Special Meeting of Council. 1.1 Strategic Decision Making; Council Priorities, Core Service Review and 2013 Service-Based Budget Process

Transcription

1 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 2

2 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 and 2013 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 community priorities. One tool that is being used by many municipalities to systematically approach their decision-making is a core service review. The purpose of this report is to present an integrated approach to completing the 2013 service-based budget process that incorporates Council s priority setting and a multi-year core service review (as directed by Common Council s resolution of April 12, 2012). Informed by a public engagement process, the City will undertake a core service review process that will determine what services the City should provide and how they should be delivered. The review will evaluate to what degree service offerings are core (e.g., legislated, essential, traditional, or other), assess the City s current service levels and delivery methods, and provide recommendations on opportunities to implement changes (e.g., service levels, funding sources, and/or service providers) that will result in more cost-effective delivery of service to our citizens. As part of a larger integrated process, Council will establish priorities. The public engagement program will provide Council with valuable public input to develop strategic priorities that reflect the community s interests and needs. Council priorities will be a key evaluation tool in making decisions related to service levels and opportunities for changes in service delivery that will be incorporated into the 2013 service-based budget. Council will lead a three year phased approach to review all of the City s services offerings (including certain services delivered by the City s agencies, boards and commissions). The review process will be supported by a staff project management team that will retain external 3

3 M&C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making Page 2 of 18 services for facilitation and subject matter expertise as required. In 2012, the review is expected to be completed in a three month period and will focus on a number of the City s public facing services, particularly those services that have significant budget allocations and will benefit from review. A budget range of $125,000 to $170,000 has been estimated to carry out the core service review and public engagement program to achieve 2012 planned outcomes. Council priority setting is estimated to cost in the range of $15,000 to $20,000. These funds are available within the Strategic Services budget. Within the Strategic Services team there are currently several vacancies that will provide for the funding necessary to hire one temporary assignment to support the core service review process. A number of recommendations have been included in the report for Council s consideration. A timely decision by Council regarding the approach to setting priorities and budget process that incorporate a core service review will allow the review to begin in order to obtain valuable input that will guide 2013 service-based budget deliberations. Council should understand that the core 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, results oriented budgeting approach based on achieving desired outcomes in the community through service delivery. The service-based budget focuses on identifying intended service results and linking them to the resources required to achieve the desired outcome. The City of Saint John, like many other Canadian municipalities, is facing significant budget challenges in delivering services that continue to meet public expectations. As service costs continue to rise at a rate that outpaces tax base growth, taxpayers face a larger burden in simply maintaining current service levels. There is a need to find long-term sustainable solutions in the 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 the delivery of municipal services is affordable to its citizens. Historically, these reductions have 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 a result, incremental reductions to service budgets over time have made it increasing difficult to manage public service expectations. 4

4 M&C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making Page 3 of 18 In 2012, the City Manager was directed to prepare a Plan D budget to identify cost reductions that could be implemented in the event reforms to the City s pension plan are not achieved. In preparing this budget, it became evident that a more systematic approach to allocating limited resources for the cost-effective delivery of municipal services is required. Identifying additional sustainable expenditure reductions was proving to be challenging in light of the cuts already adopted in the 2012 service-based operating budget to address pension concerns. In response, staff proposed that the City embark on a core service review to support Council s decision making and budget deliberation. As part of a larger integrated process, Council will establish priorities to provide focus over the course of their term. The proposed public engagement program will provide Council with valuable public input to develop strategic priorities that reflect the community s interests and needs. Council priorities will be a key evaluation tool in making decisions related to service levels and opportunities for changes in service delivery that will be incorporated into the 2013 service-based budget. SERVICE-BASED BUDGET PROCESS Service-based budgeting is a customer-based, performance driven, results-oriented approach to allocating resources that focuses on achieving desired outcomes in the community through service delivery. The service-based budget approach (illustrative example in Figure 2) defines intended service results and links them to the resources required to achieve the desired outcomes. Linking resource allocations to service level objectives, the service-based budget outlines in measurable terms all the services to be provided by the City and at what level they are to be provided. It is therefore not only a budget document; it is an important policy document of the 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 lower priorities have to give way to higher priorities when resources are limited; providing a tool for making services more effective and efficient through planning and 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 been provided service-based budget documents for each of the service areas for information through the Council Orientation Program. Table 1 illustrates some examples of current service levels and the resources required to achieve these objectives (excerpts from 2012 service-base budget documents). 5

5 M&C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making Page 4 of 18 Table 1: Examples of the City s service-based budget format. Service Activity Service Level Resources Dangerous and Vacant Buildings Resolve 8 cases per year (most critical buildings) $137,341 FTE 1.36 Building Permits Winter Street Maintenance* Water leaks and service interruptions* 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 48 hours for emergency repair 2 weeks for less urgent repairs $960,142 FTE 10.0 $4,433,349 FTE 33.7 $4,370,000 FTE 26.0 The 2013 service-based budget process should be integrated with the Council priority setting approach and core service review being proposed for Council s consideration, ensuring a 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 expenditure projections); drafting an initial budget based on currently established service levels; developing service level alternatives according to Council s priorities and services included in the CoSR with presentation of service delivery opportunities to Council as part of the review process; and finalizing service levels and budget resources as part of Council s decisions regarding core service review results. The goal will be to complete the budget process in December 2012 (prior to Christmas holidays). Ability to achieve this goal will be dependent on provincial requirements and the provision of information critical to complete the budget process (i.e., tax-base assessment, unconditional grant). City staff will report back on more detailed timelines for the service-based budget process. COUNCIL PRIORITY SETTING As part of its governance role Common Council establishes strategic priorities that will guide decision making and allow the City to demonstrate accountability for results. Setting priorities is about determining what goals and objectives will be acted upon during Council s term to achieve long-term community goals. Council will be challenged to develop priorities that focus on issues that are important to the community, while being mindful of the municipality s legislative responsibilities and the ability of citizens to cover rising costs. Council s priority setting will: 6

