USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
For the assignment outlined below, submit your response to the numbered questions below as a Word file in Brightspace.
Assignment 7: Performance Measures
This week’s Brightspace module includes the following report:
Rivenbank, William C., David N. Ammons and Dale J. Roenigk. 2005. North Carolina Local Government Performance Measurement Project: Benchmarking for Results. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina School of Government.
Below there are questions about 6 cases that are summarized in an addendum at the end of this report. You reviewed some of these cases in assessing cost analysis in Assignment 6. Our focus here is on using performance measures, including those linked to cost concepts and tools. The questions below are intended to help review four types of performance measures outlined in the reading by David N. Ammons on the basics of performance measurement. They are (1) Output (workload) Measures, (2) Efficiency Measures, (3) Outcome (effectiveness) Measures or (4) Productivity Measures.
For each case below read the case and then answer the case question(s). Just report what is used in the case – not every case will use all four types of measures. The table or each question provides space for 4 measures, you may have less or more than 4 measures, depending on the case. Remember – measures of productivity are relatively rare. In your response, identify the case name and include the question number with your response. Submit your assignment to Brightspace. Format note: The tables created below do not copy well to a Word document. You can create your own, but please report your responses in Table format for each case in the Word document.
Residential Refuse Collection: City of Winston-Salem, pages 1-2
Residential Refuse Collection: City of Concord, pages 3-4
In this case, both an efficiency measure and an outcome measure led to a re-examination of contracting out for refuse collection.
Household Recycling: City of Wilmington, pages 7-8
Measure:
Type:
Police Services: City of Greensboro,pages 9-10
Measure:Type:
Emergency Communications: City of Ashville, pages 11-12
Measure:Type:
Factors affecting performance;
Asphalt Maintenance & Repair: City of Hickory,pages 13-14
north carolina local government
performance measurement
project
Benchmarking
for Results
.
:
, , ,
, , , ,
, , , ,
, , , ,
-
north carolina local government
performance measurement
project
Benchmarking
for Results
a. john vogt
december 2005
cosponsored by:
the cities of asheville, carrboro, cary,
charlotte, concord, durham, gastonia,
greensboro, hickory, high point, matthews,
raleigh, salisbury, wilmington, wilson, and
winston-salem
institute of government
the north carolina local government
budget association
copyright 2005
school of government
School of Government
CB# 3330 Knapp Building,
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3330
Preparation and printing of this report were made possible
by funding from the participating cities.
This report is published by the School of Government.
Public agencies and officials may photocopy portions of the report,
if is copied solely for distribution within a public agency or to officials or
employees thereof and if copies are not sold or used for commercial purposes.
Printed in the United States of America
Preface
The North Carolina Benchmarking Project is a regional benchmarking initiative that
compares performance statistics and cost data across the following ten service areas:
residential refuse collection, household recycling, yard waste/leaf collection, police services,
emergency communications, asphalt maintenance and repair, fire services, building
inspections, fleet maintenance, and human resources. Participating municipalities endure
the challenges of data collecting and data cleaning because they believe that performance
measurement and benchmarking are catalysts to service improvement.
The steering committee of the benchmarking project decided to forgo the addition of a
new service area for study in 2005, opting instead to have project staff members at the
School of Government gather information from each participating municipality on how the
benchmarking data are actually being used for improving service efficiency and
effectiveness. This report, along with the supporting case studies on data use, contains the
program and organizational findings that were obtained from the review of the
benchmarking experiences from the fifteen municipalities that participated in the Final
Report on City Services for FY 2003–2004. They included Asheville, Cary, Charlotte,
Concord, Durham, Gastonia, Greensboro, Hickory, High Point, Matthews, Raleigh,
Salisbury, Wilmington, Wilson, and Winston-Salem.
The benchmarking project is a collaborative effort between the School of Government
and the participating municipalities. Special thanks are owed to the members of the
steering committee who were instrumental in collecting the information needed for this
report and to the following individuals who wrote the supporting case studies for their
respective municipalities: Ben Rowe, deputy budget and evaluation director of WinstonSalem; Kathy Mann, budget analyst of Wilmington; Randy J. Harrington, budget and
performance manager of Concord; Tony McDowell, interim budget manager of Asheville;
Stephen Carter, budget and management analyst of Greensboro; and Karen Hurley, budget
analyst of Hickory.
This document contains evidence that the participating municipalities in the
benchmarking project have used the comparative statistics at the program level to support
a variety of service delivery decisions. It has been designed so that additional case studies
on data use can be added as municipalities continue to use the benchmarking information
for service improvement. The steering committee members understand that the long-term
success of the benchmarking project hinges on documenting the success stories of using
comparative information.
William C. Rivenbark
David N. Ammons
Dale J. Roenigk
Introduction
At one time performance measurement was thought to be innovative, but today it is
accepted as a professional norm in local government for demonstrating operational
accountability of service delivery and for creating an environment for productivity
improvement. Although adoption of performance measurement systems is common, full
implementation of these systems is rare.1 Adoption refers to the creation of measures for
tracking service performance. Implementation, on the other hand, represents the actual
use of these measures for converting information into action.2 This distinction is critical.
Given the expense of adoption, an adequate return on investment hinges on effective
implementation.
When an organization engages in benchmarkingthe comparison of its performance
against relevant performance standards or the performance of other organizationsthe
investment is greater and so is the desire for an adequate return. 3 Benchmarking consumes
more organizational resources than internal performance measurement given the difficulty
of ensuring data accuracy, reliability, and comparability across multiple organizations.
Operational improvement based on lessons learned from benchmarking is where an
organization hopes to gain its return on investment.
The North Carolina Benchmarking Project is a regional benchmarking initiative that
compares performance statistics and cost data for participating municipalities across the
following ten service areas.4
• Residential refuse collection
• Yard waste/leaf collection
• Emergency communications
• Fire services
• Fleet maintenance
• Household recycling
• Police services
• Asphalt maintenance and repair
• Building inspections
• Human resources
The benchmarking project is managed by the School of Government under the guidance of
a steering committee comprised of representatives from each participating municipality.
This report contains the results from research conducted during spring and summer
2005 on how municipalities are using the comparative performance statistics for
converting information into action. It begins with a brief overview of the benchmarking
project and the methodology used to gather the information from the fifteen municipalities
that participated in the benchmarking project during FY 2004–2005. The findings are then
presented on how the comparative statistics are being used at the program and
organizational levels.
Overview of the North Carolina Benchmarking Project
The impetus for the benchmarking project came from two groups: city managers and
budget officials. The North Carolina League of Municipalities held a meeting in 1994 with
city managers from the larger municipalities in the state to discuss the topics of
privatization, competition, performance measurement, and benchmarking.5 Subsequently,
local budget officials who were affiliated with the North Carolina Local Government
Budget Association held a meeting in 1995 to discuss the possibility of creating a
benchmarking project. They had a desire to move beyond internal performance
comparisons over time. They wanted to place service performance from their own
organizations within the context of other organizations, with the belief that even
outstanding performers can learn from the practices of others. The pilot phase of the
benchmarking project started in fall 1995 after the Institute of Government hired a project
coordinator.
The following three goals guide the benchmarking project: (1) develop and expand the
use of performance measurement in local government, (2) produce reliable performance
and cost data for comparison, and (3) facilitate the use of performance and cost data for
service improvement. Nine municipal performance and cost data reports had been
produced by 2005 in response to the second goal. However, the participating municipalities
do not endure the challenges of data collection and data cleaning simply to produce a
report. They participate in the benchmarking project to enhance their own internal
performance measurement systems and to use the comparative performance and cost data
for service improvement.
Methodology
The findings contained in this report were derived from a review of the benchmarking
experiences of the fifteen municipalities that participated in the benchmarking project in
2005, which included Asheville, Cary, Charlotte, Concord, Durham, Gastonia, Greensboro,
Hickory, High Point, Matthews, Raleigh, Salisbury, Wilmington, Wilson, and WinstonSalem. Municipal representatives were queried by an e-mail survey, followed by in-person
interviews and subsequent telephone and e-mail contact in 2005.
Program Findings
This section focuses on how the benchmarking data are being used to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery. Survey questions asked for specific examples
of how the benchmarking data have supported operational change within the service areas
under study. While some of the following examples contain specific outcomes, others are
more recent initiatives with promising but unconfirmed results.
Residential Refuse Collection
Benchmarking data have been used most frequently by participating municipalities in the
service area of residential refuse collection. The comparative statistics were used in
Hickory, for example, to justify automated collection with one-person crews. The city
lowered its cost per ton collected from $98 in FY 1995–1996 to $69 in FY 2003–2004—
a savings of $29 per ton collected.
