Loading...
2012-07-18_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jourA�_L City of Saint John Common Council Meeting Wednesday, July 18, 2012 Special Meeting of Council 1. Call to Order — Prayer 9:30 a.m. Council Chamber 1.1 Strategic Decision Making; Council Priorities, Core Service Review and 2013 Service -Based Budget Process REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL July 18, 2012 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Common Council: SUBJECT: Strategic Decision Making; Council Priorities, Core Service Review Service -Based Budget Process EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City is facing the need to find long -term, sustainable solutions to on -going budget challenges and ensure the efficient delivery of municipal services that address commur priorities. One tool that is being used by many municipalities to systematically approal decision - making is a core service review. The purpose of this report is to present an in approach to completing the 2013 service -based budget process that incorporates Counc priority setting and a multi -year core service review (as directed by Common Council'; resolution of April 12, 2012). Informed by a public engagement process, the City will undertake a core service revie'V that will determine what services the City should provide and how they should be deli The review will evaluate to what degree service offerings are core (e.g., legislated, ess( traditional, or other), assess the City's current service levels and delivery methods, and recommendations on opportunities to implement changes (e.g., service levels, funding and /or service providers) that will result in more cost - effective delivery of service to of As part of a larger integrated process, Council will establish priorities. The public eng" program will provide Council with valuable public input to develop strategic priorities reflect the community's interests and needs. Council priorities will be a key evaluatior. -- - - I - - A - - . - -- - -- - 1 _ , _ 1 . 1 1 1 I ., . - - 0 - -- - 1 - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - 1* M &C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making services for facilitation and subject matter expertise as required. In 2012, the review is to be completed in a three month period and will focus on a number of the City's publi services, particularly those services that have significant budget allocations and will be review. A budget range of $125,000 to $170,000 has been estimated to carry out the core servic and public engagement program to achieve 2012 planned outcomes. Council priority s estimated to cost in the range of $15,000 to $20,000. These funds are available within Strategic Services budget. Within the Strategic Services team there are currently sever vacancies that will provide for the funding necessary to hire one temporary assignment support the core service review process. A number of recommendations have been included in the report for Council's consider timely decision by Council regarding the approach to setting priorities and budget proc incorporate a core service review will allow the review to begin in order to obtain valu, that will guide 2013 service -based budget deliberations. Council should understand th, service review will help: • set priorities that reflect the interests of the community; • make decisions on appropriate service levels; • deliberate future service -based operational and capital budgets; • demonstrate accountability for service results; and • manage public expectations. BACKGROUND In 2012, the City continued implementation of a service -based approach to developing operational budgets. Service -based budgeting is a customer based, performance driven oriented budgeting approach based on achieving desired outcomes in the community th service delivery. The service -based budget focuses on identifying intended service resi linking them to the resources required to achieve the desired outcome. The City of Saint John, like many other Canadian municipalities, is facing significant h challenges in delivering services that continue to meet public expectations. As service continue to rise at a rate that outpaces tax base growth, taxpayers face a larger burden i maintaining current service levels. There is a need to find long -term sustainable soluti( face of competing priorities, limited resources and new responsibilities. M &C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making In 2012, the City Manager was directed to prepare a `Plan D' budget to identify cost re that could be implemented in the event reforms to the City's pension plan are not achie preparing this budget, it became evident that a more systematic approach to allocating I resources for the cost - effective delivery of municipal services is required. Identifying, sustainable expenditure reductions was proving to be challenging in light of the cuts all adopted in the 2012 service -based operating budget to address pension concerns. In re staff proposed that the City embark on a core service review to support Council's decis making and budget deliberation. As part of a larger integrated process, Council will establish priorities to provide focus course of their term. The proposed public engagement program will provide Council v valuable public input to develop strategic priorities that reflect the community's interes needs. Council priorities will be a key evaluation tool in making decisions related to sf levels and opportunities for changes in service delivery that will be incorporated into tI service -based budget. SERVICE -BASED BUDGET PROCESS Service -based budgeting is a customer - based, performance driven, results- oriented app allocating resources that focuses on achieving desired outcomes in the community thro service delivery. The service -based budget approach (illustrative example in Figure 2) intended service results and links them to the resources required to achieve the desired Linking resource allocations to service level objectives, the service -based budget outlir measurable terms all the services to be provided by the City and at what level they are 1 provided. It is therefore not only a budget document; it is an important policy documei City. Benefits of service -based budgeting include: • establishing service expectations and supporting accountability for results; • ensuring budget decisions based on service planning and financial analysis... k priorities have to give way to higher priorities when resources are limited; • providing a tool for making services more effective and efficient through plann: analysis of service results; and • ensuring flexibility to respond to a changing environment. The 2012 operating budget was completed in the service -based format. Council has bi provided service -based budget documents for each of the service areas for information the Council Orientation Program. Table 1 illustrates some examples of current service 4�o roornrnoo ron»iro� *� o11114oXw f�oao 1­4%4onf4XToa �ovnorr��a fi^fNm 101 1 aorXTinv hnao ]-%I1/ M &C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making Table 1: Examples of the City's service -based budget format. Dangerous and Vacant Resolve 8 cases per year (most critical buildings) Buildings Building Permits Permits issued within 10 business days after receipt of a complete application (80% of time) Winter Street Maintenance* Plow all streets to meet objectives • Priority 1: 8 hrs bare travel lanes • Priority 2: 8 hrs bare centre lanes • Priority 3: 12 hrs bare centre lanes • Priority 4: 12 hrs accessible / packed Water leaks and service Response within... interruptions* 48 hours for emergency repair • 2 weeks for less urgent repairs The 2013 service -based budget process should be integrated with the Council priority approach and core service review being proposed for Council's consideration, ensuring systematic approach to allocating limited budget funds that reflect the priorities of the community. The budget process would involve: • Council setting direction for the budget process (informed by revenue and expe projections); • drafting an initial budget based on currently established service levels; • developing service level alternatives according to Council's priorities and servil included in the CoSR with presentation of service delivery opportunities to Cou part of the review process; and • finalizing service levels and budget resources as part of Council's decisions reg core service review results. The goal will be to complete the budget process in December 2012 (prior to Christmas Ability to achieve this goal will be dependent on provincial requirements and the provi information critical to complete the budget process (i.e., tax -base assessment, uncondit grant). City staff will report back on more detailed timelines for the service -based bud, process. COUNCIL PRIORITY SETTING M &C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making • support Council in building a strong team, providing an opportunity to collectiv collaboratively set a strategic direction; • guide Council in making policy decision that support the community in achievi: vision and goals; • play a key role in the service -based budget process, providing evaluation criteri ensure alignment between strategic priorities and resource allocations. • provide a means to better demonstrate accountability for results, providing the 1 performance measurement and service improvement. Council