HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090217 - VIII-C-2MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Dave Osberg, City Administrator
DATE: February 12, 2008
SUBJECT: High Performance Partnership MOU
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council take action authorizing the approval of the
enclosed Dakota County High Performance Partnership (HiPP) Memorandum of
Understanding. (MOU). If approved, the City Council will need to appoint a member to
serve on the Steering Committee.
BACKGROUND
In 2003 during another fiscal crisis, strong interest developed throughout Dakota County
to form collaborative partnerships, to more effectively and efficiently deliver local
government services. Dakota County and its 11 largest Cities, collectively undertook a
study of partnership opportunities. The study objective was to identify collaborative ideas
with the highest potential for enhanced service delivery, reduced costs of service
delivering, or both.
Using surveys, a citizen's forum and focus groups, 20 high potential opportunities were
identified. Six opportunities with the greatest potential were defined, using a decision
matrix developed from HiPP. Intergovernmental work teams determined the
implementation steps necessary to take advantage of the highest potential opportunities.
Collaborative work across a variety of topics including employee relations, information
technology and public safety has been realized as a result of the first six years of the
HiPP initiative. Most notably, after more than a decade of failed attempts to reach
agreement to centralize six public safety dispatch centers, implementation of a
consolidated dispatch operation (along with implementation of a shared 800 MHZ
communications system) is now complete. In the first year, operational savings of $1.4
million are projected, with $8 million in savings projected over a five year period.
Subcommittees made up of Staff from participating organizations, and led by one elected
official and one appointed official worked on the highest potential topics until the
collaborative goal was achieved, delegated to another avenue, or determined to be
unfeasible. A Steering Committee made up of interested elected and appointed officials
from the partner organizations have met regularly since 2004, to provide direction and
communication structure for the subcommittees. Apple Valley Mayor Mary Hamman-
Roland and I have served as the Co-Chairs of the Steering Committee since 2004.
Recent meetings of the Steering Committee, along with the County Managers group who
meet monthly have resulted in the conclusion that the HiPP initiative has been successful
and there is a continuing need for the collaboration venue it offers. Since most of the
originally identified high potential opportunities from the original study have been
completed or dismissed or re-assigned, it is necessary to re-focus the efforts of the group,
at this time. In addition to studying new high potential topics, the Steering Committee
hopes that a refocusing effort will re-invigorate participants and clarify structure,
organization and purpose for the HiPP initiative. At the most recent meeting of the HiPP
Steering Committee and County Manager's meeting, it was agreed that member Cities
and the County would be asked to approve the Memorandum of Understanding, which
attempts to re-invigorate and re-focus the group. There is no financial commitment
outlined in the MOU for any member City or the County.
In addition, the City Council will need to appoint a member to the Steering Committee,
who will be able to make the commitment of perhaps monthly meetings of the Steering
Committee. Each City Administrator/City Manager throughout the County will also serve
on the Steering Committee.
I have attached the actual Memorandum of Understanding for review by the City
Council, along with a summary document that clearly spells out the history of the High
Performance Partnership Project.
David 1VI. Os
City Admini:
Attachment A
DAKOTA COUNTY
HIGH PERFORMANCE PARTNERSHIP
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Background
The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to define and agree upon
the responsibilities of Dakota County and its Cities who are participants in the High
Performance Partnership (HiPP), who have committed to advance the sharing of local
government services throughout Dakota County.
The HiPP project is a collaborative effort among Dakota County and its Cities, which
has been working on a variety of projects since its inception in 2004. Six initiatives were
originally selected through a scoring methodology on a rigorous set of criteria around the
magnitude of potential success and the likelihood of achieving success. The original six
initiatives were chosen from a larger list of 40 ideas, as well as citizen input, and a survey
of staff and elected officials. In recent months, HiPP has completed, delegated or
disbanded nearly all of its original six initiatives.
The scope of this MOU covers the intentions of the parties, their responsibilities,
measures of effectiveness and the ongoing administration of the MOU. The parties will at
all times seek a cooperative approach to addressing issues of regionaUcounty
significance. The parties believe that this MOU is an important step to formalize, build
and strengthen the constructive relationships that already exist between them. The initial
MOU will be completed between the primary parties responsible for the development of
the initial High Performance Partnership, namely:
Dakota County
City of Burnsville
City of Lakeville
City of West St. Paul
City of South St. Paul
City of Inver Grove Heights
City of Rosemount
City of Hastings
City of Apple Valley
City of Eagan
City of Sunfish Lake
City of Mendota Heights
City of Farmington
Subsequent amendments to this MOU maybe approved to include other Cities or
regional agencies, equally committed to the cooperative approach of the original HiPP
initiative.
