, city of prince george · phase 2 of the core services review project concluded with kpmg’s...

COMMITTEE REPORT TO COUNCIL

Date: July 9, 2012

To: Mayor and Council

From: Select Committee on a Core Services Review

Subject: Core Services Review Project Update 2

Attachments: Phase 2 Milestone Report

DISCUSSION:

Phase 2 of the Core Services Review Project concluded with KPMG’s presentation of the Phase

2 Milestone Report and service profiles to the Select Committee on a Core Services Review on

June 27 and July 5, 2012. Phase 2 objectives were met, and work has commenced on Phase 3.

Phase 3 – Analysis and Report Preparation, began with publication of the Service Profiles on the

City’s website on Wednesday July 11, 2012. This phase of the project involves analysis of the

City’s services, organizational structure, governance structure and revenues. Public and staff

input on the service profiles is being sought through an on-line survey available on the City’s

website and through workshops scheduled for July 24 – 26, 2012.

A public workshop is scheduled for 6:00 pm July 25, 2012 at the Civic Centre. Details regarding

the workshop and how to register can be found on the City’s website.

Project invoices processed to date total $108,101.20.

Respectfully submitted

Mayor Green, Chair

Select Committee on a Core Services Review

Select Committee on a Core Services Review

, CITY OF PRINCE GEORGE

City of Prince George Core Services Review

Phase 2 Milestone Report

June 27, 2012

kpmg.ca

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

1

Contents

Page

Project objectives and approach 2

Project timeline 3

Activities completed in Phase 2 4

Phase 2 key work products 6

■ Service profiles

■ Jurisdictional comparison

■ Opportunity log

Activities planned for Phase 3 7

Opportunity Identification 8

Opportunity Evaluation 15

Appendices 18

■ Service profiles (not attached)


2

Project Objectives and Approach

■ The project incorporates both Core Services Review/Service Efficiency Evaluation (A1/A2) and User Fee and Other Revenue Evaluation (B).

■ The work is being conducted in five phases:

1. Project Initiation and Review of Background Information

2. Information Gathering on Services, Organization, Governance and Revenue

3. Analysis of Services, Organization, Governance and Revenues

4. Identification and Evaluation of Opportunities

5. Recommendations and Final Report

■ Project commenced on April 25, 2012

■ Project end date is October 26, 2012

Project End October 26, 2012

Project stan:April 2012

• 1-3weeks

• Completed raviewof background information

• Kick-ofi workshop • Updated vvorkpla n • Confirmed communioa iJOn and

engagemem strategy • Phase 1 m~estone report

5-Swaeks

GroupA1andA2 Prioritized hst of opponunities Summary of rnplicationsof opportunities 9.eview of opponunrt1es Vvith Select Commrttee on a Core Services Fleview Public consuhation on opponun1t10s

GroupB: 9.eviewof opponunrt1es related to user fees and other revenue evaluation

Phase 4 milestone report

*Note: Timelines forphasesmay CNerlap

Phase 2: Information Gathering on

Services, Organization, Governance and Revenue

4-5weeks

GroupA1 andA2: • Service inventory template • Completed service inventory • lnterviewguides • Completed intervi&""''S, tours • level 1 jurisdictional review • 8.elation to the Counci's

purposes • Completed review of lal:xJur

costs, remuneration, succession, staffing

Group B: • Completed reviewoi user fees

and other revenue data

• Phase 2 mdestone report

Phase 5: Recommendations and

Final Report

4-6weeks

Group Al and A2 Recommendations for required services, service levels, alternatNe delivery, reengineered processes Recommendations for organization and governance ProJeotsd financial &operational outcomes Identified "quick h11s" Pricmtized fat of target opportunities

Group 8 : Recommendations for us er fees and other revenue options

Draft report Presentation FinalRepon

T I

9-11 weeks

Group A 1 and A2 Pub6c survey and/or workshop Service categorization Identified city/partner roles Classrfled service levels Assessmen of grants Level 2 jurisdictiona I rev'9w Classified ef-"'ectN'eness and efficiency of services Anatysis o1 organizatior{govemance

Group 8: Anatysis of fees, charges, sale, leases, landasse1s, and ether revenue opp:,rtunities