Concord used the benchmarking data for negotiating more favorable terms with its
private hauler. The city was paying $7.07 per collection point when its refuse collection
contract expired. The private hauler’s proposal for a new contract called for payment of
$7.76 per collection point. The city countered using data from the benchmarking project
that showed Concord’s service costs were relatively high and the contractor’s service
quality was relatively low when compared to other municipalities. The parties agreed to
continue the service at a rate of $7.07 per collection point, subject to consumer price index
and fuel price adjustments.
One of the major success stories of the benchmarking project is found in this service
area. Winston-Salem used a private hauler to provide residential refuse service to
approximately 6,500 households. After the benchmarking data revealed underutilized
capacity within its own operations, the contract with the private hauler was discontinued
and service by city crews was extended into the affected neighborhoods without adding
staff or equipment. This move improved efficiency and produced annual savings of
approximately $395,000.6
Household Recycling
Comparative statistics for household recycling helped municipal officials monitor the
effects of service expansion in Asheville. Program changes yielded an increase in the waste
diversion rate from 14 percent in FY 1998–1999 to 24 percent in FY 2003–2004. The
principal impact of program success is the extended life of the Buncombe County landfill.
2
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
Benchmarking data assisted Wilmington officials with a decision to privatize the
household recycling program, producing an annual savings of approximately $75,000.7 This
change in service delivery decreased the cost per ton collected from $308 in FY 1994–1995
to $234 in FY 2000–2001. Further expansion of the program since 2001 decreased the cost
per ton collected to $128 by FY 2003–2004.
Benchmarking data also have been used to assess the possibility of altering truck and
crew configurations in Concord and to evaluate the cost per collection point for contract
negotiations in Hickory.
Yard Waste/Leaf Collection
Comparative statistics for yard waste/leaf collection supported the use of seasonal labor in
Hickory and justified a recommendation for a leaf machine in High Point. The program
change in Hickory helped reduce the cost per collection point from $51 in FY 2001–2002
to $30 in FY 2003–2004. Analysis in High Point showed that the new equipment would
reduce the cost per ton collected.
Police Services
Greensboro used the benchmarking results in a management study of police patrol
staffing.8 The study found that Greensboro was below average in the number of sworn
officers per 1,000 residents and had a slower than average response time for high priority
calls when compared to the cities of Durham, Raleigh, and Winston-Salem. A workload
analysis indicated a patrol availability factor of only 6.6 percent, signaling little ability to
engage in proactive patrol. In response to the management study, Greensboro approved an
additional thirty-two sworn officers for its police department.
Other examples of data use in police services included the analysis of a proposal to add a
patrol beat in Cary, gauging the efforts of community policing in Concord, and investing in
a telephone response unit to reduce calls per officer in Wilmington.
Emergency Communications
Asheville eliminated three dispatcher positions in emergency communications based on an
analysis of the benchmarking results, which allowed the reallocation of approximately
$105,000 to other programs. The benchmarking project’s comparative statistics also have
been used to identify the need for an additional supervisory position in emergency
communications in Cary and to make changes for an ISO rating improvement in Concord.
Asphalt Maintenance and Repair
Among the high profile budgetary decisions confronting most municipal officials annually
is the amount of resources that should be appropriated to asphalt maintenance and repair.
Typically, administrators urge adherence to the adopted resurfacing cycle policy, which
usually calls for the municipality to resurface a specified number of lane miles on an annual
basis. Depending on revenue projections, however, this capital investment is sometimes
deferred in favor of other programs. Several jurisdictions have solidified their ongoing
commitment to a systematic street resurfacing program with the support of the
benchmarking results.
Two municipalities have used the comparative statistics to analyze the cost-effectiveness
of using in-house crews versus contract crews for resurfacing projects. Asheville made the
decision to use contract crews for additional projects, while Concord increased in-house
capacity.
Hickory used the comparative statistics to justify a new automated patch truck for
pothole repair. The city reported 85 percent of potholes repaired within twenty-four hours
in FY 1997–1998, which was well below the average of 96 percent. After the capital
investment, the city reported 97 percent of potholes repaired within twenty-four hours in
FY 2001–2002, which was slightly above the average of 95 percent.
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
3
Fire Services
Cary, Charlotte, and Concord have used the comparative statistics to analyze the workload
of fire inspections. Cary established a staffing plan for determining when to add new fire
inspectors in response to its workload analysis. High Point, on the other hand, used the
comparative statistics to analyze and approve the request for twelve new firefighters in
response to a merger with two volunteer stations.
The most notable use of comparative fire service statistics occurred in Hickory. The city’s
high cost per response suggested an underutilization of personnel and equipment and
prompted the decision to begin responding to emergency medical calls. This increase in
workload allowed the fire department to spread its fixed costs across more calls for service,
which substantially lowered its cost per response from $3,246 in FY 1998–1999 to $1,832 in
FY 2003–2004.The workload change has resulted in minimal impact on the effectiveness
measure of average response time to high priority calls, which increased slightly from 4.0
minutes to 4.4 minutes during this same time period.
Fleet Maintenance
The benchmarking data prompted a staffing analysis in Concord, which resulted in the
reorganization of fleet maintenance, the reduction of a full-time equivalent position, and
the establishment of productivity goals. Asheville and Hickory also have used the
benchmarking results to establish productivity goals regarding billable hours, parts
turnover, and percentage of rolling stock available per day.
Organizational Findings
This section focuses on how the participating municipalities are using benchmarking as a
management tool. These findings represent patterns of use that extend across programs.
They include the importance of management integration, the impact of higher order
measures, the use of efficiency measures, the selection of benchmarking partners, the
refinement of measures, and the overall organizational impact from participating in the
benchmarking project.
Management Integration
Only a few of the participating municipalities in 2005 had developed a systematic process
for integrating the comparative statistics into the management functions of planning,
budgeting, and evaluation. Those municipalities that had advanced the furthest in
integrating benchmark statistics into fundamental management systems tended also to be
the ones that had actually used the benchmarking information to achieve the most
significant operational improvements at the program level.
• Wilmington has integrated the benchmarking data into its strategic planning process.
Several of its organizational objectives are tied to statistics from the benchmarking
project, including Part I crimes and response time to high priority calls.
• Concord uses the benchmarking results in support of performance budgeting.
Program managers use the comparative statistics to help establish their service
objectives for the coming fiscal year. Work plans are then formulated that include
strategies for closing performance gaps.
• Winton-Salem uses the benchmarking results in support of zero-based budgeting. The
budget department selects several programs each year to analyze from a zero-based
perspective where all resources are justified as part of the annual budget process. The
performance and cost data from the benchmarking project are used for analyzing the
program’s resources from a comparative perspective. When a program is not part of
the benchmarking project, budget staff members must independently collect
comparative data.
• Hickory uses the benchmarking results in conjunction with its total quality
management program. Once a process is selected for study, an improvement team is
4
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
formed to analyze the components of the process, to identify strategies for process
improvement, and to monitor the results. The comparative statistics are used with the
analysis when the selected process is part of a service area in the benchmarking
project.
Higher Order Measures
The benchmarking project reports on three types of performance measures for each service
area under study: workload measures, efficiency measures, and effectiveness measures.
While workload measures are important for providing information on service demand,
they simply report on how much. Efficiency and effectiveness measures are considered
higher order measures as they report on the relationship between inputs and outputs and
on the quality or impact of service, respectively. Municipalities that relied less on workload
measures and more on the higher order measures of efficiency and effectiveness were more
likely to use the comparative statistics for making management decisions at the program
level.
There is a broader implication from this finding. Research has shown that workload
measures are more commonly tracked in local government than efficiency and
effectiveness measures.9 Research also has shown that public organizations have struggled
with moving from adoption to implementation of performance measurement.10 This
review suggests that over-reliance on workload measures may restrict the use of higherorder measures and limit the use of performance data for making management decisions.
Service Efficiency
A majority of the participating municipalities reported heavy reliance on efficiency
measures. One reason for this is the emphasis placed on cost accounting by the project.
The total cost of each service area is calculated as a step toward determining resources
consumed per service output.11 Several of the respondents also reported that the
benchmarking project afforded them the ability to calculate accurate and reliable efficiency
measures for the first time and that elected officials tend to focus on service efficiency
because of their concern about increasing tax rates.
Benchmarking Partners
Most of the participating municipalities reported that they primarily compare their
performance statistics with the statistics of specific benchmarking partners. The primary
reason for this practice was the perception that municipalities of similar size are more
comparable. Several respondents also reported that elected officials were only interested in
municipalities of similar size.