Attachment A
INTENTION OF THE PARTIES
The parties are committed to the vision, outcomes and principles of the High
Performance Partnership. As such, the parties to this MOU agree in principle to the
following:
a.) An elected official from each organization shall be appointed to the Steering
Committee and will make a commitment to attend and actively participate in the
meetings of the Steering Committee.
b.) The City Manager/City Administrator (County Administrator), or other official in
the case of smaller communities who are a party to this MOU, shall make a
commitment to attend and actively participate in the meeting of the Steering
Committee.
c.) The Steering Committee shall serve as the forum (platform) to bring for review
and discussion, collaborative efforts in which the parties may wish to consider for
formal recognition as a HiPP project.
d.) The Steering Committee shall review collaborative efforts under consideration,
using the same model from the original HiPP effort, with the basic understanding
that should it be designated as HiPP project, it shall clearly identify (1) the nature
and magnitude of the potential success, and (2) the likelihood of success.
e.) Each party to this MOU shall agree to routinely look at new projects, programs to
determine whether there are opportunities that would benefit from a joint
approach with other local governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE/AMENDMENT AND RENEWALS OF THE MOU
This MOU will take effect when all of the parties name previously have signed, and/or it
has been clearly communicated that they will not be participant in the HiPP projects. This
MOU may be amended from time to time by agreement between all the parties. This
MOU will remain in effect until superseded or suspended by mutual agreement by all
parties. The parties will at all times seek a cooperative approach to addressing issues of
local, regional and mutual interest. The parties agree that this MOU will be reviewed
within five years of its signing, or at any time agreed to by the parties.
2
Attachment B
SUMMARY- Dakota County High Performance Partnerships (HiPP) Project
The 2003 fiscal crisis created a climate that re-kindled strong interest in collaborative
partnerships among local units of government for more efficient and effective delivery of
services. Dakota County and its 11 largest cities collectively undertook the study of opportunities
to create additional partnerships. The objective was to identify the highest potential
opportunities for collaboration that will enhance service delivery, reduce the costs of delivering
services, or both. Using surveys, a citizen forum, and focus groups, 20 high potential
opportunities were identified. Six opportunities with the greatest potential were defined, using a
decision matrix developed for HiPP. Inter-governmental work teams determined the
implementation steps necessary to take advantage of the highest potential opportunities.
Through this collaborative effort, agreements to implement actions that were not able to be
achieved before were achieved. Most notably, after more than a decade of failed attempts to
reach agreement to centralize six public safety dispatch centers, implementation of a
consolidated dispatch operation (along with implementation of a shared 800 MHz
communications system) is underway. In the first year, operational savings of $1.4 million are
projected, with $8 million in savings projected over five years. Through its initial success, HiPP
has become a continuing intergovernmental initiative, exploring opportunities for additional
partnerships.
Dakota County High Performance Partnerships (HiPP) Project 1
Overview; The High Performance Partnerships (HiPP) Project is an initiative that explores
additional opportunities for partnerships among local governments in order to improve the quality
of services delivered to citizens, and to offer those services more cost-effectively. The initiative
arose out of a commitment to provide the right services in the best way possible, given budget
constraints and limited resources resulting from the 2003 fiscal crisis and resulting budget cuts
for local units of government in Minnesota.
HiPP reflects the critical input of citizens, elected officials, and city and county staff through
surveys, large group meetings, and focus group discussions in evaluating potential collaborations
that are most promising and applicable for implementation in Dakota County. As a result of the
initial analysis, 20 opportunities were identified as having the highest potential to enhance service
delivery or reduce costs, or both. The 20 opportunities were evaluated, using adecision-making
matrix developed for the project. The six highest potential opportunities were selected for
immediate attention, based on the HiPP analysis. Work Groups composed of city and county
elected ofFcials and senior staff formed to investigate the implementation steps necessary to act
on these six opportunities. The six opportunities addressed by the Work Groups are:
^ Establishment of centralized Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) and 9-1-1
dispatching service;
^ Creation of a law enforcement support center;
^ Specialized public safety equipment sharing;
^ Joint non-felony prosecution services;
^ Combined information technology operations, training, and purchasing; and
^ Joint purchasing of employee health care.
' Adapted from an application to the Association of Minnesota Counties 2005 Achievement
Award process.
