HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-02-06; City Council; MinutesSPECIAL MEETING OF: CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
DATE OF MEETING: February 6,200l
TIME OF MEETING: 8:00 a.m.
PLACE OF MEETING: Grand Pacific Palisades Resort
The Mayor called the special meeting to order at 8:44 a.m. Mayor Pro Tern Kulchin and
Council Members Hall, Finnila, and Nygaard were in attendance. Also in attendance
was City Manager, Ray Patchett, and City Attorney, Ron Ball, who acted as Clerk Pro
Tern. Ann Marie Stuart, facilitator, was also present.
The Council reviewed the agenda, reviewed and commented on its strategic goal$and
discussed organizational operations, effectiveness and service. A discussion ensued
concerning what we do best and what we could to even better.
The Council discussed the key findings and reactions to the Citizen Satisfaction Survey.
Council discussed its operations and effectiveness, and communications. This
discussion included topics such as Council reports, the Brown Act, due process and
study session agendas. Council discussed possibly developing guidelines for
community communications.
The Council then continued through a working lunch and talked about the different
ways the law looks at your conversations.
The City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report was conducted by the Social and
Behavioral Research Institute and presented by California State University - San
Marcos.*
The Leadership Team joined by Sue Spickard, Julie Ross, Joe Garuba, Linda Kermott,
Tom Ritter and Lynn Diamond presented the State of Effectiveness Report. *
There was no public comment.
The Council adjourned to a closed session regarding pending litigation (Sierra Pacific v.
Taylor Ball: Tavlor Ball v. Citv of Carlsbad) from 4:00 to 500 p.m.
The Mayor thanked the other Council members for their participation and the staff for its
presentations and information.
There being no further business, the special meeting was adjourned at 5:23 p.m.
RONALD R. BALL
City Attorney as Clerk Pro Tern
*Documents on file with the City Clerk.,.
State of Effectiveness
Report
February 2001
Agenda
* Understanding performance
* How performance
* Benefits and risks
k What we have learned
measurement
measurement fits into the City
> Examples of measures * What’s next
1
* Continuous improvement * Create a culture of best
* Measure our success * Greater public trust and
practices
confidence
2
Outcome
* Describes the product or
service we deliver to our
customers * Typically reflects the
efforts of multiple work
groups
output
Measures 'Widgets" i.e.
%umber of lane miles striped"
or "number of permits
processed"
May need to be used in
conjunction with other outputs
when an outcome measure is
not available
3
Measurement
> Method to demonstrate
level of achievement
> Reflects a global view of
our performance
> May be an output or
"widget" count
Benchmark
(Noun) The acceptable standard of
a high performing organization
which we will strive to achieve or
maintain
(Verb) The act of selecting and
evaluating outside agencies or
standards with which to compare
May be internal over time,
percentages, other cities or
agencies, industry standards or
national standards
4
Benchmark Partners
k ICMA - Center for
k San Diego County cities
k High performing agencies
k Industry standards
Performance Measurement
5
Carlsbad’s Program
Outcome-based measurement
program
Project began in October I999
Approximately 50 measures
Participation from all MSAs
Program designed to integrate
goals, budget, suwey, etc.
L
Desired Outcomes
* High level of citizen/
* Cost effectiveness
% Improved
quality/productivity
customer satisfaction
6
L
Paths to Performance
Measurement
7
Risks of Performance
Measurement
N Employee concerns
> Data open to interpretation
N Redirects work priorities
N Sustainability
8
Good benchmarks take time to
develop
Need to develop relationships with
high performing agencies
Measurement and analysis needs to
be ongoing - not just once a year
Confidence in the data leads to
better analysis and action plans
There must be a continuing
commitment of time and staff
This is a work in progress
9
Outcome
> Maximization of patient
survivability from a life
threat en i ng medical
emergency
Measure * Average response time
Benchmark * Travel time on priority I
calls will be 5 minutes or
less 90% of the time.
Results * FY 99-00: 4.77*
average response time
(Page 33)
10
Service
11
Outcome * Maximize crimes solved
Measure
> Clearance rate
12
Clearance Rates
A case is cleared when at least one
person is arrested, charged, and
turned over to court for
prosecution, or the case is cleared
exceptionally.
This is only one indicator of the
achievement of law enforcement
personnel in solving crimes.
Reflects performance of
investigations, patrol, and records.
(Page 43)
13
L
An a lysis
Policies and procedures used by
various agencies
Workload and/or volume of cases
Staffing for preliminary and
follow-up investigation
Emphasis placed on specific
types of crime
Nature of crimes assigned for
investigation
Training and experience of
officers
Action Plan * Audit conducted * Team goal developed
’ Records processing & back-up ’ Additional training ’ Workload distribution ’ Investigations accountability ’ Major case capability ’ Communications ’ Case processing
Physical layout and equipment
14
Outcome
Citizens with a high sense
of community safety
Measure
Community perception of
crime from citywide public
opinion survey with lCMA
as benchmark
(Paw 48)
15
Ana I ys is
> Police visibility
k Media
P Confidence in police service
P Lighting and physical
P Personal experiences
> Character of neighborhood
surroundings
16
Action Plan
k Consider identifying high
performance cities to
compare to
k Reconsider benchmark
> Look for opportunities to
enhance results
17
Outcome
Cost efficient solid waste services
while maintaining high levels of
customer satisfaction
Measures
Solid waste services fees, as
reported to SANDAG, adjusted for
franchise and other city fees
F Percentage of customers rating
solid waste services as LLGood99 or
LLExcellent99 on citywide public
a
opinion survey (Page 64-65)
Results
%Residential
rates 2”d lowest
of 12 cities reporting
> 83.3% customers rate
solid waste services as “Goodn or NExcellent99
18
An a lysis
Solid waste services rates are
extremely competitive.
While customer satisfaction did
not meet the benchmark, the
rating is good compared to
services provided by contractors.
Action Plan
Communicate results with City’s
contractor. Monitor complaints.
No rate increases are anticipated
in the upcoming year.
19
L
Def i n it ions
Ideal Travel Time:
Shortest travel time between
2 points at speed limit
assuming no delays
Averaae Travel Time:
Average travel time between
2 points including delays
20
Analysis
El Carnino Real
No significant change in off peak
or southbound direction
Increase in northbound direction
AM increase 1-4 minutes
La Costa, PAR & Tamarack
PM increase 2.5 minutes . PAR, Faraday & CVD
lomar Airport Road Travel Time
= December, 200
L
k off-peak p.m. peak
Analysis
Palornar Airport Road
No significant change in off peak or
westbound direction
DECREASE in eastbound direction
AM decrease I minute
PM decrease 1.4 minutes
Most reduction occurred near eastern
city limit
Additional lane east of ECR
2 alternate parallel routes
w Cannon Road
Aviara Parkway
L
ACTION PLAN
Continue studies
Traffic demand mgmt programs
Complete construction to full
arterial widths
Add signals & coordinate timing
9 Study through consultant . Monitor from future
Transportation Management
Center at Public Works Center
23
Outcome
High level of Information
Technology customer
sat isfact ion
Measure * Information Technology
customer survey
(Page 109)
Results
1 90% I 96% I
24
Anal ysi s * Survey information reviews
both City service and
contract service (PAI) > PA1 scored 4.6 average > City scored 4.7 average
Action Plan > Review and improve survey
methodology
25
Questions?
26