There are two questions that arise from the practice of selecting benchmarking partners
based on population. First, is this a sound practice from the perspective of seeking
strategies for service improvement? Concord, which reported systematic comparison
across all jurisdictions, provided the most examples of data use at the program level.
Second, do economies of scale drive performance in local government? One source
suggested that economies of scale are more applicable to capital-intensive services like
water and sewer as opposed to labor-intensive services like police and fire protection. 12
Therefore, service efficiency may not necessarily improve as the size of a labor-intensive
program increases.
Refinement of Measures
The benchmarking project has been instrumental in helping participating municipalities
improve the quality of their performance measures. A service review, for example, revealed
that municipalities were having trouble with calculating accurate and reliable household
participation rates. As a result, a new methodology was adopted to establish the
effectiveness measure of set-out rate. Several municipalities reported that the new measure
has improved their ability to accurately track the success of their recycling programs.
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
5
Organizational Impact
The municipalities were asked to identify the overall organizational impact from
participating in the benchmarking project. Listed below are the most notable responses:
• Reporting on the performance of service delivery within the context of comparable
performance statistics enhances program accountability.
• Benchmarking has helped change the organizational culture by increasing the
importance of performance measurement. Program managers are more concerned
with data accuracy and reliability and are more open to data analysis.
• Benchmarking has given program managers a broader perspective on how services are
provided. They have become more open to the idea that reviewing processes in other
organizations can help them improve their own service performance.
• Budget staff members have become more knowledgeable about programs under study,
decreasing the communication barriers between staff members and program
managers.
• Reporting on comparative statistics has resulted in other management initiatives. For
example, citizen surveys have been conducted to supplement the performance and
cost data, which has resulted in allocating more resources to priority service areas.
• Benchmarking has assisted organizations with making progress toward performance
budgeting, where the performance and cost data have been used in contract
negotiations with external vendors, in the reorganization of selected programs, and in
the allocation of additional or fewer resources based on need assessments.
One of the best anecdotal observations regarding the value of project participation came
from a seasoned budget director who noted that her fingers were crossed every time she
received an information request from the manager regarding a program. Her constant
hope was that the program would be one of the ten programs currently under study in the
benchmarking project, making it possible to give a timely and informative response.
Conclusion
A distinction has been made between the adoption and implementation of performance
measurement and benchmarking in local government. This review of the benchmarking
experiences of the fifteen municipalities that participated in the benchmarking project in
2005 revealed that the comparative statistics have been used at the program level to
support a variety of service delivery decisions.
Prior research has suggested that time is a factor in moving from the collection of
measures to actually using them in management decisions.13 Indeed, some of the
municipalities that have the most experience in performance measurement and longest
participation in the benchmarking project were among the leaders in the use of
performance data; but time is no guarantee. Evidence from this review suggests that the
systematic integration of comparative statistics into management processes, the use of the
higher order measures of efficiency and effectiveness, and the management practice of
performance comparison across all jurisdictions also were important factors to the
implementation of measures for converting information into action.
6
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
References
1. Patria de Lancer Julnes and Marc Holzer. 2001. Promoting the Utilization of
Performance Measures in Public Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting
Adoption and Implementation. Public Administration Review, 61 (6): 693–708.
2. Stehr, Nico. 1992. Practical Knowledge: Applying the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
3. The comparison of performance statistics is one of three approaches to benchmarking
in the public sector. See David N. Ammons. 2000. Benchmarking as a Performance
Management Tool: Experiences among Municipalities in North Carolina. Journal of Public
Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 12 (1): 106–124.
4. For information on the specific definition of each service area, see William C.
Rivenbark. 2005. Final Report on City Services for Fiscal Year 2003–2004. Chapel Hill, NC:
School of Government.
5. Paula K. Few and A. John Vogt. 1997. Measuring the Performance of Local
Governments. Popular Government, 62 (2): 41–54.
6. Ann Jones. 1997. Winton-Salem’s Participation in the North Carolina Performance
Measurement Project. Government Finance Review, 13 (4): 35–36.
7. David N. Ammons. 2000. Benchmarking as a Performance Management Tool:
Experiences among Municipalities in North Carolina. Journal of Public Budgeting,
Accounting & Financial Management, 12 (1): 106–124.
8. Greensboro Budget and Evaluation Department and Greensboro Police Department.
2004. Patrol Staffing Study. Greensboro, NC: City of Greensboro.
9. William C. Rivenbark and Janet M. Kelly. 2003. Management Innovation in Smaller
Municipal Government. State and Local Government Review, 35 (3): 196–205.
10. Patria de Lancer Julnes and Marc Holzer. 2001. Promoting the Utilization of
Performance Measures in Public Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting
Adoption and Implementation. Public Administration Review, 61 (6): 693–708.
11. Total cost includes direct costs (personal services and operating expenditures),
indirect costs (overhead assigned to the service area), and capital costs (depreciation of
assets assigned to the service area).
12. John Mikesell. 1999. Fiscal Administration, fifth edition. New York, NY: Harcourt
Brace College Publishers.
13. Patria de Lancer Julnes and Marc Holzer. 2001. Promoting the Utilization of
Performance Measures in Public Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting
Adoption and Implementation. Public Administration Review, 61 (6): 693–708.
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
7
Residential Refuse Collection
City of Winston-Salem
Benchmarking Reveals
Available Capacity
Background
Following annexations in the mid-1990s, the WinstonSalem sanitation division had contracted with a private
solid waste hauler to provide refuse collection service to
approximately 6,500 households. The private contract
totaled $581,000 and was scheduled to expire at the end of
FY 1996–1997. The sanitation division planned to bring
the service in-house and requested additional personnel
and equipment to accommodate this expansion during
the FY 1997–1998 budget process.
Households Per Route per Day
FY 1994–1995
1000
800
600
400
200
0
At the time of the request from the sanitation division,
the first performance and cost data report from the North
Carolina Benchmarking Project had just been published
in October 1997. Using the benchmarking data on
residential refuse collection, the Winston-Salem budget
office noted that the city’s tons collected per FTE was less
than half of the municipal average. This was expected
given that Winston-Salem relied on a less automated
service of backyard collection. Therefore, budget staff
reexamined the benchmarking data by restricting its
evaluation to the other two backyard collection
municipalities: Cary and Raleigh.
Even after limiting the comparison, Winston-Salem’s
tons collected per FTE were still 6 and 12 percent lower as
compared to Cary and Raleigh, respectively. Further
analysis of the benchmarking data showed that compared
to Cary and Raleigh, Winston-Salem’s refuse crews
serviced fewer households per route per day and worked
fewer hours per week per FTE. The data suggested that
the sanitation division could extend its current routes and
work longer days in order to serve the additional 6,500
households in the annexed area without additional staff.
While the data indicated extra capacity, it should be
noted that residential refuse collection crews work on an
incentive plan, whereby they are paid for a forty-hour
work week even if they complete their routes in fewer
hours. Sanitation division staff insisted that any increase
in the number of households per route per day and hours
worked per week per FTE had to be balanced with the
incentive for crews to complete their routes in a timely
fashion.
This case was written in October 2005
769
450
Cary
Analysis
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
650
Raleigh
WinstonSalem
Tons Collected per FTE
FY 1994–1995
400
326
349
Cary
Raleigh
307
300
200
100
0
WinstonSalem
Hours Worked per Week per FTE
FY 1994–1995
40
34
26
30
22
20
10
0
Cary
Raleigh
WinstonSalem
1
Residential Refuse Collection
City of Winston-Salem
Benchmarking Reveals
Available Capacity
Actions
During the FY 1997–1998 budget process, staff
from both the budget office and the sanitation
division met with the city manager to discuss this
issue. At that meeting, the decision was made to use
the division’s existing staff and equipment to serve
the annexed area. The sanitation division did not
renew the private contract, as a result, and adjusted
its routes to serve the additional 6,500 households.
No new positions and equipment were added to the
budget. After adjusting for the additional tipping
fees, the change produced an annual net savings of
approximately $395,000 for the city.
Contract expenditures for residential
refuse collection service to 6,500
households
Landfill tipping fees assumed by the
city when contract was discontinued
Net savings
$580,610
-$185,530
$395,080
Outcomes
Since the initial analysis, the budget office and
the sanitation division have continued to use the
benchmarking data to evaluate whether new
housing developments can be served with
existing staff and equipment. From FY
1994–1995 to FY 2003– 2004, the number of
households served by the division increased
from 54,135 to 65,300 or 21 percent. During that
same time, only two routes had to be added to
meet the growing demand for refuse collection.
The sanitation division has been able to do this
because of the improvements in labor efficiency
in the following areas: hours worked per week,
households served per route per day, and tons
collected per collection FTE. The WinstonSalem budget office has estimated that if
the city had remained at the level of only
450 households per route per day, the
sanitation division would have added six
additional crews.