will participate in priority setting sessions to determine strategic priority areas term in Council. Priority areas are then further translated into a set of strategic objecti initiatives to give further clarity and meaning to the priority. Essentially, Council will roadmap to achieve desired results in the community. Accountability for results will bi supported by the development of performance indicators by converting objectives and into measures and targets. A better understanding of each component of Council's pric provided below. Strategic priority areas are the high level goals that directly link to long -term community outcomes and defined in enough detail so that expected results are < Council, staff, citizens and other key stakeholders. Strategic objectives are grouped by priority and define specifically what outco expected to be achieved for that priority. Strategic initiatives are program or projects that support the achievement of of They are linked to the budget process and provide the basis for the developmen performance metrics. Table 2 provides an illustrative example of Council's Priorities using the priorities dev Council's 2008 -2012 term. Council may wish to adopt a different format to present thf priorities; however, the same guiding principles and process for developing priorities s] applied. Key Inputs to Priority Setting Council's priority setting is intended to set a direction for the Administration in the del public service that addresses the needs and interests of the public. Members of Counc draw on the opportunities and concerns expressed by citizens during the election proce inform their priority setting. A formal public engagement strategy will be developed a the Core Service Review and will incorporate requirements for Council's priority settir 1--- -A - - -, ,14-„4-:__ :_ — ___ __ V - --A :— a--- -a--4- , _.4-- -1- --- --- 4- ..,.,..,.1 -4--A „ Table 2: Illustrative example of Council priority structure (based on 2008 -2012 Council Priorities) Strategic Objectives: Strategic Goals: Strategic Goals: Strategic Goals: • We are a city that draws people — they want to live here. We are the top five places in Canada. • We have revitalized neighbourhoods that are safe, vibrant and attractive. Strategic Initiatives: • Increase (recreation) opportunities for participation in all age groups. • Analyze current green space and add or enhance in line with what children want. • Work with the Province to have new legislation approved to restrict the amount of time a property can remain vacant /boarded up and /or in derelict condition and assign resources to enforce legislation once enacted. Performance Indicators: • Percentage of residents who rate the overall quality of life in Saint John as good or very good. • Percentage of residents that feel the City is doing a Rood iob ensuring a safe and • We have grown Saint John smarter by developing complete and compact communities. Strategic Initiatives: • Allocate resources necessary to continue to enhance and build upon development of a comprehensive Municipal Plan that will be adopted by 2012. • Develop an Action Plan to move forward with implementing recommendations arising from the review of processes involved in planning and development approval (Ircha Report). Performance Indicators: • Amount of new tax base resulting from new construction. • Total value of building permits for new construction and rehabilitation in the City's priority neighbourhoods. • We have strategic and coordinated planning, development and maintenance of municipal facilities and infrastructure. • We have clean, safe drinking water. Strategic Initiatives: • Implement recommendations for improvements to the City's roads using PCI measures and increase funding to enable a more aggressive maintenance program. • Incorporate bike lanes on main arterials roads where possible. • By 2012 a complete comprehensive wastewater treatment system will be fully operational. • By 2012 all six clean water projects will be completed and we will be at least 50% complete on the upgrading of the potable water system. Performance Indicators: • Average Pavement Condition (PCI) for all City of Saint John Streets (asphalt surface only). • Our citizens and ri recognize municip effective at a supr • We have services efficiently and effi tax rate. Strategic Initiatives: • Implement a Cust, appropriate resou responses to publ hours and follow -i weeks of initial ca • Investigate and irr generating strate€ assessment gener our general reven year by 2012. • By the end of 2011 changes to the Err will reduce the lia Performance Indicatc • Percentage of resi received from mu or very good. • Percentage of resi overall level and c M &C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making A key input into priority setting will be the issues and concerns that members of Counc while campaigning. In order to support an informed and strategic approach to priority Council should also consider other inputs in setting their priorities. The City of Saint J( demonstrated its ability to develop and implement long -term strategic plans. More spe the Community's Vision and Goals — Our Saint John and the new Municipal Plan — Ply should inform Council's strategic planning process. Both of these documents were cre through extensive public consultation and reflect the long -term aspirations of the coma Council should also consider its current commitments to the community (e.g., long -tern investments) as well as emerging opportunities and issues in setting priorities (e.g., pro led municipal reforms). Finalizing priorities will require Council to evaluate whether t feasible in terms of financial affordability and human resource capacity. Council Priority Setting Roles & Responsibilities Council will lead the priority setting process by providing direction on format, process, public engagement, and finalizing priorities. Council's priority setting will be support( staff team, led by Strategic Services. The staff team will be responsible for managing coordinating a Council- approved priority setting process that ensures Council's priority objectives are achieved. The Senior Leadership Team will play a key role in helping Council evaluate the capac organization has to successfully achieve proposed strategic initiatives. This informatio valuable in determining timing around strategic initiatives and if external partnerships i developed. Priority setting sessions will be facilitated by an external service provider, preferably o knowledge and understanding of public service. The staff team will work collaborativf the facilitator to ensure that goals for the priority sessions can be achieved. Initial prior sessions will be planned and coordinated with the core service review process to ensurf there is alignment of key planning results. Priority Setting Process and Timelines Council's priority setting should be conducted in workshop style sessions using innova techniques to facilitate team building and collective decision - making. Some pre- sessic Members of Council may be incorporated into the process to provide time for individu, reflection and ensure the effective management of sessions. Input from the City Solicit considered to determine meeting requirements that support transparency, while fosterir creative and collaborative environment for discussion. M &C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making infrastructure and governance. Both Our Saint John (long -term community vis goals) and PlanSJ (municipal plan) focus on sustainability. Defining success w the development of strategic priority areas and objectives. • Opportunity & Issues — Council should have a chance to share the opportuniti issues expressed by the public during the election campaign. Council should al consider other planning inputs to identify further opportunities and issues to be considered in evaluating their priorities. • Strategic Initiatives — Evaluation of opportunities and issues against agreed of to determine priority programs and projects. Evaluation criteria needs to link b� successful outcomes (strategic objectives) identified by Council in their priority • Capacity Check — Strategic initiatives should only be given priority once they evaluated to determine if the organization has the capacity to carry -out these pl, particularly from a financial and human resources perspective while being min( day -to -day operations. The Senior Leadership Team should support Council if evaluation. The capacity check can also help determine when strategic initiativ be undertaken (i.e., if they will be carried out in the first year of Council's term Several priority setting sessions are proposed and outlined in Table 3. The goal is for ( approve their priorities in October. This timing supports the achievement of the object out for the core service review and the service -based budget process. Experienced faci that have worked with local governments recommend that priority setting is informed, time to build a common understanding on the complexities of local government. The ( Orientation Program was designed to support learning and inform the priority setting p Confirmation of timing and number of sessions will be finalized with the external facil Table 3: Proposed Council priority setting sessions Collective discussion on goals Set strategic priority areas and Evaluate opportunities against Review and finali2 and expectations for Council's objectives (defining what strategic objectives