Service Delivery Review Municipality of Port Hope

Transcription

1 Service Delivery Review Municipality of Port Hope R. C A R L C A N N O N A M C T O A N N U A L G E N E R A L M E E T I N G JUNE 1 0,

2 Port Hope 45 minutes east of Toronto by Provincial Highway 401 in Northumberland County and Municipality runs north from Lake Ontario into the Oak Ridges Moraine south of Peterborough County urban (13,500), rural (3,000), total population 16,500 total annual expenditures $27.5 million (including water/sewer, library, police but excluding County and Education) Best Destination Readers Digest s Canada s Most Interesting Towns Best Preserved Main Street in Ontario TV Ontario

3 SDR Context Excerpts from Media Release As part of their commitment to fiscal responsibility, transparency and responsiveness to community needs, Council directed Municipal staff in 2011 to undertake a Service Delivery Review (SDR) of all Municipal services. We recognize that our staff routinely seeks opportunities to be more efficient and effective. By collectively reviewing our Municipal services we hope to have a better understanding of the services provided and identify whether there is a better, more efficient way to deliver the services the public wants and needs. (Mayor)

4 SDR Context Excerpts from Media Release The SDR document will provide, amongst other things, an understanding of what we do, how we do it and why. With elements of benchmarking and level of service review, we anticipate the document will be the basis for an informed discussion of opportunities for potential further efficiencies in our operations and/or service delivery adjustments. (CAO) It is important to note that the SDR document is not a conclusion in itself, but rather a means to assist residents and Council in a discussion on efficient delivery of Municipal services. Council may choose to explore those opportunities further or not and may also have staff pursue additional and new directions drawing on information derived from the SDR. (CAO)

5 Roles generally Council determines what services the Municipality will provide and administration (staff) determines how these services are delivered within the resources allotted by Council A SDR Allows: public, Council and staff to better understand the services the Municipality provides and to assist in making more informed strategic choices regarding services discussion and exchanges of ideas on each service leading to: confirmation of (retain) current service and delivery practices; potential further investigation regarding service delivery methods / level of service; new opportunities or directions regarding services (e.g. add, delete, adjust services / delivery method)

6 Quick Summary Municipal SDR started in August 2011 and finished SDR document October 2012 (approximately 14 months) 1 day facilitated session on SDR internal review done by Municipal staff 8 Municipal departments (across organization / done concurrently) 45 Municipal only services reviewed 62 opportunities identified (generally categorized as): 27 operational (efficiencies / effectiveness) 20 revenue 4 contracting out 10 service level adjustments 1 elimination of service 54 of 62 opportunities were subsequently actioned by Council s direction

7 At the Same Time! Police Service Delivery Review Council directed that a police service delivery review be undertaken (July 2011) Ward 1 (urban) Port Hope Police Service (PHPS) Ward 2 (rural) Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) KPMG hired (working group, CAO staff lead) KPMG recommendations including eliminating PHPS, policing by OPP and save approximately $8 million over 10 years (July 2012) Council decision maintain status quo (PHPS and OPP) and Port Hope Police Service Board (PHPSB) investigate savings in communications and organization restructuring (officer / civilian staffing) amongst others (October 2012) PHPSB implements the elimination of PHPS communications and organization restructuring (February 2013)

8 Process The Beginning (of Municipal SDR) senior management met to discuss: possible SDR approaches review collected relevant preliminary information (e.g. other municipal experiences / benchmarking / performance management) possible next steps senior management decision: talk to an expert as a result, CAO to meet with an individual with municipal service delivery review experience to discuss further

9 Process The Beginning Continued CAO met with a former City CAO / Engineer who has lead or assisted with Municipal governance, operational and service delivery reviews for a number of municipalities in Ontario agreed to develop and hold a facilitated one day session with senior management as well as selected mid level, operational and support staff (approximately 20 staff)

10 Facilitation Session 1. Agenda review of other Municipality s service review experiences and approaches (e.g. Toronto, Burlington, Windsor, London, Hamilton) as well as (amongst other things) Ontario Municipal CAO s Benchmarking Initiative, Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP) and Provincial Guides to Service Delivery Reviews definition of a service and those services to be reviewed service delivery how to undertake a SDR (e.g. internal team and/or consultant approach, benchmarking, best practices) develop a consistent SDR template timing for the SDR exercise (e.g. all service areas concurrently, phased, how long) communications plan (internal / external) SDR steering group (e.g. service management team, selected managers, mentoring, funding)

11 Facilitated Session Continued 2. Approach selected SDR to be inclusive of all services across all departments done concurrently by staff why? Draws on internal staff expertise / experience, local awareness, engages staff, allows for critical internal peer review and reasonably timely in a cost effective manner