6 M&C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making Page 5 of 18 support Council in building a strong team, providing an opportunity to collectively and collaboratively set a strategic direction; guide Council in making policy decision that support the community in achieving its vision and goals; play a key role in the service-based budget process, providing evaluation criteria to ensure alignment between strategic priorities and resource allocations. provide a means to better demonstrate accountability for results, providing the basis for performance measurement and service improvement. Council will participate in priority setting sessions to determine strategic priority areas for its term in Council. Priority areas are then further translated into a set of strategic objectives and initiatives to give further clarity and meaning to the priority. Essentially, Council will create a roadmap to achieve desired results in the community. Accountability for results will be supported by the development of performance indicators by converting objectives and initiatives into measures and targets. A better understanding of each component of Council s priorities is 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 clear to Council, staff, citizens and other key stakeholders. Strategic objectives are grouped by priority and define specifically what outcomes are expected to be achieved for that priority. Strategic initiatives are program or projects that support the achievement of objectives. They are linked to the budget process and provide the basis for the development of performance metrics. Table 2 provides an illustrative example of Council s Priorities using the priorities developed for Council s term. Council may wish to adopt a different format to present their priorities; however, the same guiding principles and process for developing priorities should be applied. Key Inputs to Priority Setting Council s priority setting is intended to set a direction for the Administration in the delivery of public service that addresses the needs and interests of the public. Members of Council will draw on the opportunities and concerns expressed by citizens during the election process to inform their priority setting. A formal public engagement strategy will be developed as part of the Core Service Review and will incorporate requirements for Council s priority setting. Webbased consultation, in-person forums and independent survey tools are contemplated as part of the engagement strategy. 7

7 Table 2: Illustrative example of Council priority structure (based on Council Priorities) Strategic Priority Area: Strategic Priority Area: Strategic Priority Area: Livable Municipal Growth and Safe, Reliable Community Development Infrastructure Strategic Priority Area: Customer Focused, Results Oriented Government 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. We have grown Saint John smarter by developing complete and compact communities. We have strategic and coordinated planning, development and maintenance of municipal facilities and infrastructure. We have clean, safe drinking water. Our citizens and ratepayers consistently recognize municipal services as being effective at a supportable cost. We have services that are delivered efficiently and effectively at an equitable tax rate. Strategic Initiatives: Strategic Initiatives: Strategic Initiatives: 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. Allocate resources necessary to continue to enhance and build upon development of a comprehensive Municipal Plan that will be adopted by Develop an Action Plan to move forward with implementing recommendations arising from the review of processes involved in planning and development approval (Ircha Report). 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. Implement a Customer Service Model with appropriate resources that will result in responses to public enquiries within 24 hours and follow-up action within two weeks of initial call. Investigate and implement revenue generating strategies separate from assessment generated funds to increase our general revenues by $1.5 million per year by By the end of 2010 make fundamental changes to the Employee Pension Plan that will reduce the liabilities of the Plan. Performance Indicators: Performance Indicators: Performance Indicators: 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 good job ensuring a safe and caring community. 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. Average Pavement Condition (PCI) for all City of Saint John Streets (asphalt surface only). Weighted number of days when a boil water advisory issued by the Medical Officer of Health was in effect. Percentage of residents that rate the value received from municipal tax dollars as good or very good. Percentage of residents satisfied with the overall level and quality of municipal programs and services. 8

8 M&C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making Page 7 of 18 A key input into priority setting will be the issues and concerns that members of Council heard while campaigning. In order to support an informed and strategic approach to priority setting, Council should also consider other inputs in setting their priorities. The City of Saint John has demonstrated its ability to develop and implement long-term strategic plans. More specifically, the Community s Vision and Goals Our Saint John and the new Municipal Plan PlanSJ should inform Council s strategic planning process. Both of these documents were created through extensive public consultation and reflect the long-term aspirations of the community. Council should also consider its current commitments to the community (e.g., long-term capital investments) as well as emerging opportunities and issues in setting priorities (e.g., provincially led municipal reforms). Finalizing priorities will require Council to evaluate whether the plan is 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, degree of public engagement, and finalizing priorities. Council s priority setting will be supported by a staff team, led by Strategic Services. The staff team will be responsible for managing and coordinating a Council-approved priority setting process that ensures Council s priority setting objectives are achieved. The Senior Leadership Team will play a key role in helping Council evaluate the capacity the organization has to successfully achieve proposed strategic initiatives. This information will be valuable in determining timing around strategic initiatives and if external partnerships need to be developed. Priority setting sessions will be facilitated by an external service provider, preferably one with knowledge and understanding of public service. The staff team will work collaboratively with the facilitator to ensure that goals for the priority sessions can be achieved. Initial priority setting sessions will be planned and coordinated with the core service review process to ensure that there is alignment of key planning results. Priority Setting Process and Timelines Council s priority setting should be conducted in workshop style sessions using innovative techniques to facilitate team building and collective decision-making. Some pre-session work by Members of Council may be incorporated into the process to provide time for individual reflection and ensure the effective management of sessions. Input from the City Solicitor will be considered to determine meeting requirements that support transparency, while fostering a creative and collaborative environment for discussion. While the process used to support Council in setting their priorities will be finalized with the external facilitator, the following elements of priority setting should be incorporated into the process design. Define Success Council should identify what success would look like. To ensure alignment with the community priorities, Council should evaluate success against the five areas of a sustainable community social well-being, economy, environment 9

9 M&C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making Page 8 of 18 infrastructure and governance. Both Our Saint John (long-term community vision and goals) and PlanSJ (municipal plan) focus on sustainability. Defining success will support the development of strategic priority areas and objectives. Opportunity & Issues Council should have a chance to share the opportunities and issues expressed by the public during the election campaign. Council should also 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 upon criteria to determine priority programs and projects. Evaluation criteria needs to link back to the successful outcomes (strategic objectives) identified by Council in their priority setting. Capacity Check Strategic initiatives should only be given priority once they have been evaluated to determine if the organization has the capacity to carry-out these plans, particularly from a financial and human resources perspective while being mindful of day-to-day operations. The Senior Leadership Team should support Council in this evaluation. The capacity check can also help determine when strategic initiatives should be undertaken (i.e., if they will be carried out in the first year of Council s term or later). Several priority setting sessions are proposed and outlined in Table 3. The goal is for Council to approve their priorities in October. This timing supports the achievement of the objectives set out for the core service review and the service-based budget process. Experienced facilitators that have worked with local governments recommend that priority setting is informed, providing time to build a common understanding on the complexities of local government. The Council Orientation Program was designed to support learning and inform the priority setting process. Confirmation of timing and number of sessions will be finalized with the external facilitator. Table 3: Proposed Council priority setting sessions Opportunities & Issues Collective discussion on goals and expectations for Council s priority setting Brainstorming opportunities and issues (considers public input, operational commitments, emerging opportunities Strategic Directions Set strategic priority areas and objectives (defining what success looks like for the community; should consider input from public engagement program) Prioritizing Opportunities Evaluate opportunities against strategic objectives and conduct capacity check (supported by City Administration) Finalizing Priorities Review and finalize priorities External facilitation of Council discussion Staff presentation of key considerations External facilitation of Council discussion Staff presentation of public engagement External facilitation of Council and staff discussion on priorities and capacity Formal adoption of priorities Target Date: August 29 th Target Date: September 29 th Target Date: October 13 th Target Date: October 22 nd 4 hour session Wednesday Full day session Saturday Full day session Saturday Agenda Item for Council 10