Phase 3 m8estone report

Phase 6: (Optional) Deep Dive into

Targeted services

Deep dive into targeted services for effic fencyand effectiveness improvements Detailedimpementation plan per service


3

Project Timeline

June 27, 2012

Week beginning 23 30 07 14 21 28 04 11 18 25 02 09 16 23 30 06 13 20 27 03 10 17 24 01 08 15 22

Task

Phase 1 – Project Initiation1.1 Kick-off workshop 1.2 Review background information1.3 Finalize project charter 1.4 Provide service profile templates to City1.5 Identify and confirm comparable jurisdictions1.6 Meetings with staff and public1.7 Interviews with Councillors1.8 Phase 1 milestone report Phase 2 – Information Gathering and Interviews2.1 Prepare and distribute service profile template2.2 Receive completed service profile templates2.3 Analyze service profile data 2.4 Design online survey2.5 Gather and review info on organization / governance structures2.6 Gather information on labour costs2.7 Gather information on land inventory and other assets2.8 Interviews with trades unions local executives2.9 Carry out first level jurisdictional review 2.10 Phase 2 milestone report Phase 3 – Analysis of Services, Organization, Governance and Revenue3.1 Publish online survey 3.2 Prepare analysis and workshop materials3.3 Conduct staff and public workshops3.4 Carry out second level jurisdictional review 3.5 Examine governance and administrative structure3.6 Examine labour costs and staffing levels3.7 Review revenues and land inventory / other assets3.8 Phase 3 milestone report Phase 4 – Identification and Evaluation of Opportunities4.1 Draft prioritized list of opportunities 4.2 Conduct staff and public workshops4.3 Phase 4 milestone report Phase 5 – Recommendations and Final Report5.1 Prepare draft and final report5.2 Present final report to Select Committee

- Denotes project milestone

September October2012April May JulyJune August


4

Activities Completed in Phase 2

Phase 2 – Information Gathering on Services, Organization, Governance and Revenue

■ Site visits to conduct interviews, collect project documentation (Weeks of May 14 and May 21)

■ Presentation of project at public meeting (May 15)

■ Conducted meeting with City managers on May 14 to discuss data elements required for collection, examples, and use of the data for analysis and reporting

■ Met with executive of CUPE locals 1048 and 399 (May 24)

■ Received completed data collection templates from City for preparation of service profiles

■ Prepared service profile template, reviewed draft with City project manager, incorporated feedback

■ Prepared initial service profile, reviewed with project working group via videoconference June 15

■ Received service information from City

■ Conducted high level jurisdictional review data collection


5

Activities Completed in Phase 2 (2)

Phase 2 – Information Gathering on Services, Organization, Governance and Revenue

■ Populated remaining service profiles, submitted to City for review and approval

■ Prepared survey questionnaire to collect organization information from comparator jurisdictions, circulated to five organizations

■ Conducted research using publicly available information to compare data including service statistics and wage rates

■ Monitored and responded to emails submitted to confidential email box

■ Weekly project management status update calls held with City project manager and other City representatives


6

Phase 2 Key Work Products

Service Profiles

■ Using data provided by the City, developed draft service profiles which were returned to City for validation by managers

Jurisdictional Comparison

■ Conducted research using publicly available information on the nine municipalities identified as comparators to the City. This information was used to populate the service profiles and show similarities or differences between costs and services provided by the City and other jurisdictions. Note that this information is imperfect in terms of the comparability of the municipalities and the way they record and report information. It should not be considered conclusive – just used to identify circumstances worth more investigation.

■ Developed a survey to collect organization information, and obtained agreement to participate from five comparable jurisdictions, received completed surveys from three jurisdictions

Opportunity Log

■ Using information collected from City staff, jurisdictional review, union executive, and the public through letters and email, began to populate an opportunity log that will be used to identify those opportunities with the greatest potential to increase efficiency and effectiveness at the City.


7

Activities Planned for Phase 3

Phase 3: Analysis of Services, Organization, Governance and Revenues

■ Conduct online survey

■ Conduct staff and public consultation sessions

■ Complete organization and governance survey, and analyze data

■ Identify full range of opportunities

■ Conduct level 2 jurisdiction review where required

■ Analyze fees, charges, sale, leases, land assets and other revenue opportunities

■ Analyze, categorize and prioritize opportunities

■ Complete collection and analysis of information on City labour costs and market labour costs

■ Prepare and deliver Phase 3 milestone report (week of September 17, 2012)

Opportunity Identification and Prioritization in Phase 3


9

What is an Opportunity?

