HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 03-15 CCP Work Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
MARCH 15, 1993
7 p.m.
Council Work Session
:: CITY .HALM C �UNCI�. �HA11iTB�R5
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Capital Improvements:
a. 1993 Proposed Project Schedule (Attachment No. 1)
b. Current Studies and Programs (Attachment No. 2)
C. Capital Improvement Process (Attachment No. 3)
4. Organizational Analysis /Benchmarking
5. Adjournment
3 �-
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
i LISTING OF CURRENT PROJECTS
AND
PROJECTS SCHEDULED FOR 1993
Current Projects
1990 -10 69th Avenue North
1990 -05 Lift Station No. 2
1992 -29 Stormwater pond at 694/Brooklyn Blvd.
Potential 1993 Projects
PROJECT CURRENT RECOMMENDATION
FOR SCHEDULING
WATER UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
• 69th Avenue Water Main - Well 6 to defer to '94 or later
Shingle Creek Parkway
• 2MG Reservoir & Pumping Station deferred, with water use restrictions
• Loop Water Main at Lawrence Circle proceed in 1993
• Replace Water Main in Aldrich proceed in 1993
Court
• Routine Well Maintenance proceed in 1993
• Cathodic Protection develop RFQ in '93
SANITARY SEWER UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS
• Lift #1 Rehab, Replace Forcemain defer to '94 or '95
• Sewer Replacement @ 69th Avenue defer to '94 of '95
to Lift Station #1
STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS
• Repair or Replace Defective Sections proceed in '93
of System
• Stormwater pond - Br. Blvd. /I - 694 acquire roe in '93
q property rty
SIDEWALK & TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
• Twin Lakes Trail System Submit application for funding with Crystal
and Robbinsdale
• Sidewalk - 73rd Avenue, Humboldt under discussion with Brooklyn Park
to TH 252
PARK IMPROVEMENTS
• Playground Equipment Replacement: proceed on schedule
2 Year
PUBLIC BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS
• CITY HALL - City Office need direction!
Improvements
• COMMUNITY CENTER - Senior need direction!
Center/Elevator
• FIRE STATIONS -
East Station need direction!
West Station need direction!
• CITY GARAGE .Air Quality /Functional Needs study in
progress
• ADA COMPLIANCE Transition Plan getting started
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
• Sealcoating proceed in '93
• Neighborhood Street Improvement proceed in '93
Program
• Landscaping Co. Rd. 10 Streetscape defer to '94
1
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CURRENT STUDIES AND PROGRAMS
ADA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM
AIR QUALITY STUDY
BROOKDALE STORMWATER PLANNING STUDY (w /City of Minneapolis)
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD STUDY (Coordination w /Community Dev.)
GOVERNMENT BUILDING SERVICE CONTRACT (RFQ)
NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (Coordination w/EBNAC)
PARK BUILDING AND FACILITY INVENTORY AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (by Braun Intertec)
Mn /DOT PLANS FOR T.H. 100 IMPROVEMENTS
Mn /DOT PLANS FOR I -694 IMPROVEMENTS - BROOKLYN BOULEVARD TO I -94
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STUDY W /BROOKLYN PARK
TWIN LAKES TRAIL STUDY
LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROCESS: 1993
Because many CIP initiatives are funded by the General Fund Budget, this process must coincide with
the budget process
1. Staff reviews needs and funding availability during March/April
Engineering, Public Utilities, Streets: Water, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer, Streets
Engineering, Building Maintenance, Fire: Government Buildings
Park Maintenance, Recreation: Parks
Streets, Parks, PU, Police, Fire: Vehicles
Data Processing Committee: Data Processing
Heritage Center: ?
ADA Compliance: ADA Compliance Committee
2. Staff recommendations are reviewed and prioritized at a Department Head meeting around the
third week of April. Additions or changes are suggested for staff review and cost analysis
3. Informational meeting of Commissions in May (Park & Rec, Financial, Water Mgmt, other ?)
with staff where this is the only item on the agenda PURPOSE: To review (1) history and
background; (2) where staff sees needs and priorities; (3) what are existing sources of
funding; and (4) what are possible other sources of funding
4. Commission working session(s) PURPOSE: (1) Review staff recommendations; (2) Discuss
process to evaluate any new needs - e.g., rely solely on Commission's expertise, have
neighborhood or general meeting, send surveys or questionnaires; (3) Implement process; (4)
Staff to provide support in estimating costs, etc.; (5) Prioritize needs and assign target dates;
(6) Evaluate all in light of funding constraints; (7) Make final recommendations
5. Commissions make preliminary recommendations in June /July for inclusion in departmental
budget requests
6. Staff compiles Commission recommendations into draft CIP report by end of July
7. Council work session in August PURPOSE: (1) Review Commission's processes; (2) Review
recommendations and priorities; (3) Review funding plan; (4) Discussion; (5) Suggest