10 M&C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making Page 9 of 18 As part of the priority setting process the project management team will be responsible for preparing the necessary documentation to finalize Council s priorities. The staff team will work collaboratively with the external facilitator to ensure that the decisions made by Council during their priority setting sessions are accurately reflected in the documentation. This work will also include recommending performance indicators that will support the City in demonstrating accountability for results and the continuous improvement of service delivery. Council will formally approve the final set of priorities. Each year, Council will participate in facilitated sessions to review strategic objectives and initiatives, making adjustments to reflect changes in economic outlook, policy direction of the other levels of government and community priorities. Council s priority setting should be 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 budgetary constraints. The purpose of this type of review is to engage Council, staff and the community in a dialogue on the City s service offerings. The goal is to identify what services the City should be delivering and to what extent. More specifically, a core service review will provide an opportunity to: evaluate to what degree services are core (e.g., mandatory, essential, traditional or other) in supporting the community in achieving its priorities; explore more innovative and sustainable approaches to delivering service to identify options to better manage the City s expenditures, allocate resources, generate revenue and improve cost-effectiveness of municipal services (i.e., to address whether service levels stay the same, increase or decrease); evaluate how services should be delivered and the most appropriate service provider (e.g., private sector, partnerships, community groups, other level of government); address the strategic alignment of City services with community priorities to ensure that resources are allocated to Council-approved priority service areas; reinforce the implementation of the PlanSJ principles and achievement of desired community planning outcomes; leverage results to ensure that the City s policy and financial interests are fully considered as part of Provincial municipal reform initiatives; improve customer service by establishing service levels that create better awareness of service expectations and identify areas for improvement; and build capacity in the organization to deliver cost-effective service, focused on the continuous improvement of service delivery. 11

11 M&C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making Page 10 of 18 On April 12, 2012, Common Council adopted a resolution that directed the City Manager to draft a report that outlines scope, outcomes and timing for a comprehensive core service review. This report outlines a proposed approach for undertaking a core service review for Council s consideration. Comprehensive Core Service Review Approach After reviewing the practices of other municipalities in conducting reviews of this nature, a four phased comprehensive approach is proposed in Figure 1. Each phase aligns with review objectives as illustrated below. Key to successful delivery of review objectives will be providing opportunities for public consultation during the process. Public input into the review process will help build support for the implementation of any potential changes to service and ensure that service levels reflect community priorities. The City currently delivers over forty different public-facing services with various programs and activities. Given organizational capacity and limited resources, the review of all the City s service offerings should be completed over a three year period ( ). Phase 1 Service Inventory Complete an inventory of services currently delivered by the City with related service levels, service delivery method (e.g., internal, contracted, fee for service) and resource allocations. The inventory should reflect the new organization alignment and provide a map of the City s services, sub-services and service activities. Public Engagement Deliver a public engagement program that encourages citizens to share their priorities for the community, what they think are core services, and what they want the City to consider when making decisions about service delivery. Phase 2 Core Service Assessment Analyze and assess all of the City s service offerings to determine the degree to which they are core according to established criteria. Services should be evaluated on a core continuum (e.g., mandatory, essential, traditional, other) rather than simply core and non-core. Phase 3 Service Level Assessment Evaluate service delivery to recommend appropriate service levels that address community interests and needs. Benchmarking of service levels against comparable jurisdictions and public expectations (where data is readily accessible) will support the City in demonstrating value in its delivery of service and ensure alignment with priorities. Phase 4 Alternative Service Delivery Opportunities Evaluate core service offerings to recommend potential changes to service levels, method of service delivery, revenue generation or discontinuation of service. Benefits, risks, community impact, financial and human resource implications, and implementation considerations (barriers and timing) need to be assessed for each proposed opportunity. Figure 1: Comprehensive phased approach to achieving core service review objectives. 12

12 M&C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making Page 11 of 18 The core service review should build off the work completed as part of several previous service review initiatives. The City has recently completed a review of its organizational structure and is in the process of implementing the recommended changes. The new organizational structure is service-based, focused on establishing the City as a results-oriented, customer-focused, high performance public service organization. Service areas are organized into six service streams to support coordinated, cost-effective delivery of service. The core service review should be conducted to ensure there is alignment with the new organizational structure and its objectives. The City presented its 2012 operating budgets in a service-based format. Service levels have been identified for many of the City s public-facing services. The City s current inventory of services and established service levels will provide the basis for the core service review. The City has undertaken a number of service reviews (internally and by third party, independent consultants) over the last several years. Reviews were completed for Fire Services (costeffectiveness), Solid Waste Management (collection model), Fleet Management (structure, business model and operations), and Heritage (process). The City also supported a task force on economic development where service levels were defined for the services delivered by the City s four economic development agencies, boards and commissions (ABCs) including Enterprise 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 John, has been completed and is in the process of being implemented. More recently, the City is working through the final stages of PlaySJ, the development of a strategic plan for recreation facilities, services and programs. Key findings from these reviews and planning initiatives (particularly around service levels, alternative options for service delivery and right-sizing of the City s 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 decisionmaking approach to the delivery of services. In order to achieve review objectives, a number of 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 current 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 a legitimate role for municipal government in the delivery of a particular service or is there a more appropriate service provider? Can innovative partnerships be developed to deliver service? 13