and priority setting success looks like for the conduct capacity check community; should consider (supported by City Brainstorming opportunities input from public engagement Administration) and issues (considers public program) input, operational commitments, emerging opportunities External facilitation of Council External facilitation of Council External facilitation of Council Formal adoption discussion Staff presentation of key rnncirlarntinnc discussion Staff presentation of public anaaaamant and staff discussion on priorities and capacity M &C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making As part of the priority setting process the project management team will be responsible preparing the necessary documentation to finalize Council's priorities. The staff team collaboratively with the external facilitator to ensure that the decisions made by Counc their priority setting sessions are accurately reflected in the documentation. This work include recommending performance indicators that will support the City in demonstrate accountability for results and the continuous improvement of service delivery. Council formally approve the final set of priorities. Each year, Council will participate in facilitated sessions to review strategic objectives initiatives, making adjustments to reflect changes in economic outlook, policy direction other levels of government and community priorities. Council's priority setting should completed in a time frame that informs the development of the service -based budget. CORE SERVICE REVIEW Core service reviews are commonly used by public sector organizations to address buy constraints. The purpose of this type of review is to engage Council, staff and the com a dialogue on the City's service offerings. The goal is to identify what services the Cil be delivering and to what extent. More specifically, a core service review will providf opportunity to: • evaluate to what degree services are core (e.g., mandatory, essential, traditional in supporting the community in achieving its priorities; • explore more innovative and sustainable approaches to delivering service to ide options to better manage the City's expenditures, allocate resources, generate rc improve cost - effectiveness of municipal services (i.e., to address whether servi( stay the same, increase or decrease); • evaluate how services should be delivered and the most appropriate service pro, private sector, partnerships, community groups, other level of government); • address the strategic alignment of City services with community priorities to en resources are allocated to Council - approved priority service areas; • reinforce the implementation of the PlanSJ principles and achievement of desirf community planning outcomes; • leverage results to ensure that the City's policy and financial interests are fully as part of Provincial municipal reform initiatives; • improve customer service by establishing service levels that create better aware service expectations and identify areas for improvement; and M &C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making On April 12, 2012, Common Council adopted a resolution that directed the City Mana a report that outlines scope, outcomes and timing for a comprehensive core service revi report outlines a proposed approach for undertaking a core service review for Council', consideration. Comprehensive Core Service Review Approach After reviewing the practices of other municipalities in conducting reviews of this natu phased comprehensive approach is proposed in Figure 1. Each phase aligns with revie, objectives as illustrated below. Key to successful delivery of review objectives will be opportunities for public consultation during the process. Public input into the review p will help build support for the implementation of any potential changes to service and f service levels reflect community priorities. The City currently delivers over forty different public- facing services with various prof activities. Given organizational capacity and limited resources, the review of all the Ci service offerings should be completed over a three year period (2012 -14). Complete an inventory of services currently delivered by the City with related levels, service delivery method (e.g., internal, contracted, fee for service) and allocations. The inventory should reflect the new organization alignment and map of the City's services, sub - services and service activities. Public Engagement MA I r. WI ' Analyze and assess all of the City's service offerings to determine the degree ti Deliver a public they are core according to established criteria. Services should be evaluated c engagement program that continuum (e.g., mandatory, essential, traditional, other) rather than simply cc encourages citizens to non -core. share their priorities for the community, what they think are core services, and Phase 3 — Service Level Assessment what they want the City to consider when making Evaluate service delivery to recommend appropriate service levels that addres decisions about service community interests and needs. Benchmarking of service levels against comp delivery. jurisdictions and public expectations (where data is readily accessible) will sup City in demonstrating value in its delivery of service and ensure alignment witl Evaluate core service offerings to recommend potential changes to service lev method of service delivery, revenue generation or discontinuation of service. risks, community impact, financial and human resource implications, and impl M &C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making The core service review should build off the work completed as part of several previou review initiatives. The City has recently completed a review of its organizational struc in the process of implementing the recommended changes. The new organizational str service- based, focused on establishing the City as a results- oriented, customer - focused. performance public service organization. Service areas are organized into six service s support coordinated, cost - effective delivery of service. The core service review should conducted to ensure there is alignment with the new organizational structure and its ob The City presented its 2012 operating budgets in a service -based format. Service level been identified for many of the City's public- facing services. The City's current inven services and established service levels will provide the basis for the core service reviev The City has undertaken a number of service reviews (internally and by third party, ind consultants) over the last several years. Reviews were completed for Fire Services (co effectiveness), Solid Waste Management (collection model), Fleet Management (struct business model and operations), and Heritage (process). The City also supported a tasl economic development where service levels were defined for the services delivered by four economic development agencies, boards and commissions (ABCs) including Ente Saint John, Destination Marketing Organization, Saint John Waterfront Development Corporation, and Saint John Industrial Parks. PlanSJ, the City's two year planning process to create a new municipal plan for Saint J been completed and is in the process of being implemented. More recently, the City is through the final stages of PlaySJ, the development of a strategic plan for recreation fa( services and programs. Key findings from these reviews and planning initiatives (parti around service levels, alternative options for service delivery and right- sizing of the Ci, assets) should be incorporated into the core service review as appropriate. Core Service Review Guiding Principles A core service review is a best practice used in municipalities to support a strategic dec making approach to the delivery of services. In order to achieve review objectives, a n guiding principles should be considered as part of the review process. • Public Interest: Does service continue to address a compelling public interest? What impact will proposed service changes have in the community? • Affordable: Are proposed service levels affordable for citizens given the currei fiscal environment? • Achievable: Is a manageable scope of work outlined for review given available resources? Are proposed expenditure reductions and timelines achievable and 11 n M &C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making • Cost - Effective: Will proposed review recommendations result in more cost -eff service delivery? Will customer service be improved? • Accountable: Do service levels provide an effective means of measuring and reporting service performance? Are taxpayers getting value for their investmen the community? • Service - based: Are review results service -based and support the achievement c desired outcomes in the community? • Credible: Has the reviewed been carried out to ensure public confidence in the results? Core Service Review Terms of Reference A draft Terms of Reference is attached that outlines a comprehensive approach for the core service review. It proposes that all services be reviewed over the next three years, public and internal support services as outlined in the City's new organizational servicf alignment illustrated in Figure 2. The proposed comprehensive core service review me supports a more holistic approach to allocating limited funds for the delivery of the Cit service offerings. The review should include services delivered on behalf of the