Winston-Salem’s success in this case
demonstrates how benchmarking data can
provide compelling evidence to support
operational and budgetary decisions.
Because of the availability of the
benchmarking data and the ability to focus
on municipalities with comparable
operational arrangements, Winston-Salem
was able to identify inefficiencies in its
operations and expand service delivery
without adding staff or equipment.
2
Hours worked
per week
Households
served per route
per day
Tons collected
per collection
FTE
Fiscal Year
1994–1995
Fiscal Year
2003–2004
Percent
Change
22
31
+41%
450
510
+13%
307
364
+19%
Tons Collected per Collection FTE
450
394
400
361
410
350
334
300
349
364
364
307
250
200
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
This case was written in October 2005
Fiscal Year
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
Residential Refuse Collection
City of Concord
Full-Cost Model and Benchmark Data
Help Negotiate Better Private Contract
Background
Concord’s solid waste staff began research in summer 2002
to determine if the city’s five-year refuse and recycling
collection contract with a private hauler should be renewed
or if the city should bring collection back in-house.
Benchmarking data from the Final Report on City Services
for Fiscal Year 2000–2001 indicated that Concord’s cost
per collection point was above the municipal average and
that Concord had the highest number of complaints per
1,000 collection points. Although the cost measure
decreased to $86 per collection point for FY 2000–2001, it
was uncertain whether this represented a real trend or a
one-time fluctuation.
$120
$100
Cost per Residential
Refuse Collection Point
$98
$83
$86 $85
$80
$60
Concord
Average
$40
$20
$0
2000
2001
Analysis
Residential Refuse Complaints
Concord conducted an analysis using the North Carolina
per 1,000 Collection Points
175
Benchmarking Project’s full-cost accounting model. The
156
analysis was completed in 2002 and was designed to
150
determine whether a financial case could be made to bring
Concord
125
refuse collection and recycling in-house. The city
Average
examined two equipment and personnel scenarios against
100
the anticipated private hauler’s contract cost. One scenario
Complaint data
were not
75
assumed a “low automation” design while the other
59
available for
scenario assumed a “high automation” design.
FY 1999–2000.
50
The results of the analysis indicated that first year start25
up costs would exceed the expected private hauler cost, but
that over five years the city would save between $700,000
0
and $1.1 million by operating the collection in-house.
2001
Determination of the potential quality improvement
proved much more difficult to quantify. City staff felt
confident that the mere element of having direct
supervision over collection crews would result in a significant improvement in quality and overall
responsiveness to daily collection problems raised by residents.
Actions and Further Analysis
After the analysis was completed in 2002, city staff recommended to the city council at a January 2003
planning session to provide the collection service in-house or to renegotiate the hauling contract on a twoyear basis. The city council directed the city manager to remain with the private hauler but to renegotiate
for a short-term contract (two years instead of five) and to put the hauler on notice that the city was
serious about service improvement. The analysis and benchmarking data also were used as a tool in
negotiating better rates and quality with the hauler.
In light of the short-term contract renewal and a desire to confirm the original analysis, the city
partnered with the School of Government’s benchmarking staff members for a second analysis. The second
analysis, completed in 2003, examined only “new” or additional costs to the city if collection were brought
in-house. Results of the second analysis revealed similar findings to the first. After careful review, staff
recommended in January 2004 that the city remain with the current hauler due to implementation
challenges and “ramp up” timing concerns. The fact that service quality showed trends of improvement
also presented an encouraging argument to remain with the private hauler. The city engaged the private
hauler in a process to negotiate another new contract, using the benchmarking data to strengthen the city’s
negotiating position.
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
This case was written in October 2005
3
Residential Refuse Collection
City of Concord
Full-Cost Model and Benchmark Data
Help Negotiate Better Private Contract
Outcomes
Once the private hauler understood that the
Residential Refuse Complaints
city was seriously considering bringing
per 1,000 Collection Points
residential refuse and recycling collection in180
156
house, the hauler made noticeable
160
Concord
improvement in service quality. Complaints
Average
140
per 1,000 collection points dropped by half,
104
120
falling from 156 in FY 2000–2001 to 77 in FY
100
77
72
2003–2004.
80
The city’s latest collection contract specifies
60
performance standards and a fine/incentive
40
59
58
43
40
system for failure to meet basic service quality
20
0
standards. Concord’s latest collection contract
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
requires monthly performance summaries and
Fiscal
Year
an annual customer satisfaction survey.
Additionally, if the hauler’s liquidated
damages average does not exceed $750 per
month and $1,500 total per quarter, damages
Residential Refuse Cost per Collection Point
are refunded to the hauler on a quarterly basis
$120
as an added incentive for good performance.
$98
$98
$93
$92
Concord’s cost per collection point for
$100
$86
residential refuse remains above the municipal
$80
average. However, the city has successfully
$85
$83
$82
$81
$77
$60
negotiated lower rate increases by citing
collection costs of other participants in the
$40
benchmarking project, especially those with
Concord
$20
in-house services. Initially, the contractor had
Average
proposed a rate of $7.76 per collection point
$0
per month. Based on the negotiations, the city
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
was able to lower the beginning base cost to
Fiscal Year
$7.07, a 9 percent drop. To this base amount,
variable monthly fuel adjustments (not to
exceed 4 percent per month) and annual CPI
increases were added to determine each month’s cost per collection point ($7.51 as of September 2005).
While the cost in actual dollars per collection point has remained relatively flat for the last five years for
Concord, the cost has declined when inflation is taken into account. Concord’s cost per collection point
has dropped from $98 in FY 1999–2000 to $87 in FY 2003–2004 when converted to 2000 constant dollars,
which equates to an 11 percent reduction.
The full-cost accounting model and the evaluation support from the School of Government provided
Concord a method to successfully influence the outcome of a contract negotiation process by accurately
comparing in-house service delivery versus private service delivery. The benchmarking data also were
instrumental in improving the quality of service provided to the citizens of Concord.
4
This case was written in October 2005
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
Residential Refuse Collection
City of Winston-Salem
Benchmarking Supports Shift to
Voluntary Curbside Collection
Background
In April 2004 city staff presented information to residents about a projected budget deficit of over
$8 million for FY 2004–2005. As part of this community educational effort, staff noted that fifteen of the
twenty largest municipalities in the state provided curbside residential refuse collection while WinstonSalem provided backyard collection. During subsequent budget workshops, the city council expressed an
interest in staff examining curbside collection. In August 2004 the city manager directed staff to prepare a
presentation to city council on curbside collection. Earlier studies on this issue, specifically the Citizen
Efficiency Review Committee and the city’s zero-based budget review process, estimated significant savings
from using a less labor-intensive method. However, efforts to implement curbside collection, even on a
pilot basis, had been unsuccessful.
Analysis
lis
b
ilm ury
in
gt
on
W
in Wil
st
s
on on
-S
al
em
t
Sa
W
gh
R
al
ei
in
ry
H
ig
h
Po
ko
o
ic
H
a
This case was written in October 2005
or
ni
to
en
re
G
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
sb
m
as
G
rd
ha
ur
co
D
tte
C
on
y
rlo
ar
ha
C
C
As
he
vi
lle
In a September 2004
The three highlighted municipalities
presentation to the city
Cost per Ton Collected
with the highest cost per ton collected
FY
2002-2003
council, city staff used the
all used backyard collection.
$160
benchmarking data to
$120
compare the method, cost,
and efficiency of Winston$80
Salem’s residential refuse
collection program against
$40
the other participating
municipalities. Using the FY
$0
2002–2003 performance and
cost data report, staff noted
that only Cary and WinstonSalem were continuing to
collect garbage from the
backyard with Raleigh having
converted to curbside service
in FY 2003–2004. The presentation included data on cost per ton, tons collected per collection FTE, and
tons collected per 1,000 households. Winston-Salem’s cost per ton of $140 was well above the municipal
average of $82. More importantly, the three municipalities using backyard collection had the highest costs.
City staff also presented the results of a survey commissioned by the Citizen Efficiency Review Committee
and an unscientific Web-based survey by the Winston-Salem Journal. Both surveys indicated that over 60
percent of the respondents were open to the idea of curbside collection.
For the presentation, city staff prepared a cost analysis of different curbside collection scenarios. The
estimated annual savings after full implementation of automated, mandatory curbside collection was $1.8
million. It would take five years for full implementation, taking into account lease financing payments for
automated trucks and roll-out carts. The estimated annual savings after full implementation of manual
curbside collection was $540,000. Again, it would take five years for full implementation given lease
financing payments for roll-out carts. For voluntary curbside collection, the estimated annual savings was
$29,000 for the first five years, increasing to $450,000 after full implementation. The analysis assumed that
participation would increase by 5,000 households each year and lease financing of five years would be used
for roll-out carts. A majority of the city council expressed a willingness to consider the voluntary curbside
option.
