Budget, Finance & Audit Committee Briefing...Budget, Finance & Audit Committee Briefing 9/17/2012...

R I S K M A N A G E M E N T

H U M A N R E S O U R C E S

B U S I N E S S D E V E L O P M E N T & P R O C U R E M E N T S E R V I C E S

9/17/2012 Budget, Finance & Audit Committee Briefing

FY 2010-11 ICMA Benchmarking Results

2

ICMA Center for Performance Measurement


Purpose: To help local government improve the effectiveness and efficiency of public services through the collection, analysis and application of performance information

150+ local governments in US and Canada 5 largest participating jurisdictions: Miami-Dade County,

Phoenix, Nassau County NY, San Antonio & Dallas ICMA outlines specific measures in data collection

templates and annual reports Dallas has full access to all participants’ data after it has

been reviewed and approved by ICMA staff

3

City of Dallas & ICMA Benchmarking


Departments compiled and submitted data in 16 of the 19 service area templates Areas Include: Code Compliance, Library Services, Parks and

Recreation, Permits Land Use and Plan Review, Police Services, Procurement, Risk Management, Solid Waste, Facilities Management, Fire and EMS, Fleet Management, Highway and Road Maintenance, Housing, Human Resources, Information Technology

Areas not reported: Sustainability, Youth Services, Obesity

Today’s presentation covers results of departments that fall under Budget, Finance & Audit Council Committee Results of Dallas performance over time Results of how Dallas compares with other participating jurisdictions

4

R I S K M A N A G E M E N T

ICMA Benchmarks


5

Dallas: FY10 - FY11

Total Property Losses versus Average Expenditure per Loss


532 536

$9,772.84

$12,009.11

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

500

510

520

530

540

550

560

570

580

590

600

FY 2010 FY 2011

Av

era

ge

Ex

pe

nd

iture

Pe

r Lo

ss

Nu

mb

er

of

Pro

pe

rty

Lo

sse

s

6

Dallas: FY10 - FY11

Number of Workers Compensation Claims versus Expenditure per Claim


2046

1823

$5,132.19

$5,439.91

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

FY 2010 FY 2011

Ex

pe

nd

iture

pe

r Cla

im

Nu

mb

er

of

Wo

rke

rs C

om

pe

nsa

tio

n C

laim

s

7

Dallas: FY 10-11 Comparative: FY 11


15.54

15.18

14.6

14.7

14.8

14.9

15

15.1

15.2

15.3

15.4

15.5

15.6

FY 2010 FY 2011

10.73

11.71

12.37

13.05

15.18

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

Workers Compensation Claims Per 1,000 Residents

8

Dallas: FY 10 - 11 Comparative FY 11


$10.50

$9.92

$9.60

$9.70

$9.80

$9.90

$10.00

$10.10

$10.20

$10.30

$10.40

$10.50

$10.60

FY 2010 FY 2011

Mil

lio

ns

$7.52

$9

.92

$12.33

$12.58

$16

.22

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$14.00

$16.00

$18.00

Mil

lio

ns

Workers Compensation Claim Expenditures

9

Safety & Loss Control – Training Hours Provided (FY 11)


51,072

8,571

1,245

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

Dallas

Fairfax

San Antonio

10

H U M A N R E S O U R C E S

Budget, Finance & Audit Committee Briefing 9/17/2012

ICMA Benchmarks

11

Dallas: FY 09 - 11

Number of Jurisdictional Employees (June 30)

13,478

14,004

13,338

13,000

13,200

13,400

13,600

13,800

14,000

14,200

FY 2009 FY 2010* FY 2011


* FY 2010 Employee count is higher due to summer programs which increased the number of temporary workers

12

Dallas: FY 10 - 11

Turnover Rate 7.34%

6.32%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

9.00%

10.00%

FY 2010 FY 2011


13

Dallas: FY 09-11 Comparative: FY 11


460

430 430

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

430 496

867 906 1,004

1,249

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Number of Job Classifications

14

Ratio of Centralized HR FTEs to Total FTEs


1.14%

0.81%

0.69%

0.64%

0.53%

0.53%

0.53%

0.51%

0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20%

Portland

Kansas City

Fairfax

Austin

Arlington

Oklahoma City

Phoenix

Dallas

15

Average Sick Leave Usage Per 1,000 Scheduled Work Hours – All Employees


29.32

32.01 32.02

34.38

35.51 35.64

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

Austin Portland Dallas Arlington Oklahoma City Phoenix

16

B U S I N E S S D E V E L O P M E N T & P R O C U R E M E N T S E R V I C E S

ICMA Benchmarks


17

Dallas: FY 09 - 11 Comparative: FY 2011

Budget, Finance & Audit Committee Briefing

$19

1.26

$10

4.0

8

$112

.14

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

Dallas San Antonio Fairfax

Mil

lio

ns

Dollars awarded to M/WBE Businesses

$177.5

4

$15

4.4

7

$19

1.26

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

Mil

lio

ns

9/17/2012

18

Dallas: FY 09 - 11 Comparative: FY 2011

Budget, Finance & Audit Committee Briefing

2,834 3,218

6,570

7,999

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

San Antonio

Phoenix Fairfax Dallas

Number of Purchase Orders

19,534

11,355

7,999

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

9/17/2012

19

Q U E S T I O N S


STRATEGIC PLAN

UPDATE FY 2011-12

BUDGET, FINANCE AND AUDIT COUNCIL COMMITTEE BRIEFING

September 17, 2012

Strategic Planning Overview Review of FY 2011-12 Objectives Recommendations for FY 2012-13