13 M&C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making Page 12 of 18 Cost-Effective: Will proposed review recommendations result in more cost-effective 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 investment in the community? Service-based: Are review results service-based and support the achievement of 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 proposed core service review. It proposes that all services be reviewed over the next three years, both public and internal support services as outlined in the City s new organizational service alignment illustrated in Figure 2. The proposed comprehensive core service review methodology supports a more holistic approach to allocating limited funds for the delivery of the City s many service offerings. The review should include services delivered on behalf of the City by certain ABCs, specifically police, transit, parking and economic development services (over the three year period). Given that significant funds are allocated to ABCs for service delivery, review results will create a better understanding of their service expectations and accountability for results. Figure 2: City of Saint John service based organization realignment. 14

14 M&C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making Page 13 of 18 Common Council Common Council will lead the core service review, setting the direction for the review through the approval of a Terms of Reference. An illustrative representation of core service review roles and responsibilities is provided in Figure 3. Council will also provide input on what service offerings will be scheduled for review over the next three years. In 2012, consideration should be given to services that are public facing, have significant budget allocations, and areas that will benefit from review. The City s internal support services should be included in the third year of the review, ensuring that these services are sized appropriately to support public-facing services in meeting the newly established service level objectives. Common Council 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) Public / Service Recipients Provide input on priorities and service expectations through consultation program Senior Leadership Team (SLT) 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 CoSR Project Management Team 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 External Service Providers Facilitate processes agreed upon with the City (review and engagement) Provide objective expertise for analysis and development of service option recommendations as required Service Areas / Employees Participate in CoSR activities Provide information as requested Complete assignments (analysis and options) Figure 3: Core Service Review Structure roles and responsibilities. 15

15 M&C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making Page 14 of 18 Council will also provide leadership by ensuring that service delivery reflects their priorities for the community. Council s priority setting is not within the scope of this review; however, the public engagement program will be designed to support Council in establishing priorities for their term. While input from the public will be considered in evaluating the City s core service offerings and appropriate service levels, it is Council s responsibility to decide on actual service levels and ensure required resources are available to achieve these objectives. Council should understand that the core service review approach being proposed will help them: 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 responsible for ensuring the Terms of Reference are followed; keeping the review on schedule and within budget; coordinating service area participation in the review process; delivering a public engagement program; developing a communications strategy; and producing an implementation plan. The project management team will report through the Senior Leadership Team to Council 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 view of the City s service offerings. This objectivity will support the credibility of review results and any proposed changes to City services. Specifically, external service provider(s) will be used to facilitate portions of the review and provide subject matter expertise required to achieve review objectives. While City staff will be responsible for the engagement program, the external service provider(s) will provide facilitation services at public events. External service providers will work collaboratively with the project management team and service areas to achieve review 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 key success 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 costeffective delivery of service that aligns with priorities for the community. Common Council Leadership: Council needs to provide leadership support in setting a strategic direction for the review and ensuring adequate resources are allocated to achieve planned deliverables. 16

16 M&C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making Page 15 of 18 Administrative Leadership: The Senior Leadership team must promote the core service review as a corporate priority by ensuring resources are available to achieve review objectives and engaging employees to positively contribute to the review 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 embraced, employees must have a good understanding of the purpose of the core service review and anticipated outcomes and be encouraged to actively participate in the process. Public Consultation: The public should be afforded opportunities to provide input on what services the City should be in, as well as how they should be delivered to ensure that service delivery aligns with community priorities and to build support for any potential changes to service delivery. Core Service Review Process and Timelines The timelines for the proposed core service review are very ambitious as recommendations must be developed for consideration in the 2013 service-based budget process. Table 3 outlines proposed timelines for Detailed timelines will be finalized and approved by Council. It is anticipated that the 2012 review process should be completed within an eight to ten week period (depending on availability of key stakeholders). Council s priority setting has been incorporated into the proposed schedule to support alignment between recommendations and the strategic direction set for the community. Table 3: Proposed timelines for 2012 core service review process (for selected services). July August September October November 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 engagement of external service provider 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 engagement strategy Conduct Council Priority Setting Session (current state presentation and information gathering) 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 (preliminary engagement results and draft outcomes / strategic objectives) 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 criteria and direction) Complete service level assessment and opportunities (approve by Council) December Finalize report and presentation of CoSR results Council consideration of CoSR results and recommendations as part of the 2013 Service-Based Budget Process 17

17 M&C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making Page 16 of 18 HUMAN RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS Achievement of planned core service review objectives requires the commitment of staff resources, particularly given the need to control costs by limiting the use of external consulting services. Corporate staff commitment to the core service review will limit the capacity of staff to respond to other less significant matters. A Corporate Planning staff resource has been identified to manage the core service review process. Two staff resources from other service areas have also been identified to lead the public engagement piece and financial analysis component of the review process. These reassignments are on a part-time basis (approximately 50%) to ensure that other initiatives and service (operational) needs can be addressed. Additional staff resources will be required to support review activities in terms of coordination, information gathering, analysis and documentation. While resources will be made available from other service areas through reassignments (part-time), there will be a need to hire staff on a temporary basis. Within the Strategic Services team there are currently several vacancies that will provide for the funding necessary to hire one temporary assignment. While not assigned to the core service review project management team, staff from each of the City s service areas will play a role in achieving planned review outcomes. They will participate in review activities, provide information, complete analysis and develop recommendations as required at key points throughout the review process. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS In researching the approach taken by other municipalities to complete core service reviews, budget allocations range from $60,000 (Mission, BC) to $350,000 (Toronto, ON), exclusive of public consultation. In these examples an external consultant was engaged to manage and carry out the review process. The City will control costs associated with a core service review by using a staff project management team to manage the review process and public engagement strategy, building on the expertise gained through the successful execution of the PlanSJ engagement program. External services will be retained on an as-needed basis to support the review in terms of facilitation and subject matter expertise. A range of budget allocations are proposed and presented Table 4 for the City to conduct the review and public engagement activities. Table 4: Proposed budget allocations for 2012 core service review process. Activity Budget Allocation Range Core Service Review (consulting services as required, other support) $50,000 75,000 Engagement Strategy (facilitation services, venues, materials, communication) $30,000 50,000 Citizen Survey (part of engagement strategy) $45,000 Total Budget $125, ,000 18