City b ABCs, specifically police, transit, parking and economic development services (over th year period). Given that significant funds are allocated to ABCs for service delivery, rl results will create a better understanding of their service expectations and accountabilit results. Growth & Planning r eighbourhood Roadway Drinking Financial f Services A mprovement Maintenance Water Management Re Permitting Recreation and Sidewalk Industrial Pension Cc Inspection Services Cultural Programming Maintenance Water Administration P Development Fire and Rescue Pedestrian and Traffic Asset Intergi Support Services Management Wastewater Management Geographic Emergency Stormwater Utility Business Cc Information Systems Management Management Management Comr M &C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making Common Council Common Council will lead the core service review, setting the direction for the review the approval of a Terms of Reference. An illustrative representation of core service re) and responsibilities is provided in Figure 3. Council will also provide input on what se offerings will be scheduled for review over the next three years. In 2012, consideration be given to services that are public facing, have significant budget allocations, and area benefit from review. The City's internal support services should be included in the this the review, ensuring that these services are `sized' appropriately to support public -fach services in meeting the newly established service level objectives. • Lead and guide Core Service Review (CoSR) (on -going approval of scope, objectives, deliverables and approach) • Approve Terms of Reference (ToR) • Set strategic direction (priorities) • Review interim deliverables and validate • Give authority to proceed at milestones • Decide on changes to service delivery (levels) E, • Provide input on Terms of Reference • Allocate resources to Core Service Review • Validate interim deliverables • Support project management team • Foster support for the review and results • Deliver corporate communication Ell • Provide project management • Recommend a `doable' scope of work • Design and deliver engagement program(s); summarizing results • Coordinate Core Service Review activities (including participation of service areas) and complete work to achieve deliverables • Recommend requirements for the provision of external services; provide contract administration • Prepare all review documentation and final report / presentation • Draft communication related to CoSR • Provide input on priorities and service expectati7 through consultation program • Facilitate processes agreed upon with the City (re and engagement) • Provide objective expertise for analysis and development of service option recommendations required • Participate in CoSR activities • Provide information as requested • Complete assignments (analysis and options) M &C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making Council will also provide leadership by ensuring that service delivery reflects their pric the community. Council's priority setting is not within the scope of this review; howe) public engagement program will be designed to support Council in establishing priorit their term. While input from the public will be considered in evaluating the City's corf offerings and appropriate service levels, it is Council's responsibility to decide on actu" levels and ensure required resources are available to achieve these objectives. Council should understand that the core service review approach being proposed will • set priorities that reflect the interests of the community; • make decisions on appropriate service levels; • deliberate future service -based operational and capital budgets; • demonstrate accountability for service results; and • manage public expectations. Other Resources A staff project management team will manage the review process. The team will be re for ensuring the Terms of Reference are followed; keeping the review on schedule and budget; coordinating service area participation in the review process; delivering a publi engagement program; developing a communications strategy; and producing an implen plan. The project management team will report through the Senior Leadership Team tc at key intervals throughout the review process for direction and validation of results. External service provider(s) will be retained (as appropriate) to bring a fresh, unbiased the City's service offerings. This objectivity will support the credibility of review resu any proposed changes to City services. Specifically, external service provider(s) will 1 facilitate portions of the review and provide subject matter expertise required to achiev objectives. While City staff will be responsible for the engagement program, the exten provider(s) will provide facilitation services at public events. External service provide work collaboratively with the project management team and service areas to achieve re objectives in accordance with Council approved scope, process and timelines. Core Service Review Critical Success Factors The achievement of proposed core service review objectives depends on a number of k factors. • Clear Vision: There needs to be a common understanding of the goals and objectives of the review process and how these results will be used to support M &C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making • Administrative Leadership: The Senior Leadership team must promote the cc service review as a corporate priority by ensuring resources are available to ach review objectives and engaging employees to positively contribute to the reviev process. • Adequate Resources: Achievement of planned review objectives requires the commitment of financial and human resources with the required competencies. • Employee Communication: If change regarding service delivery is to be embr employees must have a good understanding of the purpose of the core service rf and anticipated outcomes and be encouraged to actively participate in the proce • Public Consultation: The public should be afforded opportunities to provide i on what services the City should be in, as well as how they should be delivered ensure that service delivery aligns with community priorities and to build suppc any potential changes to service delivery. Core Service Review Process and Timelines The timelines for the proposed core service review are very ambitious as recommel must be developed for consideration in the 2013 service -based budget process. Ta outlines proposed timelines for 2012. Detailed timelines will be finalized and approve Council. It is anticipated that the 2012 review process should be completed within an f ten week period (depending on availability of key stakeholders). Council's priority set been incorporated into the proposed schedule to support alignment between recommen and the strategic direction set for the community. Table 3: Proposed timelines for 2012 core service review process (for selected services). Council adoption of Core Service Review Terms (CoSR) of Reference Develop draft detailed work plan for conducting the CoSR Develop draft public engagement strategy and employee communications Issue Request for Proposals for of Complete inventory of services delivered by the City and key ABCs (Phase 1) Identification and engagement of external facilitation and subject matter expert services (as required) Council approval of detailed work plan for review (including services to be reviewed) and engage - mnnf c +rnfomi Implement public engagement activities (first two weeks); summarize engagement results (in report format) Finalize and initiate CoSR process for Core Service Assessment (Phases 2) and Service Level Assessment (Phase 3) Conduct Council Priority Setting Session /nrnHi ;nnr,, nnannn_ Conduct Council Priority Setting Session (finalize priorities and strategic initiatives) Complete Core Service Assessment (required approval by Council) Present interim service level assessment and opportunities (Phase 4) results to Council (Council to provide authority to proceed with established Complete assessmen opportunit by Council; Finalize rer presentatic results Council coi of CoSR re! recommen part of the Service -Ba! M &C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making HUMAN RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS Achievement of planned core service review objectives requires the commitment of sta resources, particularly given the need to control costs by limiting the use of external co services. Corporate staff commitment to the core service review will limit the capacity respond to other less significant matters. A Corporate Planning staff resource has been identified to manage the core service rev process. Two staff resources from other service areas have also been identified to lead engagement piece and financial analysis component of the review process. These reas" are on a part -time basis (approximately 50 %) to ensure that other initiatives and servicf (operational) needs can be addressed. Additional staff resources will be required to support review activities in terms of coon information gathering, analysis and documentation. While resources will be made avai from other service areas through reassignments (part- time), there will be a need to hire temporary basis. Within the Strategic Services team there are currently several vacanc: will provide for the funding necessary to hire one temporary assignment. While not assigned to the core service review project management team, staff from eac City's service areas will play a role in achieving planned review outcomes. They will 1 in review activities, provide information, complete analysis and develop recommendati required at key points throughout the review process. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS In researching the approach taken by other municipalities to complete core service revi budget allocations range from $60,000 (Mission, BC) to $350,000 (Toronto, ON), excl public consultation. In these examples an external consultant was engaged to manage,, out the review process. The City will control costs associated with a core service revie using a staff project management team to manage the review process and public engage strategy, building on the expertise gained through the successful execution of the Plan engagement program. External services will be retained on an as- needed basis to suppi review in terms of facilitation and subject matter expertise. A range of budget allocatic proposed and presented Table 4 for the City to conduct the review and public engagem activities. Table 4: Proposed budget allocations for 2012 core service review process. Core Service Review (consulting services as required, other support) $50,000- M &C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making Funds were allocated in the 2012 service -based budget within Corporate Planning to cc service reviews ($50,000) and complete the annual citizen survey ($45,000) that will ft the public engagement program. Additional funds required for the 2012 core service rf available within the Strategic Services budget as a result of a number of vacancies in tt Strategic Services team. Should the scope change for 2012, additional resources may required from other service areas. Similar budget allocations will need to be incorporz the 2013 and 2014 operating budgets to complete planned work in each of those years. A budget allocation range of $15,000 to $20,000 has been estimated for Council's prio setting. Budget estimates are inclusive of facilitation requirements, preparation of mat( translation costs. The funds have been allocated in the 2012 service -based budget with Corporate Planning service area. TIMING CONSIDERATIONS A timely decision by Council regarding an integrated approach to the service -based bu process that incorporates Council's priority setting and core service review will allow,,; being work. Delaying a decision increases the risk that Council will not have the infor necessary for the 2013 service -based budget process. The challenge would be the need sustainable expenditure reductions in light of cuts already adopted, while ensuring that service delivery addresses the interests and needs of the community. CONCLUSION Council has been provided with an integrated, strategic approach to guide the service -b budget process. It is a Council- driven process that incorporates priority setting and a n core service review into the service -based budget process. As a forward- looking proc( core service review is expected to provide valuable information in terms of what servic City should deliver and how the City may improve the effectiveness and efficiency of i delivery methods. More specifically, the review will support the establishment of sere for the City's core service offerings that align with Council's informed priority setting community. Recommendations resulting from the core service review will allow the C proactively plan for its future and to better meet customer service expectations. The re should also prove beneficial in terms of cost savings through the implementation of pr( changes in service levels, funding mechanisms and /or delivery methods. M &C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Common Council: 1. Endorse the recommended framework for the 2013 service -based budget proce: inclusive of the Council priority setting and core service review. 2. Endorse the Core Service Review Terms of Reference outlined in this report an attachment and authorize the City Manager to issue a Request for Proposals for consulting services to be engaged on an as- needed basis as outlined in the Term Reference and report back to Council on a recommended external service provi suggested review process and cost. Respectfully submitted, Stephanie Rackley- Roach, P.Eng Manager, Corporate Planning Jacqueline Hamilton, MCIP RPP Commissioner, Strategic Services J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager Draft Terms of Reference City of Saint John Core Service Review 1.0 Background The City of Saint John, like many other Canadian municipalities, is facing significant t challenges in delivering services that continue to meet public expectations. As service continue to rise at a rate that outpaces tax base growth, taxpayers face a larger burden i maintaining current service levels. There is a need to find long -term sustainable soluti( face of competing priorities, limited resources and new responsibilities. For more than a decade the City has applied cost reductions in an effort to ensure that t delivery of municipal services is affordable to its citizens. Historically, these reduction been achieved by focusing on line -item budget allocations with the objective of either maintaining or decreasing the tax rate and limited analysis on service level impact. As incremental reductions to service budgets over time have made it increasing difficult tc public service expectations. In 2012, the City staff was directed to prepare a `Plan D' budget to identify cost reduct could be implemented in the event reforms to the City's pension plan are not successfu preparing this budget, it became evident that a more systematic approach to allocating resources for the cost - effective delivery of municipal services is required. Identifying sustainable expenditure reductions was proving to be challenging in light of the cuts all adopted in the 2012 service -based operating budget to address pension concerns. In re staff proposed that the City embark on a core service review to support improved decis making and budget deliberation. The purpose of this Terms of Reference is to propose a comprehensive approach to cor multi -year core service review for comment by potential external service providers. TI of Reference are meant to be flexible and modifiable. A collaborative approach will b( finalize the review process with input from Common Council, City staff and the select( service provider. The goal is to define a manageable scope of work that achieves the o outlined for the review. 2.0 Review Objectives Core service reviews are commonly used by public sector organizations to address buy constraints. The purpose of this type of review is to engage Council, staff and the com- a dialogue on the City's service offerings. The goal is to identify what services the Cit • explore more innovative and sustainable approaches to delivering service to ide options to better manage the City's expenditures, allocate resources, generate rc improve cost - effectiveness of municipal services (i.e., to address whether servi( stay the same, increase or decrease); • evaluate how services should be delivered and the most appropriate service pro, private sector, partnerships, community groups, other level of government); • address the strategic alignment of City services with community priorities to en resources are allocated to Council - approved priority service areas; • reinforce the implementation of the PlanSJ principles and achievement of desirf community planning outcomes; • leverage results to ensure that the City's policy and financial interests are fully as part of Provincial municipal reform initiatives; • improve customer service by establishing service levels that create better aware service expectations and identify areas for improvement; and • build capacity in the organization to deliver cost - effective service, focused on tl continuous improvement of service delivery. 3.0 Guiding Principles and Key Considerations A core service review is a best practice used in municipalities to support a strategic dec making approach to the delivery of services. In order to achieve review objectives, a n guiding principles should be considered as part of the review process. • Public Interest: Does service continue to address a compelling public interest? What impact will proposed service changes have in the community? Public engagement should inform the review process to ensure that recommendations with priorities for the community. • Affordable: Are proposed service levels affordable for citizens given the currel fiscal environment? • Achievable: Is a manageable scope of work outlined for review given available resources? Are proposed expenditure reductions and timelines achievable and sustainable? • Role of Government Is there legitimate role for municipal government in the delivery of a particular service or is there a more appropriate service provider? innovative partnerships be developed to deliver service? r rnn .. TT r•i t i t, r� • Service - based: Are review results service- based, focused achieving desired outcomes in the community? • Credible: Has the reviewed been carried out to ensure public confidence in the results? • Past Review: The core service review should build off of service reviews and planning initiatives undertaken over last five years including, but not limited to Operational Review, Vision 2015 initiatives, organization realignment, Fire Ser Review, Fleet Service Review, Heritage Review, P1anSJ, and Play SJ • Emerging Opportunities and Challenges: The review needs to be forward lo( to support the City in addressing emerging, more specifically the Province's municipal reform initiatives. 