An “opportunity” is a suggested change to a service that will reduce the net cost to the City

• May involve eliminating a service

• May involve transferring responsibility for delivery of the service to another government, a community agency, or the private sector

• May involve adopting a different way to achieve the outcomes sought

• May involve establishing or adjusting fees or other revenues

• May involve adjusting service levels

• May involve changing the way the service is provided:

• Outsourcing activities conducted in house

• Insourcing activities currently contracted

• Re-engineering - improving service delivery by adjusting the processes, tools or facilities, IT systems or human resources used

• May involve changing how goods and services are procured

• Needs to invest in infrastructure or services to achieve various goals may be identified in the process. They will be reported, but not analyzed or considered unless they are part of a cost reduction initiative.


10

How will Opportunities be Identified?

Opportunities will be identified as part of the consultation process – or as part of our analysis

Consultation Process

• Suggestions brought forward to date, by the Working Group, the Select Committee, at the staff meetings, at the public meeting, by staff or public communications by email or letter.

• Consultations during July

• Responses to the on-line survey and further emails or phone calls from publication of the service profiles

• Public Workshop planned for July 25, 6:00-8:00 pm

• Staff Workshops planned for July 25 9:00-11:00am and 1:30-3:30pm

• Working Group workshop planned for July 24, 1:00-4:00pm

• Select Committee workshop planned for July 26


11

Identifying Opportunities through analysis - The Service Assessment Filter –

Service Type

Service Level

Service Delivery

As outlined in our proposal, we will use the Service Assessment Filter to identify opportunities

START

Sample Service Assessment Filter

Is the service required? What level of service should be provided? How should the service be delivered? How can efficiency or effectiveness

of the service be improved?

>-------------------'Yee--------~

f---------Y•,~. -------------11

Strategic SllrvlC8 Rovlow •Alternative strategies to meet the need - Chan,s;ng rote of City and partne~ - Policy options to addtess Issues

And

Non-Coro Service Review -Transfer/Sell to Private Sector • Transfer to other Government -Trans fer to community/public Interest group Continue on self-sustaining basis -Continue as City Service -Terminate Services

Y• R<q d

Y'os------------,

Service Level Review Draw conclusions and recommendations on whet leYel of service to provide wilh consideration given lo: -Whal opportunities exist lo reduce the service level?

ltema11ve Service Delivery Review Draw oonclusions ar.d reoommendalions on how the service should be delivered with consideration ,giwn lo potential improYemenls in cost effectrvene-ss through· - Shared service models - Outsourcing some, more or all of service

deli..,ery competit1Vely Outsourcing service delivery to community agencies Bringing outsourced services m-house Changing procuremenl approach

ProceH Re-Engineering Review Draw conclusion!:! and recommendations: on opportuniliea for potentiel improvements in efficiencies through re-engineering in-house s:ervice delivery by changing:

Processea IT a:ystems Tools:, equipment, vehicles:, facililies: Human resources Procurement lerms or stmtegiee


12

Service Type

Services have been identified in the profiles as: • Internal (0): Exists to support delivery of other

services, provides no value added service to public • Mandatory(1): mandated or required by legislation

from the federal or provincial government • Essential (2): critical to the operation of the City.

Without the service, the City would stop functioning • Traditional (3): municipal service, provided by

virtually all large municipalities for many years • Other Discretionary (4): service provided by the City

to respond to particular community needs, based on a positive business case, or other specialized purposes

Opportunities will be identified when services are identified as: • Internal - Shared service, distributed service options • Traditional - Those services with a changing context or environment • Other Discretionary - Subject to business case, self-sustaining

I No

Straleglc Service Roview -Alternative strategies to meet the need - Changing role of City and partne~ - Policy options to addtess Issues

And

Non-Coro Service Review • Transfer/Sell to Private Sector -Transfer to other Government -Transfer to community/public Interest group Continue on self-sustaining basis -Continue as City Service -Terminate Servioes