12 Facilitated Session Continued 3. Principles adopted to determine services to be defined / reviewed were: importance to the public (external) importance operationally (internal) tax levy and rate based services service: i. legislated (mandatory) ii. iii. discretionary influences (risk management, health & safety, related to strategic plan, expected by public typical / standard practice 4. Using adopted principles (ultimately) 45 Municipal services were identified for review 5. Services identified were to be reviewed using a consistent template and the conclusions compiled into a summary SDR document (preliminary template drafted) 6. Survey comparator municipalities and municipal organization s information for benchmarking costs, fees and level of service

13 Facilitate Session Continued 7. Template The template and SDR summary document to: describe the service (what it is) provide service context (background/history) describe level of service (amount of service, legislated level, benchmark, best practice) describe method of service delivery (municipal, contracted out, private / public partner, volunteer, other) service category (mandatory, risk management, health & safety, strategic plan, important to the public, standard practice)

14 Facilitate Session Continued 7. Template continued The template and SDR summary document to: (continued) note any public perception arising from anecdotal or formal concerns expressed through time note any service change that may currently be under consideration due to legislated changes, Council direction or deemed appropriate otherwise describe in summary the Director s comments regarding whether: i. the Municipality meets current legislation, standards, benchmarks, best practices; ii. there are opportunities for service level adjustments (up, down or cease); iii. there are opportunities for (internal) intra-departmental service delivery synergies; iv. there are opportunities for service delivery alternatives; v. there are revenue alternatives/opportunities; and vi. any suggested next steps

15 Facilitated Session Continued 8. Timeline Projected to complete SDR document by October 2012 (14 months) recognizing staff s administrative / operational responsibilities as well as current special projects and priorities. 9. Endorsement Council endorsed SDR project outline, approach, communications plan and timeline as presented by CAO to Committee of the Whole.

16 Services Reviewed by Department / Function Corporate Service 1) Customer Relations / Switchboard / Counter 2) Administrative Services (13 separate functions including elections, Council agendas / minutes, FOIPP, records management) 3) Licensing Services (4 separate functions including general licences, animal control, vital statistics and lotteries) 4) IT Management / Phone System / Cellular Phone Management 5) Agreements / Leases / Contracts 6) Facilities Management Human Resources 1) Human Resources / Rights (14 separate functions including recruitment, job descriptions, job evaluation, compensation, benefits, labour relations, health and safety)

17 Services Reviewed by Department / Function Continued Economic Development and Tourism 1) Business Attraction 2) Business Retention and Support 3) Tourism Marketing and Promotion 4) Visitors Information Centre 5) Events Coordination 6) Filming Liaison 7) Business Incubator

18 Services Reviewed by Department / Function Continued Finance 1) Payroll and Benefits 2) Purchasing and Accounts Payable 3) Risk Management and Insurance 4) Budget Capital and Operating 5) Revenue Billing and Collection 6) Accounting and Financial Reporting

19 Services Reviewed by Department / Function Continued Fire and Emergency Services 1) Medical First Response 2) Hazardous Material Response 3) Public Fire Prevention Education 4) Fire Code Compliance Enforcement 5) Emergency Management 6) Fire Suppression

20 Services Reviewed by Department / Function Continued Parks, Recreation and Culture 1) Programs (e.g. Seniors, Adults, Youth, Children, Aquatics, Day Camps) 2) Parks Maintenance and Trails 3) Facilities Operations 4) Cemeteries 5) Marina / Waterfront

21 Services Reviewed by Department / Function Continued Planning and Development Services 1) Land Use Planning 2) Development Approvals and Applications 3) Ontario Building Code 4) Municipal By-law Enforcement and Property Standards 5) Parking Authority

22 Services Reviewed by Department / Function Continued Works and Engineering 1) Development and Permitting Review 2) Public Transit Service 3) Waste Management Services 4) Roadway Maintenance 5) Corridor Safety Management 6) Winter Maintenance 7) Fleet / Equipment Maintenance 8) Water Treatment / Distribution 9) Sewage Treatment / Collection

23 Template consistent template for each service top of each template populated is department name service name 8 boxes in each template to fill in with text (plain language), charts and graphs regarding service description of service (in non-technical terms) service attributes: (provide background information i.e. history of service, recent changes, notable events, etc.) level of service: (describe the amount of service or condition when service is delivered, benchmarks, best practices, legislated, standard) service delivery: (service delivery method Municipal, contracted out, private/public partner, volunteer, other)

24 Template Continued 8 boxes continued service category: legislated, risk management/health & safety, direct link to Strategic Plan, importance to the public, standard practice public perception of service: describe how the citizens of Port Hope perceive the service (anecdotal and common concerns) service changes currently being considered Director s comments on the service: lower/meeting/exceeding comparable benchmarks/best practices, legislated standards opportunity for service level adjustments opportunity for internal intra-departmental synergies opportunity for service delivery alternatives revenue opportunities next steps /other