modifications
8. Staff provides additional information, cost estimates, etc.
9. Public hearing or meeting to comment on proposed plan
10. Council approves CIP in September
is
eAeng \cip \process
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager .�
DATE: March 12, 1993
SUBJECT: WHAT DOES THE CITY COUNCIL WANT OUT OF THE
FINANCIAL COMMISSION'S STUDY OF CITY
SERVICES AND ORGANIZATION?
Monday evening I would like to discuss with the City Council what they expect
to come out of the Financial Commission in terms of answering questions and
addressing issues about which the Council has concerns. In listening to your
various discussions, I can offer you the following list of questions I believe have
been asked but never really discussed or finalized as direction to your staff and
the Financial Commission:
1. Cutting osts (staff) b X amount of dollars this may g ( � Y " " ( Y have been
addressed in the prioritization process).
2. Evaluate ratios of management n supervision line pers
e t a d su o to e
g P P
3. Evaluate levels of service (if we encounter a financial crisis, which
services do we pick to cut or are we performing some services at too high
a level) .
4. Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivering of services
(joint services, privatization, contracting, etc.).
5. Evaluate services = should some be dropped, levels lowered, stay the
same, and /or increased.
6. Is the Council interested in additional services we currently do not
provide?
Memo to Council -2-
7. Evaluate organizational structure in light of the need to meet the future
g g
issues or the accelerated pace of change.
8. Other.
The Council has k
s as ed the Financial Commission to review benchmarkin g as a
concept for inclusion into their review process. I have enclosed a memorandum
from Diane Spector to Sy Knapp dated February 1, 1993, in which she reviews
and summarizes in lay persons language the concept of benchmarking and some
of its advantages and disadvantages.
Initially the Financial Commission has viewed benchmarkin g as a tool or process
to be used in i ' operations.
the r stud and analysis of Brooklyn Center's o
Y Y Y P
Members of the Commission do not believe at this stage they want to embark
on a detailed, expensive analysis using the benchmarking concept but they
appear to prefer using existing, generally available data to evaluate and compare
Brooklyn Center's services to other communities (please review the benchmark
cross comparison chart attached to Diane's memo). This benchmark cross
comparison chart is an example of taking available, reasonably valid data to do
initial evaluations of how Brooklyn Center's Public Works Division stacks up
against like cities in the metro area. If this data shows some marked differences
between the cities or points out any questions the Commission and the Council
would want to follow up on and get greater detail on, then you could go into a
far more detailed and ultimately a more expensive process to gain that
information. It is my recommendation and I believe the Financial Commission's
initial reaction that using this type of approach would be the most cost effective
both in terms of spending money on consultant time and using rather scarce City
personnel resources. I would hope your discussion of these matters would lead
to more precise direction to the staff and to the Financial Commission on this
matter.
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 1, 1993
To: Sy Knapp
From: Diane Spec
Subject: Benchmarking
There is considerable interest in the concept of "benchmarking ", that is, the establishment of
certain empirical, normative standards for resource allocation.
The Minnesota Commission on Reform and Efficiency (CORE) is attempting to establish
objective minimum base levels of resources needed to provide municipal services, for the purpose
of allocating state aids.
The flaw in this and other attempts to "benchmark" municipal services is that they (usually
deliberately) separate themselves from the questions of range or level of services, or the quality
of service delivery.
The challenge is to define a rocess which allows decision
P makers opportunity to evaluate
efficiency, while at the same time promote effectiveness. Such a process should be able to
satisfy the public that services are being delivered according to a chosen standard. The process
should be a learning tool, and should promote innovation and sharing of ideas.
The attached proposed benchmarking process calls for the establishment of "service benchmarks ".
The resources necessary to meet these benchmarks are then identified and compared across a
group of peer cities. This cross - comparison provides decision makers with an evaluative tool
which also promotes idea sharing between cities which appear to be "doing it right" and those
which may need a spark of innovation.