I

"° Eliminaie, Service

Ye.,, R&qUIMd


13

Service Level

• Service level s were assessed as: Below Standard (B) At Standard (S), with S- and S+ indicating somewhat below or above standard Above Standard (A)

Service level “At Standard” is consistent with: • the level required by legislation, or …

• industry standards and practices, or…

• business case analysis justification, or…

• service levels in other municipalities, or …

• reasonable expectations

A service may be noted as “Above Standard” when the provided service is above the service level target, or because the service level target is higher than the standard, as defined above

Opportunities will be identified when: • Service level is higher than standard

N<>---------------------- ,

Service Level Review Draw 0011clusions: and recommendalions on what level of service to provide wi1h oon.s.ideration given 1o: -Whs1 opp(lrtunitie!3 exist lo reduce the service level? - What is the social impact of reducing the level of service? -Whal oos1 savings ere B:SSOciated with reducing the le..,e1 of service? -other

s the service method man•

No

Yes

Alternative Service Oellv, Draw conclusions alld reoc: how 1he ser,,ice should be


14

Delivery Type

The jurisdictional review examines how service is delivered in Prince George and other cities

It also examines the costs of service delivery in Prince George and other cities

Opportunities will be identified when: • Service shows a high cost profile • Service does not use identified good practices

• How should the service be delivered? ow can e 1c1ency or e ec rveness

of the service be improved?

YM-------------,

tel Review Jsions -and recommendslions :!'I of service to provide wilh Wlgiven lo: rtunities exist lo reduce the l7 :!' socia l impad of reducing service? ~avings ere associated with ~ lewe1 of service?

No

AltemaUve Service Delivery Review Draw oonclusions alld reoommendations on how the service should be delivered with consideration givell l0 potential impro,..ements in cost effectiveness through-- Shared service models - Outsourcing some, more or all of service

delivery oompet~i'lely Outsourcing service delivery to community agencies Bringing outsourced services in-house Changing procurement approach

Process Re-Engineering Review Draw conclusions and recommendations on opportunilies far ~ential improvements in efficiencies through re-e~ineering in-house 5ef'Vice delivery by changi~:

Processes IT systems Tools, equipmenl, vehicles:, faci lities: Hum an resources Procurement terms or strHtegies

Opportunity Evaluation


16

How will Opportunities be Assessed?

An “opportunity” is not necessarily a good thing to do. Many opportunities will be identified , some of them very good ideas, but some may have serious adverse impacts, cost more to achieve than they are worth – or may not even accomplish what they propose.

The analysis will involve a series of steps:

• A technical analysis using a range of criteria

• Input from

• The Working Group

• The public, by workshop and on-line

• Staff, including unions, by workshop and on-line

The Select Committee will review the technical analysis and the input and provide direction.


17

The technical analysis will consider these criteria

TOP Opportunities

1. How does the service contribute to the successful meeting of the Program’s mandate or strategic goals?

2. How does the service contribute to the achievement of the myPG strategic objectives?

3. How does the service contribute to achieving Council Priorities?

1. How does the cost of the service compare to other jurisdictions?

2. How does the service delivery approach compare with other jurisdictions?

1. What is the fully loaded cost of the service based on budget?

2. Establish a range of potential savings:

■ 0-10%

■ 11-30%

■ 31-60%

■ > 60%

3. Quantify potential savings = budget $ x range of savings (median)

1. Number of peopled impacted by the implementation of the opportunity

2. The severity of impact

Strategic Program Alignment

Materiality

Comparator Analysis

Client Impact

1. Are there any studies or reports that have dealt with the opportunity in this term of Council and that Council has made a decision?

2. If so, has there been a significant change in the meantime?

1. Political

2. Legal

3. Labour and Contractual Obligations

4. Capital Costs

Recent Reviews

Barriers To Implementation

I

Appendices 1. Service Profiles


19

Service Profiles

The service profiles will be provided separately.

While every effort was made to make the profiles comprehensive, accurate, and easily understood, further information will undoubtedly come forward over the coming weeks that would better explain some of the profiles. Profiles will be modified as required leading up the workshops with staff and the public and revisions will be posted on-line.

The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.


The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.

, city of prince george · phase 2 of the core services review project concluded with kpmg’s...

Documents