5
Residential Refuse Collection
City of Winston-Salem
Benchmarking Supports Shift to
Voluntary Curbside Collection
Actions
Projected Savings for Curbside Collection Scenarios
In November 2004, city staff
First Five
Full
presented to city council a
Years
Implementation
formal proposal for
Mandatory curbside (fully automated)
implementing voluntary
Layoffs required
$1,200,000
$1,800,000
Attrition only (no layoffs)
$950,000
$1,800,000
curbside collection. The
proposal included a resolution
Mandatory curbside (manual
approving the program,
collection)
amendments to the city code
No city-provided garbage carts
$540,000
$540,000
regarding the administration of
City-provided garbage carts
$10,000
$540,000
the program, and award of a
Voluntary curbside
$29,000
$450,000
contract to a roll-out cart
manufacturer. City council
approved the proposal along
with a budget amendment that appropriated additional funds for the lease financing of the roll-out carts
and for public education. The program was formally approved in December 2004. The city initiated an
application process in January 2005, with a deadline for initial sign-up in March 2005.
The city anticipated 5,000 households would participate in the first year. The sanitation division planned
to serve these households with its existing three-person crews and equipment. No staffing reductions were
planned at that point. As more households volunteered for the program, the sanitation division would
adjust the number and length of its routes in order to realize efficiencies from serving concentrations of
program participants.
Outcomes
By June 2005, citizen response had been very high, with approximately 15,500 households volunteering to
participate in the program. The sanitation division was able to decrease the number of routes from thirty
to twenty-eight during FY 2005–2006, a reduction of two crews. Budgetary savings from eliminating six
full-time positions and two garbage trucks totaled approximately $201,000. However, the budgetary
savings during the first year of the voluntary program are expected only to cover the debt payments for
lease-financing 24,500 carts. The sanitation division does anticipate that, if the number of volunteers
increases to 24,500, budgetary savings will be realized by the reduction of an additional refuse collection
crew.
The use of the benchmarking
Estimated Impacts
data provided credibility to this
Changes
Changes in
Changes
Estimated
policy discussion. The
Households
in routes
personnel
in trucks
savings ($)
5,000
-1
-3
-1
$29,000
municipalities like Winston10,000
-1
-3
-1
-$14,000
Salem that had continued to use
15,000
-2
-8
-2
$104,000
backyard collection all showed
20,000
-2
-8
-2
$61,000
lower efficiency and higher
25,000
-3
-12
-3
$144,000
costs. The benchmarking data
helped illustrate how the mode
of service delivery—backyard
collection—significantly added
to costs. The data also helped
Winston-Salem justify an
upfront investment in roll-out
carts in order to realize longterm savings after full
implementation.
6
This case was written in October 2005
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
Household Recycling
City of Wilmington
Low Efficiency Leads to Privatization of
Recycling and Significant Savings
Background
The city’s recycling program began in 1990 as the S.M.A.R.T.
program—Separate Materials and Recycle Together. Public
pressure was the primary catalyst for the creation of the recycling
program, and Wilmington was one of the first jurisdictions in
North Carolina to offer curbside recycling. The program was
managed with limited equipment, utilized its own material
recovery facility (MRF), and marketed its own recycling sales.
In FY 1997–1998, Wilmington created a new position in the
solid waste division to analyze the changing needs in the
downtown area for refuse collection as well as to explore the
possibility of contracting out recycling services. The need to
evaluate the service area of recycling came from the suspicion
that the city had outgrown the S.M.A.R.T. program. The method
of collection was manual, which utilized flatbed trucks with
ninety-gallon carts as sorting bins and manually sorted
recyclables at each collection point. Trucks had to return to the
recycling center two to three times per day, which delayed the
completion of routes. To continue the program in-house would
require the city to make a large capital investment in four suitable
recycling trucks estimated to cost from $320,000 to
$480,000—almost the total budget for the program itself.
Tons Collected per FTE
FY 1994–1995
800
600
400
200
0
592.5
146.6
Wilmington
Average
Cost per Ton Collected
FY 1994–1995
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0
$308
$151
Wilmington
Average
Analysis
Benchmarking data from Performance and Cost Data: Phase I City Services published in October 1997 were
used to confirm that the current recycling program was not efficient when compared to the municipal
average. The number of tons of recyclables collected per FTE in Wilmington was only one fourth of the
municipal average. The cost per ton of recyclables collected also was twice as high as the municipal
average.
The city’s analysis found that the budgeted direct costs for its recycling program in FY 1997–1998
totaled $545,400. Anticipated revenues from recycling sales were budgeted at $60,000. It was determined in
the analysis that one program manager could be retained and reassigned other duties within the solid
waste division. After making this adjustment, the net number was determined to be the amount that
would, in essence, “go away” with privatization. Converted, the eliminated costs equaled $3.60 per month
per collection point.
City of Wilmington Analysis of Estimated Savings for Recycling Program
Year 1
Year 2 and Year 3
Number of collection points
10,000
10,000
12,000
15,000
City Recycling Program
Total direct costs (FY 1997–1998)
$545,400
Recycling revenue
$60,000
Staff expenses retained
$53,500
“Go away” costs for privatization
comparison
$431,900
$431,900
$518,280
$647,850
Monthly cost per collection point
$3.60
$3.60
$3.60
$3.60
Contract Recycling Program
Monthly rate per collection point
$2.39
$3.29
$3.29
$3.29
Annual cost
$286,800
$394,800
$473,760
$592,200
Annual Savings via Contract
$145,100
$37,100
$44,520
$55,650
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
This case was written in October 2005
7
Household Recycling
City of Wilmington
Low Efficiency Leads to Privatization of
Recycling and Significant Savings
A contractor provided a four-year proposal which allowed for a tiered rate structure guaranteeing the
largest savings in the first year and smaller savings in the second, third, and fourth years. The first year rate
of $2.39 per month per collection point versus the $3.60 per month per collection point of eliminated costs
produced a first year savings of $145,100. The subsequent rate of $3.29 resulted in savings from $37,100 to
$55,650, depending on any increase in participation in the voluntary recycling program.
Actions
A recommendation to contract the recycling service was made based on the analysis. A new section within
the solid waste division was created for the much needed improvements in downtown services and
absorbed a portion of the reduction in city staff from the recycling section. Both changes became effective
in January 1998.
Outcomes
The effect of the shift to privatization
Cost per Ton Collected
can clearly be seen by examining the
cost of the recycling program per ton
Privatization in the
$350
$308
middle of FY 1998
of material collected over time.
$300
Wilmington
Starting at $308 in FY 1994–1995, the
$234
Average
$250
cost dropped by approximately one$207
third after privatization took place in
$200
Data were not
1998 to $207. Because of further
collected for FY
$150
1996 or 1997
changes, the cost per ton collected in
$100
Wilmington dropped to $128 in FY
$128
2003–2004. Wilmington is now below
$50
the municipal average. These rates
$0
are expressed in actual dollars and
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
would be even lower if adjusted for
Fiscal Year
inflation.
Additional improvements have
been made as part of the ongoing
contract. During FY 1999–2000, the
recycling contractor converted from
two-person crews to one-person
crews. The collection method also changed from source separation at the curb by collectors to mixed
collection or single stream collection. Materials are now separated at a private facility in Raleigh, North
Carolina. Because the regional material recovery facility (MRF) had additional recycling sales markets,
Wilmington has been able to expand its paper product recyclables to include magazines, cardboard boxes,
phone books and paperback books, cereal and food boxes, brochures, junk mail and paper bags, catalogues
(less than two inches thick), and file folders.
Other changes also have been reflected in the comparative data. Approximately 61 percent of the eligible
collection points participated in voluntary recycling in FY 1994–1995, with the rate rising to 84 percent in
FY 2003–2004. Another measure of effectiveness, the percentage of total household refuse tonnage that
was recycled rather than sent to the landfill, increased from 8 percent in FY 1994–995 to 13 percent in FY
2003–2004.
When faced with a budgetary decision to maintain in-house service or to privatize, the comparative
measures from the North Carolina Benchmarking Project were an integral part of the analysis process. The
data also have been used to track performance and costs over time to serve as a catalyst for further service
and process improvements.