Attachment B
By focusing on opportunities for mutual gains and by building organizational commitment and
consent through involvement of the key stakeholders in decisions, HiPP has been able to achieve
agreements to implement actions that will improve the quality of services provided, while
reducing the costs of providing these services, that were not able to be achieved by prior efforts.
Specifically:
After more than a decade of failed attempts to reach consent to centralize the multiple
Public Safety Answering Points (i.e., dispatch centers) in the County, consent has been
achieved to implement a consolidated dispatch operation, along with implementation of a
shared 800 MHz communications system. Initial capital investments will total over $17
million.
The County and its cities have expanded the fiber network linking government facilities
(city, county, and school district) and are in the initial stages of exploring using the fiber
system as the backbone for countywide wireless communications.
The County and cities are entering into joint initiatives to improve the health and
wellness of employees and reduce health care costs, as a result.
Based on an agreed upon cost-sharing formula, cities and counties are committing funds in their
2006 budgets to these efforts.
Because of its success, HiPP has become a continuing intergovernmental initiative in Dakota
County. Guided by a Steering Committee composed of elected and senior administrative officials,
HiPP continues to explore both opportunities for acting on the next tier of collaborative
opportunities identified in the initiative's initial studies and emerging opportunities that are
evolving from new strategic alliances and public collaboration.
While the opportunities for collaboration and partnerships are not new or unique to Dakota
County, the process of bringing elected and appointed officials together to agree to actively
pursue opportunities has facilitated setting public policy priorities and promoted unprecedented
intergovernmental coordination and cooperation in addressing shared concerns. The outcomes
of the HiPP project will include more cost-effective delivery of services (e.g., as the result of the
consolidation of dispatch operations), improved administration as the result of ongoing
communication, and enhances effectiveness of local government as the result of the trust and
respect developed through the collaborative effort.
^ The Need for the HiPP -Origins
During the 1990s, Dakota County added 42,000 jobs and 33,000 households. This was 17%
and 23% of the metropolitan area total for the decade, respectively. Dakota County is
expected to add 120,000 people, 61,000 households and 47,000 jobs by 2020. The same
growth that has brought much prosperity to Dakota County now presents a number of
challenges to its citizens. Human services (e.g., social services and economic assistance) and
physical development needs (e.g., road and transit demands to efficiently and effectively
move the growing population) must be met at the same time that state and federal budget
constraints are combining with local pressures to keep property taxes low. These factors
were exacerbated by the more than $4 billion shortfall faced by the State of Minnesota in
2003 and decisions to reduce both city and county aid payments as part of the solution to
the budget crisis.
To provide services more efficiently and at a lower cost, Dakota County has looked to
partnerships with other units of government. The County has entered into more than 75
Joint Powers Agreements. Dakota County and its cities share costs for road projects and
signal lights. Cooperative building agreements, such as for a County parks facility and a city
Attachment B
senior center in West St. Paul, have been devised. However, local administrators and local
elected officials, led by the County Board of Commissioners, identified the opportunity and
the need to do more.
Initial steps in the project confirmed the need and opportunity for cooperation and
coordination.
In a citizen survey, citizens were asked what they regard as the most serious issue in
their community today. Twenty-eight percent (28%) of the issues noted were related to
limited funds -- budget cuts, taxes, the difficulty of maintaining quality services in an
environment of declining or slow-growth budgets, and related issues. Respondents were
then asked if their local unit of government was doing the right amount of partnering
with other local governments to deliver services or should do more, or less. Fifty-five
percent (55%) responded that their local unit of government should do more, while only
7% said that their local government should do less.
Sixty County residents participated in a series of focus group discussions, and expressed
broad need and support for local government collaboration to save money, enhance
services, or both.
Results of a survey of employees of municipalities and the County were even more
striking. More than half of the issues that were raised centered on revenue, budgets,
and related issues. When asked whether their department or area should do more
partnering with other local units of government to deliver services, more than 60% of
local government employees agreed. None of the 161 respondents said that they should
do less. More than 80% reported that their department or area was already involved in
collaborative service delivery arrangements. A high level of satisfaction with the results
of those arrangements was reported.
