not yet available study, selected cities in region % of non - routine issues /requests for service resolved 65% by the next business day (city operated routes only) General Services Street Sweeping Percent of streets swept on schedule 100% Operating and maintenance expenditures per linear $16.82 mile swept Time between sweepings 1 week Human Resources Employee Relations Average Length of Employment 11.7 yrs % of Grievances resolved before passing from 100% management control • of timely responses to grievances filed 100% • of Employee Performance Evaluations completed on 75% time Human Resources Employment Services Citywide Turnover Rate 1.4% Citywide Vacancy Rate 4.8% % of Employees passing probation 76% Cost of central HR per City FTE $1,103 Cost per Hire for: Executive costs include City Manager • Executive Recruitments $16,030 recruitment • Police/Fire $3,735 • Non -Police /Fire $376 % of time Hiring Timeline Goals are met: 77.8% • Outside Recruitments • Internal Promotions Average days to hire: Excludes executive recruitments conducted • Outside Recruitments 49 by consultant • Internal Promotions 21 1" Qtr 2 "d Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Comments Jul -Sep Oct -Dec Jan -Mar Apr -June Library Customer Service Number of reference transactions per FTE 791 High ratings from Secret Shoppers indicating that 91.38% Average of all rating categories; highest accurate answers were received quickly possible rating is 100% Costs per checkout item in relation to the operating 3.97 CDM Branch was closed for 3 weeks in July budget for public services Materials expenditures per capita $7.42 Cost per Reference question in relation to the $7.83 reference staffing costs Amount of time it takes for a new item to go from initial receipt to the shelf Police Crime Prevention Percentage of residents who participate in some form .52% of neighborhood watch as sponsored by the Police Department Crime prevention expenditures per 1,000 population $107.37 Police Emergency Response Average response time to top priority calls (from receipt 2.3 min. of call to arrival on scene % of emergency calls (present and imminent threat to life or property) answered by dispatchers within 5 89% seconds % of emergency calls (police response with lights and 94% sirens ) responded to by field officers within 5 minutes Police Investigations FBI UCR Part I Crime rates 318.44 % of reported UCR Part I crimes (including Police- 25% initiated cases ) that received criminal investigations % of investigated UCR Part I crimes cleared (including 43% crimes cleared by Patrol Officers Percentage of UCR part I crimes cleared 30% Expenditures per UCR Part I crime cleared $5,925.96 Percentage of crimes investigated within time targets 96% 30 days) V Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Comments Jul -Sep Oct -Dec Jan -Mar Apr -June Public Works Capital Improvement Plan Delivery Maintain a citywide minimum average Pavement To be reported annually in 4th Quarter Condition Index of 80 and minimum individual street ratings of 60 Slurry Seal all local and residential streets as well as To be reported annually in 4th Quarter city parking lots at a minimum of every 8 years Deliver 95 percent of CIP projects (by category) scheduled for completion within a Fiscal Year within the original construction contract cost plus 1 O 50% 100% • Facilities 50% • Parks, Harbors, Beaches • Streets and Drainage 609" • Traffic 100% • Water 100% Substantially complete 85% of all CIP projects (by category) scheduled for completion within a Fiscal Year within two months of the approved baseline completion date: 75% 100% • Facilities • Parks, Harbors, Beaches 100% • Streets and Drainage 80% • Traffic 50% • Water 100% Public Works Traffic and Transportation Management Monitor corridor travel times (travel time /volume) for Data collection to begin February 2010 percent change Pavement Condition Index compared to Orange Based on OCTA data provided every 2 years County cities Respond to and correct non -emergency signal maintenance requests within 5 days 90% of the time Recreation After School Programming % of total capacity filled with registered participants N/A 62% School year and program began 2 "d quarter Program cost recovery rate 1 35% Council policy is 30% cost recovery 10 1"` Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Comments Jul -Sep Oct -Dec Jan -Mar Apr -June Recreation Senior Transportation Cost per client trip $29.18 % of Transportation requests scheduled within one 98% business day % of Trips client gets to destination /appointment within 99% 5 minutes of schedule time Utilities Drinking Water Supply Number of leakstbreaks per 100 miles piping (AWWA) 1 Percentage of days in full compliance with regulations 100% AW WA Number of unplanned disruptions affecting more than 0 1,000 customers Operation and Maintenance Cost Ratios: • O &M cost per account $106 • O &M cost per MG distributed $155 Percentage of customer service requests responded to Data gathering began 11/1/09 within 24 hours Utilities Electrical Services Percentage of Planned vs. Unplanned Streetlight Data gathering began 11/1/09 Maintenance hours Operations & Maintenance Cost Ratios: O &M cost per $81.62 streetlight Percentage of streetlights repaired within 7 days of 85% notice Percentage of service requests responded to within 24 Data gathering began 11/1/09 hours Utilities Wastewater Collection Collection System Integrity — number of collection system failures each year per 100 miles of collection 0 system piping Number of sewer overflows per 100 miles collection 1 system piping (AWWA) Beach mile days of beach closures Annual From Orange County Health Care Agency annual report 10 11 I" Qtr Jul -Sep 2nd Qtr Oct -Dec 3rd Qtr Jan -Mar 4th Qtr Apr -June Comments Operations & Maintenance Cost Ratios: • O &M cost per account $22 • O &M cost per mile $2,000 Percentage of customer service requests responded to Data gathering began 11/1/09 within 24 hours 11