8
This case was written in October 2005
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
Police Services
City of Greensboro
Comparisons and Further Study
Lead to More Officers Being Hired
Background
The police department in Greensboro
regularly made supplemental budget
requests for additional officers up until
2003, claiming to be significantly
understaffed. At the same time, city council
members were receiving feedback from
citizens that crime was increasing within
their districts and that those neighborhoods
needed a greater police presence. A new
police chief had recently been hired who
placed a high priority on proactive patrol.
In response to these issues, the city
manager requested a joint analysis of the
patrol function in fall 2003 by the budget
and evaluation department and the police
department, which would provide the city
council with various options regarding
additional patrol officers based on varying
service levels.
Sworn Police Officers per 1,000 Population
FY 2002–2003
2.3
2.2
2.47
2.43
2.5
2.4
2.25
2.22
2.1
2
Greensboro
Durham
Raleigh
WinstonSalem
Analysis
Response Time to High Priority Calls in
The basic plan of the analysis was to (1)
Minutes for FY 2002–2003
study current service levels in Greensboro,
(2) compare those service levels to peer
municipalities, and (3) create a menu of
8.3
10
options for council members based on the
6.3
8
5.7
comparisons. The following areas were
6
2.5
4
points of emphasis in determining current
2
service levels: total calls for service,
0
response times, and shift relief factor—the
Greensboro
Durham
Raleigh
Winstonamount of time that patrol officers were
Salem
spending answering calls for service versus
proactive police functions.
After gauging current service levels, the
next step in the process was to compare
these service levels with identified peer
municipalities: Durham, Raleigh, and Winston-Salem. Although not all the benchmarking data regarding
workload and response were collected and reported in the level of detail needed for the analysis, they were
a good source of information for higher level comparisons. Using the benchmarking data also added
legitimacy to the analysis because efforts had been made to ensure an “apples to apples” comparison.
The following information was revealed by the data analysis:
• Greensboro had 2.22 sworn police officers per 1,000 population, which was lower than peer
municipalities.
• A Greensboro patrol officer spent approximately 20.5 percent of his or her time on administrative
duties, 72.9 percent answering calls, and 6.6 percent on proactive functions.
• Calls dispatched per sworn officer of 466 was below the peer average of approximately 510.
• Response time to high priority calls of 8.3 minutes was much higher than peer municipalities.
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
This case was written in October 2005
9
Police Services
City of Greensboro
Comparisons and Further Study
Lead to More Officers Being Hired
Actions
In presenting this information to the city council, the study team stressed that no single finding or
performance measure would indicate how many, if any, new officers should be hired. Instead, all of the
findings should be used to gain a better understanding of current service levels and how Greensboro
compared to its peers. This information should then be used by city council to determine what level of
service should be provided within funding constraints.
The information was presented to the city council with a focus on the daily activities of the average
patrol officer. The report indicated that the time required for administrative duties and responding to calls
for service only left 6.6 percent (0.73 hours of an eleven-hour shift) of an average patrol officer’s time
available for proactive duties. Given this finding, four staffing options were presented to the city council
along with projected outcomes. The city council ultimately funded thirty-two additional patrol officers,
which was estimated to increase proactive patrol time by 8.7 percentage points, from 6.6 percent of an
eleven-hour shift to
15.3 percent of an
Staffing Options Summary
eleven-hour shift.
Additional
Administrative
CFS
Proactive/
Percentage
These additional
Officers
Time
Time
Patrol Time
Increase
officers represented
Current
20.5%
72.9%
6.6%
a 6 percent increase
Option 1
17
20.5%
68.0%
11.5%
5%
in total position
Option 2
37
20.5%
63.0%
16.5%
10%
Option 3
60
20.5%
58.0%
21.5%
15%
control for the
Option 4
99
20.5%
51.0%
28.5%
22%
police department.
Outcomes
The officers were approved and hired for FY 2004–2005. During that year, the police department
conducted two academy classes as opposed to its usual single attrition class. Because each class undergoes
twenty-six weeks of academy training and fourteen weeks of field training, the additional officers were not
available for duty until the end of FY 2004–2005. Performance measures will be used to determine the
success of this policy decision.
10
This case was written in October 2005
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
Emergency Communications
City of Asheville
Low Call Workload Eventually
Leads to Staff Reductions
Background
The Asheville budget office began to have
concerns about the performance and
staffing levels in the emergency
communications function after the Final
Report on City Services for Fiscal Year
1999–2000 was published in February 2001.
The benchmarking data revealed that the
number of calls answered per
telecommunicator was substantially lower
than the municipal average for two
consecutive fiscal years, suggesting that
Asheville might be overstaffed in
emergency communications. The
effectiveness measure of average number of
seconds from initial ring to answer also
revealed that telecommunicators were
slower in answering calls than the
municipal average.
Analysis
Calls Answered per Telecommunicator
15,000
10,000
13,515
11,569
6,825
Asheville
6,837
Average
5,000
0
1999
2000
Fiscal Year
Average Number of Seconds
from Initial Ring to Answer
20
18
15
10
18
14
11
Asheville
Average
5
0
The city hired a summer graduate intern in
1999
2000
Fiscal Year
2001 from the Master of Public
Administration Program at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. One
component of the intern’s work plan was to
complete an operations audit of emergency
communications in response to the benchmarking results. The operations audit included interviews with
emergency communications staff members; site visits to document and analyze processes; interviews with
School of Government project staff members; and contact with other municipalities and professional
organizations, such as the International City/County Management Association.
The operations audit produced a number of findings for improvement to the emergency
communications function:
• Asheville’s computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system required more personnel to operate effectively
than systems from other municipalities.
• Long-term cost savings could be realized through acquiring a split-screen system that was not as
personnel-intensive to operate.
• Staffing schedules were not sensitive to call volume. Using data on normal call activity for each shift
to set staffing levels would better balance needs with available staff.
• Enhanced computer training for telecommunicators was needed.
• Programs or incentives to reduce employee turnover could help stabilize the staff.
Initial Actions
The operations audit was completed in July 2001. There was a great deal of resistance in the police
department to making any changes in emergency communications, especially changes to staffing
schedules. Therefore, no changes were made to the emergency communications function in response to
the operations audit.
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
This case was written in October 2005
11
Emergency Communications
City of Asheville
Low Call Workload Eventually
Leads to Staff Reductions
Issues with emergency communications resurfaced in January 2003. During the annual city council
retreat in preparation for the FY 2003–2004 operating budget, city staff presented concerns about time
delays that were occurring from Buncombe County transferring over 32,849 emergency police and fire
calls to Asheville’s emergency communications center. At that time, staff recommended to the city council
that Asheville create its own primary 911 Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) in order to provide more
rapid response to emergency calls within the city. The council requested more information on the subject.
Buncombe County responded with a written proposal to construct a joint emergency communications
center at no cost to the city if Asheville would agree to not pursue the PSAP recommendation. The council
took action affirming support to participate in the joint emergency communications center. During the
interim, Buncombe County agreed to begin dispatching the city’s fire calls. In September 2003 the city
council authorized the city manager to execute a performance-based contract with Buncombe County for
dispatch of fire calls (approximately 11,389 calls annually), with the city continuing to dispatch police calls.
Further Actions and Outcomes
Buncombe County began dispatching fire
Calls Answered per Telecommunicator
calls in March 2004. With this change, the
overall annual workload for the city’s
16000
14,157
emergency communications function was
14000
reduced by approximately 11,000 calls.
10,639
12000
However, no positions were eliminated in
10000
the emergency communications function.
8000
The benchmarking data from the Final
9,595
8,471
Report on City Services in FY 2003–2004
6000
6,825
captured only four months of this new
Asheville
4000
scenario—reduced workload with no
Average
2000
reduction in staff. Calls answered per
0
telecommunicator, as a result, decreased
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
from 9,595 in FY 2002–2003 to 8,471 in FY
Fiscal Year
2003–2004, which equates to a 12 percent
reduction.
During the FY 2005–2006 operating
budget process, the city council directed
the city manager to submit a list of
potential budget reductions that would provide funding for several council priorities that were not
included in the manager’s proposed budget. The budget director contacted the police chief in regard to
Asheville’s workload in emergency communications, which was lower than the municipal average and had
dropped even further with the transfer of fire call dispatch to the county. The police chief agreed to include
three vacant telecommunicator positions on the list of potential budget reductions that were submitted to
the city council. During its budget work sessions, the council accepted this staff recommendation and
eliminated the three vacant positions. This reduction amounted to annual savings of approximately
$105,000, which council reallocated to fund its priorities.
The experience in Asheville points to the importance of having comparative data across municipalities.