The demands for greater cost-effectiveness, coupled with accomplishments already achieved
in improved service delivery, stimulated local governments in Dakota County to conclude that
additional opportunities for collaboration should be explored and action should be taken. The
County Administrator and City Managers/Administrators began discussing opportunities for
greater collaboration in July 2003, with reports back to elected leaders. During the second
half of 2003, a Request for Proposals for a small consulting contract ($25,000) were
developed and responses were evaluated. In January 2004, the Dakota County Board of
Commissioners approved the High Performance Partnerships (HiPP) Project, including a
consulting contract with Craig Rapp Consulting and Pepin Hugunin and Associates, to focus
on analyzing potential cooperative and partnership opportunities among local units of
government in Dakota County and identifying the highest potential opportunities for
implementation.
From its kick-off in January 2004, the timeline for HiPP has been:
• January 2004: HiPP Project is initiated
^ May 2004: Interim report drafted
• Survey report
• Citizen participation meeting and report
^ June 2004: Focus group report issued
^ July 2004: Final HiPP report issued
^ August 2004: Presentation of HiPP Project findings to the Dakota County
Board of Commissioners.
^ November 2004: Organization for next steps through establishment of six project
study teams for addressing issues associated with
implementation of recommended partnerships.
Attachment B
^ April-June 2005: Implementation reports from work groups
The County and the cities agreed that the High Performance Partnerships (HiPP) project
should be directed by a Steering Committee composed of city mayors and administrators, the
County Administrator, and the Chair of the Dakota County Board of Commissioners. The
Steering Committee continues to meet to coordinate actions related to the implementation of
the six highest potential initiatives and to explore both opportunities for acting on the next
tier of collaborative and emerging opportunities that are evolving from new strategic alliances
and public collaboration.
^ Project Description
Purpose/Objectives; The purpose of the HiPP Project was to evaluate a broad range
of potential partnerships that offer a more effective and/or efficient way for local
governments to provide programs and services within Dakota County and to establish
priorities for action. Based on these priorities, action steps to implement the highest
potential opportunities were to be developed and implemented. Specific objectives for the
HiPP Project were to:
^ Identify and recommend services that could be delivered jointly by several local units of
government in a collaborative manner;
^ Recommend services that would serve as models that many, if not most, units of
government in Dakota County might adopt;
^ Focus on issues that the County and/or cities are already addressing, and for which they
have clear responsibility and accountability; and
^ Develop evaluation criteria to be used for future evaluation of projects.
Assuming success in defining potential initiatives and the consent of the partners to pursue
their implementation, additional objectives of the HiPP Project were to:
• Define the action steps necessary to implement the highest potential partnership
opportunities; and
^ Secure the consent of local governments to approve the necessary actions to
implement the action steps.
As the outcome of the project, the infrastructure for the implementation of partnerships in
the highest potential areas of collaboration has been created. Work teams were formed to
develop implementation steps for the six highest priority initiatives, and implementation is
now underway. Most notably:
^ On May 27, 2005, an agreement of 11 cities and the County to provide emergency
response dispatch services (law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical) through a
single joint dispatch center using an 800 MHz radio communications system was
announced. The cities and the County agreed to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement,
defining the duties and responsibilities of each entity and cost-sharing agreements for
capital and operating funds.
The technology infrastructure that is the "backbone" that connects Dakota County users
to one another, the region, and the state through one dispatch center will be built at an
estimated cost of $10 to $11 million. A Communications Center will be constructed in a
central location within the County, at a cost of about $6.1 million. Significant capital
costs are avoided for implementation of the new technology at individual dispatch
centers.
4
Attachment B
Operating costs for the centralized dispatch center are projected to be $4.3 million in the
first year, saving about $1.4 million from current operating costs for the six individual
dispatch centers. The countywide operating budget savings are estimated to be up to $8
million over five years. Qualitative benefits include improved "interoperability" of
communication systems and improved command, control, and coordination of public
safety resources in cities across the County. Z
In addition:
The County and cities have expanded the fiber optic network linking government facilities
(county, city, and school district) and are in the initial stages of exploring using the fiber
system as the backbone for countywide wireless communications.
A proposal for the creation of a Public Safety Support Center (about $7.7 million) has
been developed and a bonding request prepared. Additional partnerships in the Center,
such as with the Minnesota State College and University system and the Metropolitan
Emergency Services Board, are being considered.
The County and cities are entering into joint initiatives to improve the health, wellness,
and safety of employees and to reduce health care costs, as a result.
Scope: The scope of the project focused on the primary expected outcome -the
identification of key partnerships that represent the best opportunities for joint service
delivery by local units of government in a collaborative manner in the County. The scope of
the project included:
^ The evaluation of a broad range of potential partnerships to arrive at three to five
opportunities that offer the best opportunities for success. In its initial stage, this project
was not charged with providing a definitive or final analysis (e.g., fiscal or cost/benefit
analysis, detailed feasibility study, or implementation plan) for any of the opportunities.