Briefing Outline

2

Strategic Planning Overview

Active Management Tool Mechanism for stimulating disciplined thought Provides focus for an organization

Continuous (Improvement) Process Does not end with a document called a strategic plan,

but Challenges organizations to define performance by

how well they anticipate, rather than react to changing conditions

3


Individual Employee Efforts & Documents

Funding/Budget Documents

Tactics/Tactical Plans

Strategies & Objectives

Vision & Goals

Strategic Plan Forward Dallas!

Technology Plan Economic Development Plan

Capital Budget Operating Budget

Individual Performance Plans Recognition & Rewards City University (training)

Communication with employees and citizens (e.g. branding, newsletters, surveys, focus groups, town halls, etc.)

Council KFAs & Objectives

Mission Vision Values

Bond Programs Citywide Action Plan

EMS QMS

4


How do we strategically

align the City’s work activities to achieve the

desired objectives?

Key Performance Indicators Input, Output

Efficiency and Effectiveness

Services

Annual

Long-term targets Annual Goals

Activities

Measures

Action

Strategic Planning

Budgeting for Outcomes

Strategies

Objectives

Key Focus Areas

Mission Visions Values

5

Never compromise the minority purchasing program; Easily and fairly get goods and services donated to

the City by companies that want to help; and No Lobbyist has an advantage at City Hall

FY 2011-12 Committee Goal

6

E3 Objective 1: Maintain Business Inclusion and Development program while never compromising its integrity

E3 Objective 2: Easily and fairly get goods & services donated

E3 Objective 3: Enhance the culture of ethics at City Hall E3 Objective 4: Schedule presentations to broaden

perspectives, enable the exchange of ideas, and increase knowledge of City’s issues

E3 Objective 5: Examine planning for the budget on a longer time frame

Review of FY 2011-12 Objectives

7

Council Committee | BUDGET, FINANCE and AUDIT Review of FY 2011-12 Objectives

FY 2011-12 KFA Objectives

FY 2011-12 Planned Activities

FY 1

1-12

St

atus

FY 2011-12 Interim Report

FY 2012-13 Recommendations

(E3) Objective 1: Maintain Business Inclusion and Development program while never compromising its integrity

Revise Business Inclusion and Development (BID) Policy to ensure transparency

• BID program continues to be successful which is demonstrated by the annual overall M/WBE participation increase of 2.4% compared to the prior fiscal year

• Total overall M/WBE participation for FY 2010-11 was 23.7%

• BID program and documents are being reviewed to ensure the process and results provide maximum transparency within the public procurement process

Continue BID program and report effectiveness

(E3) Objective 2: Easily and fairly get goods & services donated

Create donation policy Not started Tied closely to ethics program – will be discussed at November retreat

(E3) Objective 3: Enhance the culture of ethics at City Hall

Complete an analysis of the design of the current Ethics Program. Engage a consultant to assess the effectiveness; provide additional training to employees and gauge the effectiveness of the revised program

• Contract approved by Council August 22, 2012

Implement ethics training program; monitor effectiveness

- Not Started/On hold

- On Track

- Behind

- Completed

8

FY 2011-12 KFA Objectives

FY 2011-12 Planned Activities

FY 1

1-12

St

atus

FY 2011-12 Interim Report

FY 2012-13 Recommendation

(E3) Objective 4: Schedule presentations to broaden perspectives, enable the exchange of ideas, and increase knowledge of City's issues

Schedule 4 or 5 speakers per year

To date 3 speakers have addressed the Budget, Finance, and Audit Committee; 2 additional scheduled

Schedule 4 to 5 speakers to address Budget, Finance, and Audit Committee

(E3) Objective 5: Examine planning for the budget on a longer timeframe

Maintain Aa1 rating with a Stable outlook

On track Continue

- Not Started/On hold

- On Track

- Behind

- Completed

Council Committee | BUDGET, FINANCE and AUDIT Review of FY 2011-12 Objectives

9

Summary of FY 2011-12 Strategic Plan

Employee ethics program development underway

Bond rating maintained

Provided speakers to present to Budget, Finance, and Audit Committee

10

Summary of Recommendations for FY 2012-13

Continue BID program and report effectiveness Implement ethics training for City employees Schedule 4 to 5 speakers for Committee Maintain Bond rating

11

Date post:	04-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times