The availability of reasonably equivalent data allowed the identification of a potential problem and
provided evidence to support the need for change. However, the analysis was initially not sufficient by
itself. The Asheville example also demonstrates the need for patience and persistence. Even with the initial
operations audit pointing to overstaffing, change did not take place immediately. Additional forces had to
come into play before the benchmarking evidence could be fully implemented for producing change.
12
This case was written in October 2005
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
Asphalt Maintenance & Repair
City of Hickory
Slow Pot Hole Repairs Lead to
Purchase of Hot-Patch Truck
Background
Benchmarking data from the Final Report on City Services for
Fiscal Year 1997–1998 revealed that Hickory’s 85 percent of
potholes repaired within twenty-four hours was much lower
than the municipal average of 96 percent. Furthermore,
Hickory ranked last in this measure out of the eleven
municipalities participating in the benchmarking project at
that time. The measure prompted an investigation into why
Hickory’s performance was low and what could be done for
improvement.
Percentage of Potholes
Repaired within 24 Hours
FY 1997–1998
100%
85%
96%
75%
50%
25%
Analysis
Staff members of the asphalt maintenance and repair
0%
function contacted the other municipalities in looking for
Hickory
Average
process improvement strategies and determined that a
specialized piece of equipment called a hot-patch truck was a
key factor in the efficiency and effectiveness of pothole repair.
This type of truck is designed with a hot box that keeps the
asphalt at a constant temperature, enabling workers to
respond to potholes even when the asphalt plant is not
open or not in operation. Hot patch also is more effective
than cold patch when filling a pothole.
The benchmarking data revealed that pothole repair was a specific problem rather than a general
problem in Hickory’s asphalt maintenance and repair function. Other performance measures showed that
Hickory was more cost efficient in terms of cost per lane mile resurfaced and cost per ton of asphalt for
contract resurfacing. Hickory also ranked close to the municipal average in terms of the quality of streets as
measured by street segments rated 85 percent or better. The performance data helped to pinpoint the
nature of the problem to a specific process.
Actions
Although a hot-patch truck was identified as a key solution, staff members knew that securing funds for
this capital investment would take some time; therefore, they initiated other interim process
improvements. First, a higher priority was placed on repairing potholes in a timely manner. Second,
improvements were made to the reporting system to make sure that the repair of potholes was tracked and
accurately documented. Third, staff members began keeping on hand cold-patch bags of mix for repair of
potholes when the asphalt plant was not open.
Staff members of asphalt maintenance and repair made a presentation at the city council/staff retreat in
2000 on the need for a hot-patch truck, using the benchmarking data for justification. Their ability to show
the percentage of pothole repairs within twenty-four hours in the context of other municipalities was
extremely useful in convincing city council members to support the need for improvement in this area. A
recommendation was made to add the new equipment to improve the efficiency and effectiveness levels of
this important process. Response was favorable from the city council, and they approved the hot-patch
truck purchase for the following budget year.
The city of Hickory was able to save money on the purchase by piggybacking on a bid process initiated by
the city of Fayetteville. Hickory justified the purchase at $150,000 for the hot-patch truck. The actual cost
of the hot-patch truck was $102,605. The truck was received on January 14, 2002.
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
This case was written in October 2005
13
Asphalt Maintenance & Repair
City of Hickory
Slow Pot Hole Repairs Lead to
Purchase of Hot-Patch Truck
Outcomes
As a result of the initial process
Percentage of Potholes Repaired within 24 Hours
improvements and the addition of
the hot-patch truck, workers are
100%
97%
97%
able to respond to potholes in a
95%
more efficient manner. The initial
process improvements in 1999 and
2000 brought Hickory’s percentage
93%
93%
90%
92%
of potholes repaired within twentyfour hours up from 85 percent in FY
1997–1998 to 93 percent in FY
85%
Process
Patch Truck
2000–2001. Following the purchase
Improvements
Purchased in
80%
of the hot-patch truck in 2002,
in 1999–2000
Jan 2002
Hickory’s percentage went up to 97
Hickory
percent in FY 2001–2002 and has
Average
remained constant since that time.
70%
The availability of benchmarking
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
data helped Hickory identify a
Fiscal Year
particular problem within asphalt
maintenance and repair and build
The municipal average has been adjusted for FY 2000 and 2001 to
reflect corrections from the original report data for one of the
support for a solution. Rather than a
municipalities.
single one-time fix, Hickory
addressed the problem over time
with a set of process improvements
that included the purchase of a hotpatch truck. This ongoing
commitment to improvement is reflective of the Total Quality Management (TQM) initiative that Hickory
has embraced. The data not only alerted local officials to a specific problem, they provided a peer group to
contact in order to identify possible solutions for improving the service.
14
This case was written in October 2005
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
Fire Services
City of Hickory
Expanding to Include Medical Calls
Improves Services and Efficiency
Background
A new fire chief conducted an in-depth analysis of the Hickory
fire department in 1997 and identified several areas that needed
attention. One of the areas involved the service delivery
function for emergency responses, which only included fire
calls. Because firefighters are considered life savers and
emergency responders the question was asked: Why did the
members of the fire department not have the basic medical and
rescue training needed to protect themselves within their own
emergency operational environment and provide this basic
service to the community they serve? Initial concerns included
medical response was too expensive, the possibility that
territorial issues with the county’s EMS and rescue squads
would arise, and the resistance by firefighters to getting
involved with calls involving medical services.
Fire Department Responses
per 1,000 Population in
FY 1998–1999
93
100
75
50
51
25
0
Hickory
Average
Building Support
Performance and cost data for fire services were collected and
Cost per Fire Department
reported for the first time in the Final Report on City Services
Response in FY 1998–1999
for Fiscal Year 1998–1999. The comparative data revealed that
Hickory’s fire department responses per 1,000 population were
$4,000
$3,246
substantially lower than the municipal average and that the cost
$3,000
per fire department response was almost twice the municipal
$1,449
$2,000
average. The primary reason for these differences was the fact
$1,000
that Hickory’s fire department did not respond to medical calls.
$0
These comparative data were used by the fire chief to help
Hickory
Average
build his case for medical and rescue training, which would
eventually allow the fire department to respond to emergency
medical calls and decrease its overall cost per response.
Several meetings were held with EMS and rescue
coordinators from Catawba County on the importance of having qualified fire personnel responding to
basic medical and rescue calls. An important part of the planning was to gain the support of firefighters. It
was stressed that these additional skills would improve their ability to help one another in case of injury.
Analysis was conducted on the various options for training and certifying personnel.
Actions
The recommendation was made to provide training to firefighter I and II personnel while on shift. In
addition, it was determined that all training could be conducted with in-house instructors. After the
support of city management was obtained, firefighters began work on their EMT, EMT-D, and ERT
(extrication) certification. Formal partnerships also were developed with the county’s EMS and rescue
squads to facilitate cooperation and define roles. The process for firefighter certification began in March
2000 and was completed in October 2000. On January 1, 2001, Hickory’s fire department started
responding to emergency medical calls.
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
This case was written in October 2005
15
Fire Services
City of Hickory
Expanding to Include Medical Calls
Improves Services and Efficiency
Outcomes
The service changes in Hickory have led
to a dramatic increase in the number of
medical responses by the fire
department. The total number of
medical responses has risen from
eighty-five in FY 1998–1999 (or less
than two per week) to 3,032 in FY
2004–2005 or fifty-eight responses per
week. As with other municipalities in
the benchmarking project, medical
responses are now the most common
type of response for Hickory’s fire
department.
The expanded service delivery is
funded within the general fund. During
FY 2004–2005, the cost of this expanded
service was $137,844. This cost equates
to $3.19 per citizen or $45.46 per
medical call. As a result of the service
delivery change, the following benefits
are recognized:
• Certification allows the fire
department to provide basic
medical care and rescue services
to firefighters, other emergency
personnel, and the general public.
• The response time for qualified
personnel to arrive on scene to
basic medical and rescue calls has
been reduced throughout the
service area.
• The fire department has realized
an increase in efficiency, which is
reflected by a reduction in the cost
per response.
• There is a minimal cost to
providing qualified medical and
rescue service to the community,
which helps enhance the quality of
life within the community.
Medical Responses by Hickory Fire Department
3500
3000
3,032
2500
2000
1500
Expanded service
began in the
middle of FY 2001
1000
500
85
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Fiscal Year
Cost per Fire Department Response
$3,500
Expanded service
began in the
middle of FY 2001
$3,246
$3,000
$2,500
$1,832
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
Hickory
$500
City Average
$0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Fiscal Year
While the benchmarking data did not provide the original impetus for the service delivery change, it did
provide information that was helpful in making the case for change. The suggestion for change in the
service delivery system was not initially embraced. Persistence, planning, and the availability of good
comparative data were essential for expanding the role of the fire department in Hickory.