18 M&C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making Page 17 of 18 Funds were allocated in the 2012 service-based budget within Corporate Planning to conduct service reviews ($50,000) and complete the annual citizen survey ($45,000) that will form part of the public engagement program. Additional funds required for the 2012 core service review are available within the Strategic Services budget as a result of a number of vacancies in the Strategic Services team. Should the scope change for 2012, additional resources may be required from other service areas. Similar budget allocations will need to be incorporated into 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 priority setting. Budget estimates are inclusive of facilitation requirements, preparation of materials and translation costs. The funds have been allocated in the 2012 service-based budget within the Corporate Planning service area. TIMING CONSIDERATIONS A timely decision by Council regarding an integrated approach to the service-based budget process that incorporates Council s priority setting and core service review will allow staff to being work. Delaying a decision increases the risk that Council will not have the information necessary for the 2013 service-based budget process. The challenge would be the need to find sustainable expenditure reductions in light of cuts already adopted, while ensuring that public service delivery addresses the interests and needs of the community. CONCLUSION Council has been provided with an integrated, strategic approach to guide the service-based budget process. It is a Council-driven process that incorporates priority setting and a multi-year core service review into the service-based budget process. As a forward-looking process, the core service review is expected to provide valuable information in terms of what services the City should deliver and how the City may improve the effectiveness and efficiency of its service delivery methods. More specifically, the review will support the establishment of service levels for the City s core service offerings that align with Council s informed priority setting for the community. Recommendations resulting from the core service review will allow the City to proactively plan for its future and to better meet customer service expectations. The review should also prove beneficial in terms of cost savings through the implementation of proposed changes in service levels, funding mechanisms and/or delivery methods. 19

19 M&C July 18, 2012 Strategic Decision Making Page 18 of 18 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Common Council: 1. Endorse the recommended framework for the 2013 service-based budget process inclusive of the Council priority setting and core service review. 2. Endorse the Core Service Review Terms of Reference outlined in this report and 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 Terms of Reference and report back to Council on a recommended external service provider(s), 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 20

20 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 budget challenges in delivering services that continue to meet public expectations. As service costs continue to rise at a rate that outpaces tax base growth, taxpayers face a larger burden in simply maintaining current service levels. There is a need to find long-term sustainable solutions in the 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 the delivery of municipal services is affordable to its citizens. Historically, these reductions have 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 a result, incremental reductions to service budgets over time have made it increasing difficult to manage public service expectations. In 2012, the City staff was directed to prepare a Plan D budget to identify cost reductions that could be implemented in the event reforms to the City s pension plan are not successful. In preparing this budget, it became evident that a more systematic approach to allocating limited resources for the cost-effective delivery of municipal services is required. Identifying additional sustainable expenditure reductions was proving to be challenging in light of the cuts already adopted in the 2012 service-based operating budget to address pension concerns. In response, staff proposed that the City embark on a core service review to support improved decisionmaking and budget deliberation. The purpose of this Terms of Reference is to propose a comprehensive approach to conduct a multi-year core service review for comment by potential external service providers. The Terms of Reference are meant to be flexible and modifiable. A collaborative approach will be taken to finalize the review process with input from Common Council, City staff and the selected external service provider. The goal is to define a manageable scope of work that achieves the objectives outlined for the review. 2.0 Review Objectives Core service reviews are commonly used by public sector organizations to address budgetary constraints. The purpose of this type of review is to engage Council, staff and the community in a dialogue on the City s service offerings. The goal is to identify what services the City should be delivering and to what extent. More specifically, a core service review will provide an opportunity to: evaluate to what degree services are core (e.g., mandatory, essential, traditional or other) in supporting the community in achieving its priorities; Terms of Reference: City of Saint John Core Service Review 1 of 12 21

21 explore more innovative and sustainable approaches to delivering service to identify options to better manage the City s expenditures, allocate resources, generate revenue and improve cost-effectiveness of municipal services (i.e., to address whether service levels stay the same, increase or decrease); evaluate how services should be delivered and the most appropriate service provider (e.g., private sector, partnerships, community groups, other level of government); address the strategic alignment of City services with community priorities to ensure that resources are allocated to Council-approved priority service areas; reinforce the implementation of the PlanSJ principles and achievement of desired community planning outcomes; leverage results to ensure that the City s policy and financial interests are fully considered as part of Provincial municipal reform initiatives; improve customer service by establishing service levels that create better awareness of service expectations and identify areas for improvement; and build capacity in the organization to deliver cost-effective service, focused on the 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 decisionmaking approach to the delivery of services. In order to achieve review objectives, a number of 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 align with priorities for the community. Affordable: Are proposed service levels affordable for citizens given the current 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? Can innovative partnerships be developed to deliver service? Cost-Effective: Will proposed review recommendations result in more cost-effective 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 investment in the community? Terms of Reference: City of Saint John Core Service Review 2 of 12 22

22 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 the Operational Review, Vision 2015 initiatives, organization realignment, Fire Service Review, Fleet Service Review, Heritage Review, PlanSJ, and Play SJ Emerging Opportunities and Challenges: The review needs to be forward looking 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 nature, a four phased comprehensive approach is proposed in Figure 1. Each phase aligns with review objectives as illustrated below. Key to successful delivery of review objectives will be providing opportunities for public consultation during the process. Public input into the review process will help build support for the implementation of any potential changes to service and ensure that service levels reflect community priorities. Phase 1 Service Inventory Complete an inventory of services currently delivered by the City with related service levels, service delivery method (e.g., internal, contracted, fee for service) and resource allocations. The inventory should reflect the new organization alignment and provide a map of the City s services, sub-services and service activities. Public Engagement Deliver a public engagement program that encourages citizens to share their priorities for the community, what they think are core services, and what they want the City to consider when making decisions about service delivery. Phase 2 Core Service Assessment Analyze and assess all of the City s service offerings to determine the degree to which they are core according to established criteria. Services should be evaluated on a core continuum (e.g., e.g., mandatory, essential, traditional, other) rather than simply core and non-core. Phase 3 Service Level Assessment Evaluate service delivery to recommend appropriate service levels that address community interests and needs. Benchmarking of service levels against comparable jurisdictions and public expectations (where data is readily accessible) will support the City in demonstrating value in its delivery of service and ensure alignment with priorities. Phase 4 Alternative Service Delivery Opportunities Evaluate core service offerings to recommend potential changes to service levels, method of service delivery, revenue generation or discontinuation of service. Benefits, risks, community impact, financial and human resource implications, and implementation considerations (barriers and timing) need to be assessed for each proposed opportunity. Figure 1: Comprehensive phased approach to achieving core service review objectives. Terms of Reference: City of Saint John Core Service Review 3 of 12 23