4.0 Comprehensive Approach After reviewing the practices of other municipalities in conducting reviews of this natu phased comprehensive approach is proposed in Figure 1. Each phase aligns with revie, objectives as illustrated below. Key to successful delivery of review objectives will be opportunities for public consultation during the process. Public input into the review p will help build support for the implementation of any potential changes to service and f service levels reflect community priorities. Phase 1 — Service Inventory Complete an inventory of services currently delivered by the City with related levels, service delivery method (e.g., internal, contracted, fee for service) and i allocations. The inventory should reflect the new organization alignment and map of the City's services, sub - services and service activities. Public Engagement - 3e ' Analyze and assess all of the City's service offerings to determine the degree ti Deliver a public they are core according to established criteria. Services should be evaluated c engagement program that continuum (e.g., e.g., mandatory, essential, traditional, other) rather than siml encourages citizens to and non -core. share their priorities for the community, what they think are core services, and Phase what they want the City to consider when making Evaluate service delivery to recommend appropriate service levels that addres decisions about service community interests and needs. Benchmarking of service levels against comp; delivery. jurisdictions and public expectations (where data is readily accessible) will sup City in demonstrating value in its delivery of service and ensure alignment wits Each of the phases is broken out into more detail and is simply provided to ensure a co understanding of the approach to be carried as part of the core service review. Respon; of key stakeholders in the process, specifically Common Council, city staff, external se providers(s) and the public are outlined in the Roles and Responsibilities Section. Engagement Strategies 1. Design and deliver a public engagement strategy to obtain citizen input into the Service Review through a variety of channels and mechanisms including web -l; survey, or in- person forums utilizing innovative approaches to engagement (e.g interactive workshops, social media). The consultation process should achieve following objectives: a. inform citizens of City's current service offerings and service levels; b. obtain feedback from the public on what it believes are core services an( they want the City to consider when making decisions about service deli c. support Common Council in setting its priorities for its term. 2. Design and implement an employee engagement strategy that provides informa Core Service Review (outcomes and expectations) and fosters commitment and participation into the process. Phase 1: Program and Service Inventory 3. Complete an inventory of services currently delivered by the City with related s levels, service delivery method (e.g., internal, contract, fee for service) and rest allocations. The inventory should reflect the new organization alignment and it minimum) program, service and sub - service (activities) mapping of the City's c and administration. Phase 2: Core Service Assessment 4. Create a service classification system and evaluation matrix to determine the de which the City's services are core. The service classification system should ref continuum (e.g., mandatory, essential, traditional, other rather than simply core core). 5. Develop criteria or measures to gauge the benefits of service delivery to determ impact of a service reduction or discontinuation. 6. Conduct workshops (presentations), interviews or other collaborative means to input from key stakeholders including Common Council, senior managers, sery providers, and the public on service classifications. 8. Validate the service classification system and results with the Strategic Leaders and Common Council. Phase 3: Service Level Assessment 9. Review and organize input from the public engagement process on service leve 10. Identify comparable jurisdictions to complete a comparison of the City's curren levels. These may include municipal, regional and provincial governments eith similar size and profile, or of similar approach to delivering specific services. 11. Review available information on comparable jurisdictions. Interviewing with representatives from other jurisdictions may be useful. 12. Develop evaluation criteria for completing the service level assessment. 13. Where appropriate, benchmark the City's current service levels with those of cc jurisdictions and public expectations using readily assessable data. Benchmark also consider established service standards set by legislation and industry best x Results will help to demonstrate the value of service delivery to the public. 14. Evaluate current service levels and identify potential adjustments. Recommend appropriate service levels for services where the City has not adopted or develo service objectives. 15. Validate service level assessment public input, comparative jurisdictions, evalu criteria, and results with the Strategic Leadership Team and Common Council. Phase 4: Alternative Service Delivery Opportunities 16. Develop evaluation criteria to guide the development of recommendations relat potential options and opportunities for service delivery including potential chap service levels (i.e., maintaining, reducing or enhancing current service objectivf changes in service delivery model (e.g., tax -based funded versus user pay, other provider, innovative partnerships), or discontinuation of service. The service classification and service level assessment acts as the foundation for the evalual criteria. 17. Analyze services using the evaluation criteria to develop options and opportunii service delivery. Application of the evaluation criteria must ensure strategic ali with community priorities. The analysis should be completed in consultation w service areas and consider input from the public consultation program. 18. Identify and document risks and impacts in the community associated with eacl options identified. Risks and impacts should be developed collaboratively with areas and consider input from the public consultation program. 21. Validate service alternatives, risks, impacts, financial implications, and implem considerations with the Strategic Leadership Team and Common Council. 5.0 Scope All City services will be reviewed over the next three years, both public and internal su services as outlined in the City's new organizational service alignment illustrated in Fil The proposed comprehensive core service review methodology supports a more holisti approach to allocating limited funds for the delivery of the City's many service offeriq review should include services delivered on behalf of the City by its agencies, boards a commissions (ABCs), specifically police, transit, parking and economic development s Given that significant funds are allocated to ABCs for service delivery, review results a better understanding of service expectations and accountability for results. Growth & Planning Neighbourhood Roadway Drinking Financial Services Improvement Maintenance Water Management R Permitting & Recreation and Sidewalk i Industrial r Pension C Inspection Services Cultural Programming Maintenance Water Administration I Development Fire and Rescue Pedestrian and Traffic Asset Inter Support Services Management Wastewater Management Geographic Emergency Stormwater Utility Business C Information Systems Management Management Management Com Solid Waste Informa Collection Engineering Parks and Public Spaces Figure 2: City of Saint John service —based organization realignment. In support of a comprehensive review of services, Phase 1 and 2 of the core service rev approach will be completed for all City services in 2012. A large portion of the engag nrnarnm xxAll alcn hp r-mmnlptp,l in ')01') ixAth nn_o-nina nrnlhlip innrnt rprniirpil to crnnnnr Another consideration in scheduling is focusing on services impacted by the implemen the Regional Services Commission. The City's internal support services should be inc] the third year of the review, ensuring that these services are `sized' appropriately to sul public- facing services in meeting newly established service level objectives. 6.0 Deliverables The following deliverables will be achieved as part of the Core Service Review. The li been provided to ensure there is a common understanding of deliverables between Con Council, City staff, and external service provider(s). Responsibility for deliverables wi outlined in the Roles and Responsibilities Section. 1. Summary report of the public engagement process and outcomes to support the process and Common Council in its budget deliberations and decision - making. 2. Draft interim reports at the end of each review milestone, including any assumr the Strategic Leadership and Common Council to validate results. 