25 Surveys, Benchmark, Level of Service What were we looking at from surveys of comparators?: (examples) did they provide same, more, less types / number of services service levels internal / external partnerships cost per (operating and/or capital) fees / rates per # of staff # facilities, buildings, locations, lane kms # vehicles # users

26 Surveys, Benchmark, Level of Service Continued What were we looking at from surveys of comparators?: (examples continued) hours / frequency of service # applications, files, permits, approvals, inspections, calls, bills / invoices, accounts, tenders / RFPs per capita response, timelines technology / tools etc.

27 Surveys, Benchmark, Level of Service Continued Summary useful to generate high level comparisons for dialogue purposes did not use MPMPs information other than FYI as not relevant due to inconsistent approach / reporting was not meant to be best ever statistical / numerical / financial investigation / analysis approach at high level tended to reflect Port Hope is relatively efficient / effective in operations / service delivery

28 Senior Management Meetings 9 senior management meetings were held (CAO, Directors, select Supervisors, Communications Coordinator) document drafts consistently circulated to group to review comparator municipality survey approach and results, as well as discuss department service benchmarks / measures arising from survey information to review draft service templates and conclusions / recommendations to ensure complete, on time, consistent approach / messaging, clarity and address corporate or cross department matters editing board (CAO editor in chief)

29 SDR Document October ) Introduction why SDR process / approach conclusions (general) 2) 45 Completed Service Templates 3) Three Issue Papers (more detailed reviews i.e. Guide Rail Safety Program, Winter Maintenance Contracted Services and Sustainable Road Reinstatement Approach) 4) Executive Summary with 62 Opportunities identified by staff SDR Document presented to Council in October 2012 and authorized to be made available for public input (web, copies at libraries / Municipal offices, advertised, media release, etc.)

30 Opportunities 62 opportunities identified in SDR Document Opportunities were noted as submitted by staff for discussion purposes and nothing should be construed as to imply all opportunities are endorsed by staff and/or that any opportunity will be ultimately endorsed by Council Opportunities would be generally categorized as: 27 operational (efficiencies / effectiveness) 20 revenue 4 contracting out 10 service level adjustments 1 elimination of service 62

31 Opportunities continued minimal public comments received document referred to dedicated Special Committee of the Whole meeting (2 meetings ultimately required) to review and decide on each of the 62 opportunities PowerPoint slide to Council for each Opportunity with text of opportunity, summary, approach, risk / implication, resources, timing and recommendation / option (e.g. proceed noting next steps, not proceed, other (define)) 54 of 62 opportunities were ultimately actioned by Council actions implemented through 2013 operations, Municipal budget, capital projects, further detailed review, etc.

32 Opportunities continued Actioned Opportunities 2013 Budget Approved (selected examples) $100K in new revenue / fees per year (parking fees / Fire Marque) savings in transit revised hours (1 hour off at end of Monday Friday & Saturday hours) net $23.5K savings per year capital (2 medium size buses vs larger buses) $140K savings in puchases $18K savings per year in operating costs with smaller buses reduced advertising budget (ridership program) net savings $19.5K per year savings in capital - $120 K by reinstating old sewer / water and road to existing semi-urban standard vs full-urban standard

33 Opportunities continued Actioned Opportunities 2013 Budget Approved (selected examples) continued eliminated external urban dead animal pick up contract and internalized operationally (Works and Engineering and Parks, Recreation and Culture) savings $2K per year eliminated two (2) roads summer student positions savings $22K per year rationalized adding Financial Clerk Provide funeral set-up services to non-municipal cemeteries (new revenue) (many more to be implemented in 2013 and 2014)

34 Summary look for efficiencies and effectiveness regularly / annually (e.g. budget preparation) have set list of municipalities to use as comparators / benchmarking (e.g. MPH similar population; urban / rural; program / service set; staff compliment; and regional / Provincial) do not use MPMP information occasionally good to undertake broader / more comprehensive review (Corporate / department) use SDR as a means to message current efficiencies / effectiveness and other associated messaging

35 Summary continued if possible, suggest staff inclusive process and internal communication to external messaging and communication get buy in of Council for SDR process keep Council informed at identified milestones don t overwhelm Council with numbers (you loose them and messaging) more of a dialogue approach (what do we do, why, what s working here / elsewhere, benchmarks, no go s, messaging) don t oversell billions to be saved take a phased approach for more staff intensive / politically charged services ( test the waters before extensive research / effort) talk to your peers at / from workshops / conferences like this one regarding what they are doing / their experiences regarding services

36 THANK YOU