16
This case was written in October 2005
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
Fleet Maintenance
City of Concord
Benchmarking Spurs Focus on
Performance and Cost Savings
Background
Performance and cost data for fleet maintenance
were collected and reported for the first time in
the Final Report on City Services for FY 2001–2002.
The comparative data for Concord revealed several
potential problems, including low shop
productivity and excessive repeat repairs within
thirty days. Concord also discovered a high
number of breakdowns during the day, which
affected the productivity in other departments as
their equipment was not available for use.
Consequently, problems in fleet maintenance were
increasing unscheduled maintenance work orders
(breakdowns) and decreasing the number of
scheduled maintenance work orders (preventive
maintenances for brakes, tires, etc.). Scheduled
maintenance work orders are the most costeffective, productive form of vehicle maintenance
and decrease the likelihood of costly breakdowns.
Analysis
Hours Billed as a Percentage of Billable
Hours for FY 2001–2002
80%
60%
40%
68%
53%
Concord
Average
20%
0%
Percentage of Work Orders Requiring
Repeat Repair within 30 Days for
FY 2001–2002
1.5%
1.1%
0.9%
1.0%
Concord
0.5%
Average
0.0%
After analyzing the comparative benchmarking
data, staff members examined the operations of
fleet maintenance in greater detail and found
multiple deficiencies. Fleet management was
unaware of performance issues; mechanics were
provided little structure and given no expectations
as to job efficiency or shop productivity; fleet staffing structure was inefficient; many fleet processes were
inefficient (state inspections, preventive maintenance procedures, scheduling and prioritizing work); the
method of buying parts increased downtime; warranty issues were not weighed against downtime; lack of
communication between fleet maintenance and other city functions increased repair costs; fleet software
absorbed too much management time; and vital scheduled maintenance was not being performed.
Actions
The most effective change was simply implementing accountability. Each mechanic is now aware of
performance standards and is provided a report of individual and team productivity accomplishments on a
monthly basis. Not only do they see how they personally affect productivity, but they also understand how
and why the many process changes fleet maintenance has implemented affect overall productivity. The
process changes included the creation of preventive maintenance check sheets (to ensure quality and
promote accountability); the reduction of management staff by one full-time equivalent position; the
implementation of state and federal inspection programs (saving the cost of outsourcing and travel time); a
change of purchasing practices to promote competition; the use of multiple vendors to increase the
likelihood of completing repairs within twenty-four hours; the flagging of vehicles near retirement to
reduce unnecessary maintenance; the reorganization of second shift to focus on preventive maintenance as
opposed to repairs; the creation of trouble forms to expedite communication between first and second shift
supervisors; and the enforcement of preventive-operation checks which decrease unscheduled
maintenance work orders.
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
This case was written in October 2005
17
Fleet Maintenance
City of Concord
Benchmarking Spurs Focus on
Performance and Cost Savings
Outcomes
The operational changes helped reduce
maintenance costs by three cents per
vehicle-mile, from eighteen cents in 2002 to
fifteen cents in 2005. This represents a
savings of $120,000 over a three-year period
in Concord’s fleet maintenance operations.
The elimination of a management position
also created an annual savings of
approximately $45,000.
Other improvements were documented
as well. Hours billed as a percentage of
billable hours increased from 53 percent in
FY 2001–2002 to 70 percent in FY
2003–2004. The percentage of work orders
completed within twenty-four hours
increased from 81 percent to 86 percent
and the percentage of work orders requiring
repeat repairs within thirty days decreased
from 1.1 percent to 0.4 percent during the
same time period.
Another area of improvement occurred in
the replacement of transmissions. After the
transmission preventive maintenance
program was implemented, the replacement
of transmissions decreased from twentyfour in 2002 to five in 2005.
A key to any successful performance
measurement program begins with accurate
and meaningful data. Effectiveness and
efficiency measures are more useful than
workload measures, and Concord has found
it beneficial to track these measures on a
monthly basis as opposed to annually.
Sharing performance information and
getting buy-in from those actually doing the
work also are crucial to a successful
performance measurement program.
Maintenance Costs per Mile Traveled
$0.20
$0.18
$0.16
$0.16
$0.15
2003
2004
2005
$0.15
$0.10
$0.05
$0.00
2002
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Hours Billed as a Percentage
of Billable Hours
71%
70%
68%
67%
70%
53%
Concord
Average
2002
2003
2004
Percentage of Work Orders Completed
within 24 Hours
100%
85%
95%
94%
85%
86%
80%
60%
81%
40%
Concord
20%
Average
0%
2002
2003
2004
Percentage of Work Orders Requiring
Repeat Repairs within 30 Days
1.5%
Concord
1.1%
Average
1.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4%
0.0%
2002
18
This case was written in October 2005
2003
2004
North Carolina Benchmarking Project
Other School Publications …
Order these and other
North Carolina Local Government Performance Measurement Project
School of Government
A Guide to the North Carolina Local Government Performance Measurement Project
publications online using
February 2001
our secure shopping cart at
www.sog.unc.edu
or contact the Sales Office at
Edited by William C. Rivenbark for the North Carolina Local Government Performance Measurement Project*
Presents the methods developed and used by the North Carolina Performance Measurement Project, an effort to encourage the
use of performance measurement and benchmarking, to produce comparable performance and cost data, and to promote data
use for the purpose of service or process improvement. It represents the work of public officials in North Carolina who are
committed to improving the numerous services provided by local government.
sales@sog.unc.edu or
Final Report on City Services for Fiscal Year 2003–2004: Performance and Cost Data February 2005
919.966.4119 to learn more
To receive an automatic e-mail
Prepared by William C. Rivenbark for the North Carolina Local Government Performance Measurement Project*
Presents fiscal year ended June 30, 2004, performance and cost data for fifteen North Carolina cities in the service areas of
residential refuse collection, household recycling, yard waste/leaf collection, police services, emergency communications, asphalt
maintenance and repair, fire services, building inspections, fleet maintenance, and human resources.
announcement when new titles
Final Report on City Services for Fiscal Year 2002–2003: Performance and Cost Data February 2004
are published, join the New
Listserv by visiting
Prepared by William C. Rivenbark and Matthew H. Dutton for the North Carolina Local Government Performance Measurement Project*
Presents fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, performance and cost data for fourteen North Carolina cities in the service areas of
residential refuse collection, household recycling, yard waste/leaf collection, police services, emergency communications, asphalt
maintenance and repair, fire services, building inspections, and fleet maintenance.
www.sog.unc.edu/
Final Report on City Services for Fiscal Year 2001–2002: Performance and Cost Data February 2003
about our publications program.
Publications Bulletin Board
listservs.htm.
Prepared by William C. Rivenbark and Matthew H. Dutton for the North Carolina Local Government Performance Measurement Project*
Presents fiscal year ended June 30, 2002, performance and cost data for thirteen North Carolina cities in the service areas of
residential refuse collection, household recycling, yard waste/leaf collection, police services, emergency communications, asphalt
maintenance and repair, fire services, building inspections, and fleet maintenance.
*For more information on the North Carolina Local Government Performance Measurement Project, please see
www.sog.unc.edu/programs/perfmeas/index.html.
Capital Budgeting and Finance: A Guide for Local Governments
2004, a joint venture of the School of Government and the ICMA
A. John ”Jack” Vogt
An up-to-date and comprehensive how-to manual for planning and financing capital projects. Clearly explains capital budgeting
approaches and methods, especially for local jurisdictions under 200,000 in population, and is a valuable resource for city and
county managers, finance and budget officials, planning directors, public works administrators, and other officials involved in decisions to meet public infrastructure and facility needs. Presents accepted and successful policies and practices from across the country,
including many North Carolina illustrations, and describes key steps, including project identification, planning and prioritizing
projects, developing a capital finance strategy, paying for projects, and structuring and selling debt.
Performance Budgeting for State and Local Government
2003, published by M.E. Sharpe
Janet M. Kelly and William C. Rivenbark
Describes performance budgeting as the integration of the components of performance management—planning, performance
measurement, benchmarking, and evaluation—into the framework of state and local government budgeting. Presents performance
budgeting, not as a stand-alone budgeting technique, but as an extension of the traditional budget process that reconciles financial
and operational accountability.
Tools for Decision Making: A Practical Guide for Local Government
2002, published by Congressional Quarterly Press
David N. Ammons
An assortment of analytical tools to help local government officials make decisions daily in order to maximize efficiency and equity.
Whether utilizing performance standards, making adjustments for inflation, or choosing to contract out a service, decision makers will
use this book to employ field-tested techniques when dealing with politically charged situations.
2006.00
ISBN 1-56011-XXX-X