3. Final Core Services Review Report in an easy -to read format that will support I Council in its budget deliberations. The report should contain: i. summary of the research and process used to undertake the Core Servicc ii. results of the core service classification including rationale for the classi systems and its application, ensuring direct links to strategic priorities fc community; iii. results of the service level assessment including rationale for the selectic comparative jurisdictions and service level evaluation criteria; iv. recommendations on service levels for services where the City has not fl adopted or developed service levels and should continue to deliver as de by the review; v. recommendations of potential changes to service delivery (i.e., change ii level, method of service delivery, or discontinuation of service), outlinir benefits, risks and impacts in the community associated with changes in financial and human resource implications, and implementation considel vi. summary table of all core services, proposed service levels, community (for changes), and financial and human resource requirements and impli 4. Presentation material of the review process and results of the Core Services Re` Common Council. 7.0 Roles and Responsibilities An illustrative representation of Core Service Review roles and responsibilities is prow Figure 3. The review will be led by Common Council. A staff project management te, supported by the Senior Management Team, will coordinate the review process and en; programs, working collaboratively with service areas, the public, and external service x (as required) to achieve Council- approved review objectives and deliverables. • Lead and guide Core Service Review (CoSR) (on -going approval of scope, objectives, deliverables and approach) • Approve Terms of Reference (ToR) • Set strategic direction (priorities) • Review interim deliverables and validate • Give authority to proceed at milestones • Decide on changes to service delivery (levels) C, • Provide input on Terms of Reference • Allocate resources to Core Service Review • Validate interim deliverables • Support project management team • Foster support for the review and results • Deliver corporate communication Ell • Provide project management • Recommend a 'doable' scope of work • Design and deliver engagement program(s); summarizing results • Coordinate Core Service Review activities (including participation of service areas) and complete work to achieve deliverables • Recommend requirements for the provision of external services; provide contract administration • Prepare all review documentation and final report / presentation • Draft communication related to CoSR • Provide input on priorities and service expectati7 through consultation program • Facilitate processes agreed upon with the City (re and engagement) • Provide objective expertise for analysis and development of service option recommendations JV required • Participate in CoSR activities • Provide information as requested • Complete assignments (analysis and options) Figure 3: Roles and responsibilities of core service review stakeholders and participants. External Service Provider Requirements The selected service provider will be expected to perform the following scope of work the collaborative achievement of the 2012 planned core service review deliverables. a. Provide subject matter advice to the staff project management team to finalize for conducting the core service review (Phases 2 through 4), including recomml for a manageable scope of work in terms of the services to be assessed in each review. b. Facilitate up to four (4) public consultation workshops to obtain citizen input to recommendations that reflect community priorities. This will involve providing matter advice on the design of interactive workshop activities that will inform c the City's current service offerings and service levels; obtain feedback from the what it believes are core services and what they want the City to consider when decisions about service delivery; and support Common Council in setting its pri its term. c. Facilitate up to four (4) workshops to complete the core service assessment. T1 involve providing subject matter advice on designing core continuum criteria ai workshop activities to efficiently achieve desired outcomes that incorporates pu interests and policy (e.g., public engagement results, relevant strategic plans, ar Council's priorities). Participants in these workshops will include members of the City's senior leadership team, and staff from various service areas. d. Validate core service assessment (Phase 2) results complied by the staff resourc e. Identify comparable jurisdictions to complete a comparison of the City's curren levels and provide access to data. These may include municipal, regional and p governments either of similar size and profile, or of similar approach to deliveri specific services. f. Provide subject matter advice to the City staff in the assessment of service level comparable jurisdictions and public interest as required. g. Validate service level assessment (Phase 3) results compiled by staff resources. h. Provide subject matter advice to City staff in developing alternative service deli opportunities. More specifically, provide knowledge of innovative approaches municipalities are using to deliver service to recommend potential changes to sf levels, method of service delivery, revenue generation or discontinuation of ser i. Validate recommendations related to alternative service delivery opportunities level assessment (Phase 4) results developed by staff resources. This includes t benefits, risks, community impact, financial and human resource implications, imnlementation considerations (barriers and timing) evaluated for each nronose The service provider will be expected to provide subject matter expertise, facilitation si and validation of Phase 3 and 4 results for the services scheduled for review in 2013 arl 8.0 Timelines The timelines for the proposed core service review are very ambitious as recommendat be developed for consideration in the 2013 service -based budget process. Table 1 outli proposed timelines for 2012. Detailed timelines will be finalized and approved by Cou Each year results should be available to support Council's service -based budget delibel Timelines for 2013 and 2014 will be finalized as part of the planning processes once a provider has been selected. It is anticipated that the 2012 review process should be completed within an eight to tel period (depending on availability of key stakeholders). Council's priority setting has b incorporated into the proposed schedule to support alignment between recommendation strategic direction set for the community; however, is not part of the work expected to 1 completed by external service providers. Table 1: Proposed timelines for 2012 core service review process Council adoption of Core Service Review Terms (CoSR) of Reference Develop draft detailed work plan for conducting the CoSR Develop draft public engagement strategy and employee communications Council approval of detailed work plan for review (including services to be reviewed) and engage- ment strategy Complete inventory of services delivered by the City and key ABCs (Phase 1) Identification and engagement of external facilitation and subject matter expert services (as required) Implement public engagement activities; summarize (in report format) engagement results Finalize and initiate CoSR process for Core Service Assessment (Phases 2) and Service Level Assessment (Phase 3) Conduct Council Priority Setting Session I (preliminary engagement results and draft outcomes / strategic objectives) 9.0 Proposal Submission Requirements Proposals must include the following information. Conduct Council Priority Setting Session II (finalize priorities and strategic directions) Complete Core Service Assessment (required approval by Council) Present interim service level assessment and opportunities (Phase 4) results to Council (Council to provide authority to proceed with established criteria and direction) Complete assessmen opportunit by Council) Finalize rer presentatic results Considerat results and recommen part of the Service -Ba! Process Qualifications: Provide a general description of the qualifications of the external provider and identify members to be assigned to the project team including any ri experience. Key personnel assigned to the project must be able to demonstrate: • an understanding of municipal government and alternative service deliver • experience with municipal core service review processes; • in -depth knowledge of public participation tools and techniques; • strong communication, facilitation and writing skills; • capacity to be a neutral third party with an ability to address process issue sensitivity toward all participants; and • ability to achieve results. Experience: Provide documentation that demonstrates experience in developing conducting the type of work outlined in the Terms of Reference. Work Plan and Schedule: Provide an explanation of the proposed approach to c the work outlined in this Terms of Reference. The explanation must demonstrate understanding of the needs of the municipality and the scope of work required to the core service review. A schedule of activities, supported by a graphical repres of planned work (bar chart), must be included in the proposal. The schedule will all major activities with corresponding start and completion dates. Team Organization: Provide the proposed team organization structure; responsi matrix describing the role and accountabilities of each team member; and a resou