GOOD, BETTER, BEST A ROAD MAP Service Delivery Review and Improvements

1
GOOD, BETTER, BESTA ROAD MAPService Delivery
Reviewand Improvements

• Ronald E. Holman
• Warden 2006
• United Counties of Leeds and Grenville
• OGRA/ROMA Combined Conference
• February 20, 2006
• Royal York Hotel, Toronto

2
WHY SDR NOW???

• Riding a wave for the last eight years
• We are all in the same boat
• This wave has been gaining momentum
• When will it crest ?

3
WHY SDR NOW???

• With budgets expanding are we efficient?
• Ask yourself Is there a better way to provide
  services?
• Prioritize services Separate the must dos from
  the nice to dos
• See now how we tackled this issue

4
THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF LEEDS GRENVILLE
Total Service Area 3,550.6 sq. km Comprised of
10 Member Municipalities 3 Separated
Municipalities(City of Brockville and Towns of
Gananoque Prescott)
5
CHANGE THE NEW CONSTANTLSR PRE POST
SNAPSHOT
Sources Statistics Canada, 1996 2001
Census UCLG Annual Budgets 1997
2005 Assessment Data 1998 2005 ( CVA
introduced in 1998)
6
The United Counties is not in a unique
positionEastern Ontario Wardens
StudyPercentage Increase in County Levy Since
2002
Notes a) Average levy increase 2002 - 2004
27.8 b) From 2002 2005 average increase, with
the addition of Kawartha Lakes -
27.6Source Eastern Ontario Wardens Caucus,
Future Directions Reports, 2004 and 2005
7
WHY A SERVICE DELIVERY REVIEW (SDR)?

• Rapid growth in the scope number of services
  delivered
• Escalating annual levy increases
• Marginal population property assessment growth
• Real opportunity to unlock the value of our
  assets and inventories

8
WHY A SDR CONTINUED

• Legislative responsibility Section 224 of the
  Municipal Act requires a council to
• develop evaluate the policies programs of the
  municipality
• determine which (discretionary) services the
  municipality provides

9
WHY A SDR CONTINUED

• Multiple levels of municipal government (upper
  and lower-tiers and separated) require a
  systematic approach a framework to balance
  diverse needs rural vs. urban, large vs. small
  communities

10
WHY A SDR CONTINUED

• With the rapid changes, Council Senior Staff
  felt it was time to step back review our
  service delivery what we do and how we do it
  tackle costs while seeking improvements and
  monitoring quality

11
THE APPROACHESTABLISHING PROCESS PRIORITIES

• Leading and managing the process requires
  attention to detail at the outset. In the
  Counties case, the following elements were
  addressed at the front-end of the process

12
THE APPROACHESTABLISHING PROCESS PRIORITIES

• The decision to go in-house or with consultants
  should be addressed early in the process the
  Counties opted for an in-house approach, with
  the option to contract external expertise on any
  particular piece of service

13
THE APPROACHESTABLISHING PROCESS PRIORITIES

• Why?
• Commitment and buy-in mutually shared between
  Council and Senior Staff
• Viewed as a long-term program that will become an
  ongoing part of the organizational culture
• Disadvantage It will take longer to produce
  results

14
THE APPROACHESTABLISHING PROCESS PRIORITIES

• Council adopts a plan that addresses
• The principles that will guide the approach
• The purpose of the review
• The phasing stages of the review (Page 15)
• The review structure who is involved (Page 16)
• The roles responsibilities for those involved
• The prioritization of services for review
• The adoption of a work plan, with key milestone
  dates expected achievements

15
(No Transcript)
16
APPROACH THE STRUCTURE
17
THE REVIEW

• Council must ask 10 fundamental questions1.
• Do we really need to continue to be in this
  business/service?
• What do citizens expect of the service and what
  outcomes does Council want for this service?
• How does current performance compare to expected
  performance?
• Do the activities logically lead to the expected
  outcomes?
• How is demand for the service being managed?