23 Each of the phases is broken out into more detail and is simply provided to ensure a common understanding of the approach to be carried as part of the core service review. Responsibilities of key stakeholders in the process, specifically Common Council, city staff, external service 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 Core Service Review through a variety of channels and mechanisms including web-based, survey, or in-person forums utilizing innovative approaches to engagement (e.g., interactive workshops, social media). The consultation process should achieve the 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 and what they want the City to consider when making decisions about service delivery; and c. support Common Council in setting its priorities for its term. 2. Design and implement an employee engagement strategy that provides information on the 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 service levels, service delivery method (e.g., internal, contract, fee for service) and resource allocations. The inventory should reflect the new organization alignment and include (at minimum) program, service and sub-service (activities) mapping of the City s operations and administration. Phase 2: Core Service Assessment 4. Create a service classification system and evaluation matrix to determine the degree to which the City s services are core. The service classification system should reflect a continuum (e.g., mandatory, essential, traditional, other rather than simply core and noncore). 5. Develop criteria or measures to gauge the benefits of service delivery to determine the impact of a service reduction or discontinuation. 6. Conduct workshops (presentations), interviews or other collaborative means to obtain input from key stakeholders including Common Council, senior managers, service providers, and the public on service classifications. 7. Classify the City s current service offerings using the service classification system. Given that services are broad ranging, classifications of service using the core continuum should be made at the sub-service (activity) level. Sub-services/activities within a service can have different rankings in the core continuum. In addition to classification, the role the City plays in the delivery of service and the benefits to the community should also be identified. Terms of Reference: City of Saint John Core Service Review 4 of 12 24

24 8. Validate the service classification system and results with the Strategic Leadership Team and Common Council. Phase 3: Service Level Assessment 9. Review and organize input from the public engagement process on service levels. 10. Identify comparable jurisdictions to complete a comparison of the City s current service levels. These may include municipal, regional and provincial governments either of 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 comparable jurisdictions and public expectations using readily assessable data. Benchmarking should also consider established service standards set by legislation and industry best practices. 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 developed service objectives. 15. Validate service level assessment public input, comparative jurisdictions, evaluation 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 related to potential options and opportunities for service delivery including potential changes in service levels (i.e., maintaining, reducing or enhancing current service objectives), changes in service delivery model (e.g., tax-based funded versus user pay, other service provider, innovative partnerships), or discontinuation of service. The service classification and service level assessment acts as the foundation for the evaluation criteria. 17. Analyze services using the evaluation criteria to develop options and opportunities for service delivery. Application of the evaluation criteria must ensure strategic alignment with community priorities. The analysis should be completed in consultation with service areas and consider input from the public consultation program. 18. Identify and document risks and impacts in the community associated with each of the options identified. Risks and impacts should be developed collaboratively with service areas and consider input from the public consultation program. 19. Quantify (order of magnitude) the potential savings (or cost if enhancements are recommended) for each proposed change in service delivery in terms of financial and human resources. 20. Identify potential barriers to implementing service options and opportunities (i.e., ease or difficulty of implementation) and timelines for implementation (i.e., when financial benefits could be realized). Terms of Reference: City of Saint John Core Service Review 5 of 12 25

25 21. Validate service alternatives, risks, impacts, financial implications, and implementation 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 support services as outlined in the City s new organizational service alignment illustrated in Figure 2. The proposed comprehensive core service review methodology supports a more holistic approach to allocating limited funds for the delivery of the City s many service offerings. The review should include services delivered on behalf of the City by its agencies, boards and commissions (ABCs), specifically police, transit, parking and economic development services. Given that significant funds are allocated to ABCs for service delivery, review results will create a better understanding of service expectations and accountability for results. 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 review approach will be completed for all City services in A large portion of the engagement program will also be completed in 2012, with on-going public input required to support service level assessments completed in the two subsequent years. A schedule of services to review service levels and identify alternative service delivery opportunities in each of the next three years has not been predetermined so as to give flexibility to the process and incorporate Council s input. However, services reviewed in 2012 should be public facing, have significant budget allocations, and in areas that will benefit from review. Terms of Reference: City of Saint John Core Service Review 6 of 12 26

26 Another consideration in scheduling is focusing on services impacted by the implementation of the Regional Services Commission. The City s internal support services should be included in the third year of the review, ensuring that these services are sized appropriately to support 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 list has been provided to ensure there is a common understanding of deliverables between Common Council, City staff, and external service provider(s). Responsibility for deliverables will be outlined in the Roles and Responsibilities Section. 1. Summary report of the public engagement process and outcomes to support the review process and Common Council in its budget deliberations and decision-making. 2. Draft interim reports at the end of each review milestone, including any assumptions, for the Strategic Leadership and Common Council to validate results. 3. Final Core Services Review Report in an easy-to read format that will support Common Council in its budget deliberations. The report should contain: i. summary of the research and process used to undertake the Core Service Review; ii. iii. iv. results of the core service classification including rationale for the classification systems and its application, ensuring direct links to strategic priorities for the community; results of the service level assessment including rationale for the selection of comparative jurisdictions and service level evaluation criteria; recommendations on service levels for services where the City has not formally adopted or developed service levels and should continue to deliver as determine by the review; v. recommendations of potential changes to service delivery (i.e., change in service level, method of service delivery, or discontinuation of service), outlining benefits, risks and impacts in the community associated with changes in service, financial and human resource implications, and implementation considerations. vi. summary table of all core services, proposed service levels, community impact (for changes), and financial and human resource requirements and implications. 4. Presentation material of the review process and results of the Core Services Review to Common Council. Terms of Reference: City of Saint John Core Service Review 7 of 12 27