allocation table. References: Provide three (3) references of clients including: company name, co name (position), telephone number(s), and e -mail address(s). SECTION B. Financial Proposal A fixed upset maximum fee, including a statement of disbursements, to perform 1 of work activities and other items outlined must be provided. The financial prop be provided in sufficient detail as to describe the type and level of effort to be pej by each member of the consulting team (e.g., management consulting, facilitation research, travel, materials). Given that external services will be retained on an as needed basis, the proposal s outline the (unit) cost of specific services to be provided. For example, if the Cit 10.0 Evaluation Criteria Proposals will be reviewed for completeness, suitability, and match to the requirement,, in this Terms of Reference by a Section Committee consisting of representatives of the Saint John. For the purposes of this proposal call, submissions will be evaluated on the following criteria. Quality and Completeness (5 Points) — Has the proposal addressed all of the ne outlined in the proposal call? Is the proposal presented in an organized and profe manner? Service Provider Experience (35 Points) — Has the proposal demonstrated a leN expertise in keeping with the scope of work outlined in the Terms of Reference? proposal demonstrated a level of expertise for the employees of the company and consultants listed? (Include references for work completed of a similar nature.) Methodology (45 Points) — Does the approach to the work outlined in the propo; address, in a realistic sense, attainable goals and is it in keeping with the City's expectations? Cost (15 Points) — Cost will be a factor, however not the only factor to be consid Service providers are advised that proposals will be evaluated solely on the informatioi submitted in accordance with the Terms of Reference. The City reserves the right, if de necessary, to short-list the proposals and to request an additional verbal presentation fry short- listed proponent. Service providers may supplement their presentation with a sur written format to clarify points raised during the process. Council Core SE Reporting Service - Based Budget Vision & Strategic W Directions Corporate presentation Objective Key Considerations • Council driven process • Integrated strategic framework • Aggressive timelines for 2012 • Commitment to long -term approach to strategic decision mc, Recommendations • Endorse framework for 2013 service -based budget process Strategic Framework Components Council Priorities Strategic direction that reflects the interests and needs of the community Public Engagement Core Service IME Servic Review IME Bu What services the Budges City should provide resource and what extent... to servic service delivery achieve alternatives prii • Sets service expectations and suppc accountability for results • Decisions based on service planning financial analysis... lower priorities h way to higher priorities when resourc limited • Continuous service improvement... measurement and accountability Flinvihilih/ to racnnnrl to n rhnnninn r- Dangerous and Vacant Buildings Building Permits Winter Street Maintenance* Water leaks and i,r% i n +r% rri I r-+i Resolve 8 cases per year (most critical buildings) Permits issued within 10 business days after receipt of a complete application (80% of time) Plow all streets to meet objectives • Priority 1: 8 hrs bare travel lanes • Priority 2: 8 hrs bare centre lanes • Priority 3: 12 hrs bare centre lanes • Priority 4: 12 hrs accessible / packed Response within... A Q hr%i ire, fir t-%mr Service Level Service Level results in Resources results in I Resources Integrated with Council priority setting and core sery including public engagement program... • Council set direction for budget process • Initial draft budget based on current service level • Presentation of service delivery alternatives • Finalize service levels and budget resources Council led process to set priorities for their term... • Team building in setting a strategic direction • Decision - making that supports the community pri( • Alignment between priorities and resource allocat • Accountability for results (measure for service imp Strategic Objectives: • We are a city that draws people — they want to live here. • We have revitalized neighbourhoods that are safe, vibrant an Strategic Initiatives: • Increase recreation opportunities for participation for all ages • Work with Province to approve vacant and derelict building le •Analyze greenspace and enhance to align with what children Performance Indicators: • Three (3) Council workshops • External facilitation of priority setting sessions •M • Consideration of key inputs — Campaign issues — strategic plans — Commitments — emerging opportunities and challenges — public engagement results Pxinh infinn of nnnnnitxi r-tlanninn fnr ci it -r%acc What is a Core Service Review? WHAT Core Service Offerings Appropriate Service Levels HOW Service Provider Funding Mechanism 0] r0►Z: Lne R P_VIP.W C Systematic, informed approach to... • Determination of City's `core' service offerings • Further refinement of service level standards • Alternative service delivery options for Council to as part of the budget process • Set priorities that reflect the community priorities • Make decisions on appropriate service levels • Deliberate service -based budgets and capital buc • Demonstrate accountability for service results • Manage public service expectations Core Service Review Phased Approacl Phase 1- Service Inventory Phase 2: Core Service Assessment Phase 3: Service Level Assessment Phase 4- Alternative Service Delivery Onnortuni Growth & Planning Neighbourhood Roadway Drinking Financial Services Improvement Maintenance Water Management Permitting & Recreation and Cultural Sidewalk Industrial Pension Inspection Services Programming Maintenance Water Administration Development Fire and Rescue Pedestrian and Traffic Asset Support Services Management Wastewater Management Geographic Emergency Stormwater Utility Business Information Systems Management Management Management Solid Waste Collection Engineering Criteria for selecting service for review in 2012 • Council priority *... community priority • Public- facing services (including services of certa • Significant budget allocation... opportunity for imp • Benefits gained from review • Regional Service Commission considerations Service Sub- Services Surface Snow and Ice Maintenance Control Activities 1 Preventative Maintenance Repairs (patching) Salting and Sanding Snow Removal Plowing Street Cleaning CBD Streets Collector and Local Streets Ro< StrL Core (Essential) Legislated by Federal or Provincial govei Critical to operation of the City Provided by most municipalities Delivered to respond to a particular coma Ah questions and Considerafic Benchmark with comparable jurisdictions (value) — Legislated standards? — Below, at or above standards? Reflect public interest — How does City service compare with other mui — Should City compare with other municipalities — Feedback on current service levels? — Willingness to pav for higher service levels? Ah Alternatives • Service level LnAw )P.IIVF. • Funding sources (user -pay, partnerships) • Service delivery model (City, partnership, contracted, private,) • Discontinuation 0 1�1�1• Analysis • Benefits, risks and impact • Financial and huma implications • Implementation con (ease, timing) Scope &Purpose • Create awareness of the City's service offerings • Informs decision - making to address community priorities • Builds support for change • Integrated approach — ward meetings with a purpose Public Input • Policy Issues (top of • Service Priorities • Funding Strategies • Service Provider • Service Levels • E- consultation • Community Workshops • Community Group Outreach • Citizen Survey MI Cltlten %VVe„- %Very V.W- MK., Council adoption of Core Service Review Terms (CoSR) of Reference Am Develop draft detailed work plan for conducting the CoSR Develop draft public engagement strategy and employee communications Issue Request for Proposals for engagement of external r w L J Complete inventory of services delivered by the City and key ABCs Identification and engagement of external facilitation and subject matter expert services Council approval of detailed work plan for review (including services to be reviewed) engagement strategy August 29 - Conduct Council Priority Setting CAccinn (rri irrant cfnfa- Implement public engagement activities; summarize (in report format) engagement results Finalize and initiate CoSR process for Core Service Assessment (Phases 2) and Service Level Assessment (Phase 3) September 29 - Conduct Council Priority Setting Session (preliminary engage- ft October 13 - Conduct Council Priority Setting Session (finalize priorities and strategic initiatives) October 22 — Approve Council Priorities Complete Core Service Assessment Present interim service level assessment and opportunities (Phase 4) results to Council C I F Core Service Review Engagement Strategy Citizen Survey Council Priority Setting * Funds are available within the Strategic Services budget $50,000 $30,000 $15,000 presentation Objective Key Considerations • Council driven process • Integrated strategic framework • Aggressive timelines for 2012 • Commitment to long -term approach to strategic decision mc, Recommendations • Endorse framework for 2013 service -based budget process