At a higher level, if the "service benchmarks" are chosen well they would provide a method of
quantifying level and quality of service. For example, it may be generally known that one
community does not provide as high a level of snowplowing service as others. The "service
benchmark" may indicate that the crews clear 6 inches of snow in 10 hours, where other cities
provide the service in 8 hours. A review of resources indicates that while crews clear similar
street milage, the slower community may have 2 fewer plows. The "evaluation" step of the
process would then ask —what is needed to achieve the 8 hour performance? One or two
additional plows? Or, perhaps the other cities schedule their crews in different ways, and the
resource differential is not relevant. As a final step in the process, recommendations, be they for
additional resources or for policy or procedural changes, may be evaluated in light of the
questions, "Do we want to, need to, can we afford to improve our performance on this
benchmark? Can we live with this level of performance?"
At best, the specific "service benchmarks" would be periodically updated or replaced with new
benchmarks, to avoid the "teaching to pass the test" approach.
The proposed benchmarking process is very general, and leaves out one very important
detail —who is responsible for each of these steps? While there is obviously a need for a broad
perspective, there is a definite role for all employees. The evaluation step obviously requires
input from persons providing the service. There is room in this process for a "TQM" approach,
and for self - assessment.
e: \eng \corresp \diane \benchmar.mem
BENCHMARKING PROCESS
STEP 1 IDENTIFY PEER GROUP
These are cities that are similar (in size, age, development, ratio of residential to
commercial, etc.) and that presumably should be doing things in roughly the same
way.
STEP 2 IDENTIFY PRIMARY SERVICE AREAS
For example, Public Safety, Public Works, Administration, Recreation, Community
Development, Enterprises
STEP 3 IDENTIFY PRIMARY SERVICES
These are the major activities which are done on a day to day basis. For example,
for Public Works: Street & Boulevard Maintenance, Plowing, Forestry, Signs &
Striping, Mowing, Sidewalk & Trail Maintenance, Storm Drainage, Park Facilities
Maintenance, Fleet Maintenance, Water, Sanitary Sewer.
STEP 4 IDENTIFY 'SERVICE BENCHMARKS'
These are indicators of level of service. For example, time to plow 6" snow;
average down time for a serviced vehicle; trail sealcoat cycle; average time spent
unplugging storm drains after major rainfall; number of complaints regarding
playground equipment maintenance.
STEP S ESTABLISH COST OF PRIMARY SERVICES
Establish standards of comparability (e.g., definitions, inclusions or exclusion of
overhead or charge backs, etc.) within the peer group. Compile actual expenditure,
labor use data.
STEP 6 MEASURE SERVICE BENCHMARKS
Survey each city to measure its performance on each benchmark.
STEP 7 EVALUATE
Examine the service benchmark and cost date. Questions should self - suggest. Why
does city X spend one -third more than city Y yet take twice as long to do the job?
. Through a process of question and answer the cities doing things the "most cost -
effective way" should emerge. What should also emerge are ideas for efficiencies by
all cities. It is especially important to identity how performance interrelates —that
where the same employees are responsible for multiple benchmarks, or where
resource allocation for one activity has an impact on another activity.
STEP 8 APPLY
Apply the lessons of the service benchmark evaluation. Make process adjustments.
Reallocate resources, etc.
e : \eng \corresp \diane \bench.r.mem
BENCHMARK CROSS - COMPARISON CHART V
Population Labor Light Sewer Park Auto Heavy Senior Mechanic Maint. Supt. TOTAL Square # of # of Total
Equip. & Maint. Service Equip. Sewer Supr. Miles Plows Hours To Miles
Water & Plow 6" Of
Maint. Water Streets
BROOKLYN CENTER 28,741 11 6 5 1 0 3 2 1 29 8.7 12 7 -8 105.59
FRIDLEY 28,313 3 8 6 5 1 3 4 30 8 10 -12 105
ROSEVILLE 33,493 8 8 6 1 2 1 4 3 33 13.5 10 8 -10 110
CRYSTAL 23,771 8 5 7 3 2 2 3 30 6 10 98
NEW BRIGHTON 22,253 10 5 2 2 2 21 4.5 7 8 1 70
EDINA 46,079 25 10 15 12 4 4 1 71 16 25 8 -10 220
RICHFIELD 35,544 11 6 9 1 3 2 6 2 40 8 8 10 160
GOLDEN VALLEY 20,889 9 7 6 2 3 2 29 10.5 8 8 -9 105
Total 3 90 42 59 2 23 4 19 23 18
SOURCE: Staff totals from Stanton report, confirmed by telephone; other data from telephone inquiries
e: \e ng\co rre sp]d iane%mcross. cht