27 7.0 Roles and Responsibilities An illustrative representation of Core Service Review roles and responsibilities is provided in Figure 3. The review will be led by Common Council. A staff project management team, supported by the Senior Management Team, will coordinate the review process and engagement programs, working collaboratively with service areas, the public, and external service provider (as required) to achieve Council-approved review objectives and deliverables. Common Council 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) Public / Service Recipients Provide input on priorities and service expectations through consultation program Senior Leadership Team (SLT) 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 CoSR Project Management Team 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 External Service Provider Facilitate processes agreed upon with the City (review and engagement) Provide objective expertise for analysis and development of service option recommendations as required Service Areas / Employees 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. Terms of Reference: City of Saint John Core Service Review 8 of 12 28

28 External Service Provider Requirements The selected service provider will be expected to perform the following scope of work to support the collaborative achievement of the 2012 planned core service review deliverables. a. Provide subject matter advice to the staff project management team to finalize a process for conducting the core service review (Phases 2 through 4), including recommendations for a manageable scope of work in terms of the services to be assessed in each year of the review. b. Facilitate up to four (4) public consultation workshops to obtain citizen input to develop recommendations that reflect community priorities. This will involve providing subject matter advice on the design of interactive workshop activities that will inform citizens of the City s current service offerings and service levels; obtain feedback from the public on what it believes are core services and what they want the City to consider when making decisions about service delivery; and support Common Council in setting its priorities for its term. c. Facilitate up to four (4) workshops to complete the core service assessment. This will involve providing subject matter advice on designing core continuum criteria and workshop activities to efficiently achieve desired outcomes that incorporates public interests and policy (e.g., public engagement results, relevant strategic plans, and Council s priorities). Participants in these workshops will include members of Council, the City s senior leadership team, and staff from various service areas. d. Validate core service assessment (Phase 2) results complied by the staff resources. e. Identify comparable jurisdictions to complete a comparison of the City s current service levels and provide access to data. These may include municipal, regional and provincial governments either of similar size and profile, or of similar approach to delivering specific services. f. Provide subject matter advice to the City staff in the assessment of service levels against 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 delivery opportunities. More specifically, provide knowledge of innovative approaches other municipalities are using to deliver service to recommend potential changes to service levels, method of service delivery, revenue generation or discontinuation of service. i. Validate recommendations related to alternative service delivery opportunities service level assessment (Phase 4) results developed by staff resources. This includes the benefits, risks, community impact, financial and human resource implications, and implementation considerations (barriers and timing) evaluated for each proposed opportunity. j. Facilitate any meetings or workshops required to validate core service review results (Phases 2 to 4). k. Participate in on-going updates of the review progress to Council and present results as required. Terms of Reference: City of Saint John Core Service Review 9 of 12 29

29 The service provider will be expected to provide subject matter expertise, facilitation services, and validation of Phase 3 and 4 results for the services scheduled for review in 2013 and Timelines The timelines for the proposed core service review are very ambitious as recommendations must be developed for consideration in the 2013 service-based budget process. Table 1 outlines proposed timelines for Detailed timelines will be finalized and approved by Council. Each year results should be available to support Council s service-based budget deliberations. Timelines for 2013 and 2014 will be finalized as part of the planning processes once a service provider has been selected. It is anticipated that the 2012 review process should be completed within an eight to ten week period (depending on availability of key stakeholders). Council s priority setting has been incorporated into the proposed schedule to support alignment between recommendations and the strategic direction set for the community; however, is not part of the work expected to be completed by external service providers. Table 1: Proposed timelines for 2012 core service review process July August September October November 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 engagement 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) 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 service level assessment and opportunities (approve by Council) December Finalize report and presentation of CoSR results Consideration of CoSR results and recommendations as part of the 2013 Service-Based Budget Process 9.0 Proposal Submission Requirements Proposals must include the following information. SECTION A: Technical Proposal General: Provide name, address, fax number, e mail address and telephone number of the external service provider; and identify all sub consultants and/or any parties in a joint venture, if applicable. Terms of Reference: City of Saint John Core Service Review 10 of 12 30

30 Qualifications: Provide a general description of the qualifications of the external service provider and identify members to be assigned to the project team including any relevant experience. Key personnel assigned to the project must be able to demonstrate: an understanding of municipal government and alternative service delivery options; 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 issues with sensitivity toward all participants; and ability to achieve results. Experience: Provide documentation that demonstrates experience in developing and conducting the type of work outlined in the Terms of Reference. Work Plan and Schedule: Provide an explanation of the proposed approach to completing the work outlined in this Terms of Reference. The explanation must demonstrate a full understanding of the needs of the municipality and the scope of work required to complete the core service review. A schedule of activities, supported by a graphical representation of planned work (bar chart), must be included in the proposal. The schedule will identify all major activities with corresponding start and completion dates. Team Organization: Provide the proposed team organization structure; responsibility matrix describing the role and accountabilities of each team member; and a resource allocation table. References: Provide three (3) references of clients including: company name, contact 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 the scope of work activities and other items outlined must be provided. The financial proposal shall be provided in sufficient detail as to describe the type and level of effort to be performed 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 should outline the (unit) cost of specific services to be provided. For example, if the City only required three public engagement workshops rather than the maximum of four indicated in the Terms of Reference, the City would only pay for facilitation services provided. Tax must be identified and separated in the costs. Terms of Reference: City of Saint John Core Service Review 11 of 12 31

31 10.0 Evaluation Criteria Proposals will be reviewed for completeness, suitability, and match to the requirements outlined in this Terms of Reference by a Section Committee consisting of representatives of the City of 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 needs outlined in the proposal call? Is the proposal presented in an organized and professional manner? Service Provider Experience (35 Points) Has the proposal demonstrated a level of expertise in keeping with the scope of work outlined in the Terms of Reference? Has the proposal demonstrated a level of expertise for the employees of the company and any subconsultants listed? (Include references for work completed of a similar nature.) Methodology (45 Points) Does the approach to the work outlined in the proposal 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 considered. Service providers are advised that proposals will be evaluated solely on the information submitted in accordance with the Terms of Reference. The City reserves the right, if deemed necessary, to short list the proposals and to request an additional verbal presentation from each short listed proponent. Service providers may supplement their presentation with a summary in written format to clarify points raised during the process. Terms of Reference: City of Saint John Core Service Review 12 of 12 32

32 Strategic Framework Council Priority Setting Core Service Review Service-Based Budget Process 33 July 2012

33 Strategic Framework Reporting Vision & Strategic Directions Service- Based Budget Council Priorities Service Plans Corporate Strategic Plan Strategic Framework 34