• 1. A Guide to Service Delivery Review for
  Municipal Partners. Province of Ontario, August
  2004, p.1

18
THE REVIEW CONTINUED

• What are the full costs and benefits of the
  service?
• How can benefits and outputs of the service be
  increased?
• How can the number and cost of inputs be
  decreased?
• What are the alternative ways of delivery the
  service?
• How can a service change best be implemented and
  communicated?

• 1. A Guide to Service Delivery Review for
  Municipal Partners. Province of Ontario, August
  2004, p.1

19
THE REVIEW CONTINUED

• Helpful consideration - Categorize your services
  from mandatory to discretionary
• Category 1? Legislative Requirements No Control
• There is provincial or federal legislation
  requiring a municipality to perform these
  services
• Category 2? Legislative Requirements Some
  Control
• As above, there is senior government legislation
  requiring the municipality to perform or fund the
  service

20
THE REVIEW CONTINUED

• Category 3? Core Function
• An essential activity or service that all
  organizations, public or private, must do in
  order to conduct its business
• Category 4? Core Municipal Functions
• These are services that all municipalities
  perform in order to carry on business and meet
  the essential needs of the community
• Category 5? Highly Desirable Services
• These services which contribute to the quality
  of life would only be eliminated or service
  levels reduced with extreme reluctance

21
THE REVIEW CONTINUED

• Category 6?Nice to Do
• These activities or services may be eliminated or
  reduced with moderate to marginal impacts on the
  community
• Category 7?Little or No Benefit
• These services or activities either provide
  little or no benefit to the community or may be
  irrelevant to the municipalities current functions

22
THE REVIEW CONTINUED

• Council should approve a standard review
  template. The UCLG used the following
  principles
• Principle 1
• Real pragmatic costs for each service category
  (i.e. full costs) must be generated using the
  current budget and account structure for
  consistency tracking purposes
• Principle 2
• The full costs should be bundled into broad
  functional categories that can be further broken
  down into line item accounts that make up the
  service, as required through the review

23
THE REVIEW CONTINUED

• Principle 3
• Each service category will be defined in terms
  of
• Purpose statement
• Performance standards (provincial, federal,
  community, or industry-based)
• Success measures
• Principle 4
• A set of reliable comparators will be applied for
  comparison purposes using appropriate unit cost
  measurements selected for each service

24
THE REVIEW CONTINUED

• Principle 5
• The cost of each service will be calculated as a
  of the total levy based on residential
  assessment of 100,000 to ascertain its relative
  weight or impact on the levy
• Principle 6
• Each service category will be defined and
  weighted in the mandatory vs. discretionary
  continuum

25
THE REVIEW CONTINUED

• Principle 7
• Each service category will be assessed and
  evaluated on the following criteria
• Should the Counties/CMSM be in or continue with
  this service?
• Can the service or particular component of the
  service be delivered more efficiently or
  effectively by alternative service delivery
  mechanisms?
• Are there improvements that can be made to the
  service without increasing costs?

26
THE REVIEW CONTINUED

• Principle 8
• How will the changes be communicated
  implemented by Council and the Joint Services
  Committee?

27
THE REVIEW TEMPLATE STAFF CONSULTATION

• A Concurrent Staff Consultation Plan initiated
  February 2005
• Each division will use a standard format
  (combination of surveys focus groups) to
  solicit input from all staff. This input will
  focus on the questionHow can the Counties
  improve the service?

28
SDR TEMPLATE
29
SDR TEMPLATE CONTINUED
30
SDR TEMPLATE CONTINUED
31
SDR TEMPLATE CONTINUED
32
WRAP-UP

• It is anticipated we will
• Find efficiencies
• Improve the effectiveness quality of services
• Find alternative delivery approaches to some
  components of our services
• Enhance the knowledge of all stakeholders on what
  we do, why we do it how we should best do it

33
WRAP-UP CONTINUED

• Set the stage for ongoing, longer-term
  improvements in the delivery of services to meet
  the diverse needs of the region
• To monitor our progress, go to our website
  www.uclg.ca and follow the links to the
  Services Delivery Review