34 Presentation Objectives Key Considerations Council driven process Integrated strategic framework Aggressive timelines for 2012 Commitment to long-term approach to strategic decision making Recommendations Endorse framework for 2013 service-based budget process Endorse Core Service Review Terms of Reference Strategic Framework 35

35 Strategic Framework Components Public Engagement Council Priorities Strategic direction that reflects the interests and needs of the community Core Service Review What services the City should provide and what extent service delivery alternatives Service-Based Budget Budget that links resource allocations to service levels to achieve community priorities Strategic Framework 36

36 Service-Based Budget Service Levels Resources Sets service expectations and supports accountability for results Decisions based on service planning and financial analysis lower priorities have to give way to higher priorities when resources are limited Continuous service improvement measurement and accountability Metrics Flexibility to respond to a changing environment Strategic Framework: Service-Based Budget 37

37 Service-Based Budget Example Service Activity Service Level Resources Dangerous and Vacant Buildings Building Permits Winter Street Maintenance* 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 $137,341 FTE 1.36 $960,142 FTE 10.0 $4,433,349 FTE 33.7 Water leaks and service interruptions* Response within 48 hours for emergency repair 2 weeks for less urgent repairs $4,370,000 FTE 26.0 Strategic Framework: Service-Based Budget 38

38 Evaluating Service Levels Service Level results in Resources Public Interest Service Level results in Resources Willingness to Pay Core Service Review Balancing Priorities Making Choices Strategic Framework: Service-Based Budget 39

39 Service-Based Budget Process Integrated with Council priority setting and core service review including public engagement program Council set direction for budget process Initial draft budget based on current service levels Presentation of service delivery alternatives Finalize service levels and budget resources Strategic Framework: Service-Based Budget 40

40 Council Priority Setting Council led process to set priorities for their term Team building in setting a strategic direction Decision-making that supports the community priorities Alignment between priorities and resource allocations Accountability for results (measure for service improvement) Strategic Framework: Council Priorities 41

41 Council Priority: Livable Community Example Strategic Objectives: We are a city that draws people they want to live here. We have revitalized neighbourhoods that are safe, vibrant and attractive. Strategic Initiatives: Increase recreation opportunities for participation for all ages. Work with Province to approve vacant and derelict building legislation. Analyze greenspace and enhance to align with what children want. Performance Indicators: % of residents who rate the overall quality of life as good. % of residents that feel Saint John is a safe and caring community. Strategic Framework: Council Priorities 42

42 Council Priority Setting Process Three (3) Council workshops External facilitation of priority setting sessions Consideration of key inputs Campaign issues strategic plans Commitments emerging opportunities and challenges public engagement results Evaluation of capacity planning for success Strategic Framework: Council Priorities 43

43 What is a Core Service Review? WHAT Core Service Offerings Appropriate Service Levels HOW Service Provider Funding Mechanism Strategic Framework: Core Service Review 44

44 Core Service Review Outputs Systematic, informed approach to Determination of City s core service offerings Further refinement of service level standards Alternative service delivery options for Council to consider as part of the budget process Strategic Framework: Core Service Review 45

45 Core Service Review Benefits Set priorities that reflect the community priorities Make decisions on appropriate service levels Deliberate service-based budgets and capital budgets Demonstrate accountability for service results Manage public service expectations Strategic Framework: Core Service Review 46

46 Public Engagement Core Service Review Phased Approach Phase 1- Service Inventory Phase 2: Core Service Assessment Phase 3: Service Level Assessment Phase 4: Alternative Service Delivery Opportunities Strategic Framework: Core Service Review 47

47 Service Inventory City of Saint John Service Alignment Growth & Development Services Urban Environment Services Transportation & Environment Services Saint John Water Finance & Administrative Services Strategic Services renewing places to live, work and invest creating a safe, livable community serving mobility and environmental needs enhancing drinking water quality and the environment ensuring fiscally responsible government responding to constant changes Growth & Planning Services Neighbourhood Improvement Roadway Maintenance Drinking Water Financial Management Human Resources Permitting & Inspection Services Recreation and Cultural Programming Sidewalk Maintenance Industrial Water Pension Administration Corporate Planning Development Support Fire and Rescue Services Pedestrian and Traffic Management Wastewater Asset Management Intergovernmental Affairs Geographic Information Systems Emergency Management Stormwater Management Utility Business Management Corporate Communications Solid Waste Collection Information Technology Systems Engineering Parks and Public Spaces Strategic Framework: Core Service Review 48

48 Focus on Public-Facing Services Criteria for selecting service for review in 2012 Council priority* community priority Public-facing services (including services of certain ABCs) Significant budget allocation opportunity for impact Benefits gained from review Regional Service Commission considerations Manage scope of work Financial and human resources Strategic Framework: Core Service Review 49

49 Comprehensive Review Service Roadway Maintenance Service Sub-Services Surface Maintenance Snow and Ice Control Street Cleaning Roadway Structures Activities Preventative Maintenance Salting and Sanding CBD Streets Retaining Walls Repairs (patching) Snow Removal Collector and Local Streets Guiderail Review Objectives Plowing Strategic Framework: Core Service Review 50

50 Core Service Continuum Core Service Assessment Core (Essential) Mandatory Legislated by Federal or Provincial government Essential Critical to operation of the City Traditional Provided by most municipalities Priority Delivered to respond to a particular community need Non-Core (Less Essential) User-Pay Provided for a specific interest; users pay additional fees Strategic Framework: Core Service Review 51

51 Key Questions and Considerations Benchmark with comparable jurisdictions (value) Legislated standards? Below, at or above standards? Reflect public interest How does City service compare with other municipalities? Should City compare with other municipalities? Feedback on current service levels? Willingness to pay for higher service levels? Strategic Framework: Core Service Review 52

52 Core Service Delivery Opportunities Alternatives Service level Funding sources (user-pay, partnerships) Service delivery model (City, partnership, contracted, private,) Discontinuation Analysis Benefits, risks and community impact Financial and human resource implications Implementation considerations (ease, timing) Strategic Framework: Core Service Review 53

53 Public Engagement 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 mind) Service Priorities Funding Strategies Service Provider Service Levels Strategic Framework: Public Engagement 54

54 Public Engagement E-consultation Community Workshops Community Group Outreach Citizen Survey Strategic Framework: Public Engagement 55