Rather, the project was intended to identify the opportunities and create the
infrastructure that would make it possible for the implementation steps to occur quickly.
^ A focus primarily on those services for which the responsibility and accountability clearly
rests with parties to the process (or, public-public partnerships), specifically those
between Dakota County and the cities (and, as appropriate, townships) located within
the County. (The project also considered potential partnerships with public jurisdictions
such as school districts and opportunities for privatization.)
^ The willingness to engage in any of the various types of formal relationships available to
participating local jurisdictions under Minnesota Statutes.
^ A preference for addressing issues that the County and/or cities are already engaged in,
and for which they have clear responsibility.
^ Openness to recommendations that establish relationships along a wide spectrum of
public sector partnership, from relatively less intensive to more intensive participation.
The services recommended for collaborative service delivery were intended to serve as
models applicable to the majority of local governments operating within Dakota County.
A small consulting contract (under $25,000) was let for assistance with services to facilitate
the process of gathering and processing information. Four tasks were assigned:
` The information for this application was developed in 2005. In the last 18 months, there has
been additional progress on the Dakota Communications Center that is not indicated in the
summary.
Attachment B
^ A literature review of collaborative best practices, including local, state, and federal
government reports, and research and reports by foundations, associations, and
academic programs.
• Solicitation of potential ideas through electronic and hardcopy surveys, with participation
by citizens, local government employees, and elected officials. (More than 300 citizens,
leaders, and employees were surveyed.)
• Support for workshops and discussions with city and County elected officials and senior
administrators.
^ Prioritization of potential partnerships via a citizens' forum of County residents and focus
group discussions. (The citizen forum involved more than 80 residents; the focus
groups, about 60 residents. Groups were roughly selected to be representative of the
County. )
The four methods of data collection and discussion with the Steering Committee resulted in
the identification of 20 ideas for potential additional collaboration in Dakota County. To
narrow the list of candidate partnerships to the project goal of three to five opportunities
with the highest potential for success and the greatest benefit, a "scorecard" was developed
against which each of the 20 potential partnerships was rated and ranked.
The scorecard was predicated on two indicators of effectiveness, each of which incorporated
five specific criteria. The two indicators of effectiveness and their associated considerations
were:
• The nature and the magnitude of the potentia/success If cost savings are
anticipated, for example, how significant are they? If the quality of service is expected to
improve, how substantial is the potential improvement? The considerations (criteria)
were:
• Ouality of service. To what degree will the collaboration result in a significant
improvement in the quality and effectiveness of the services provided?
• Cost of service. To what degree will the partnership result in a positive impact to the
cost of the service?
• No other way exists to provide the service. An emerging issue may be regional in
scope. No one jurisdiction may have the ability to cope with such as issue. Or,
perhaps state or federal laws mandate a regional orsub-regional approach.
• Transferability. Do many different local units of government have the opportunity to
benefit from the collaborative service approach?
• qualitative advantages. Are there other, "softer" advantages that may result in
additional "harder" advantages later on?
^ The /ike/ihood ofachieving success Is the project easy to manage, or difficult?
Does the partnership require a large commitment of resources upfront? Is the
collaboration likely to have the support of citizens and other stakeholders? How high are
the barriers to success? The considerations were:
• Short-term manageability/ease of implementation. How complex is this effort? How
difficult will it be to launch a new, collaborative approach to this service?
• Lonaer-term manageability issues. What, if any, longer-term management issues are
there?
• Political feasibility and support/citizens. What are citizens' preferences? Is there a
reason to believe that citizens will support this particular effort?
• Political feasibility and support/government ofFcials and staff. What are the
preferences of local elected officials and employees throughout the ranks of local
Attachment B
government? How much support and/or opposition to a given partnership reasonably
may be foreseen?
• Measurement. Can the outcomes be accurately measured? How difficult is it to
measure results in this area? Will the participants know whether they have been
successful, or not?
The ten criteria were assigned a weight ranging from 2.5% to 17.5% of the total, and each
of the 20 potential partnership opportunities were assigned a letter grade (A through F) on
each of the criteria. The resulting matrix was used to define the highest potential projects
for discussion with the Steering Committee. Based on the review and discussion of the
Steering Committee, the matrix was rerun and the six projects determined to have the
greatest potential benefit and highest likelihood of success were identified for action.
Importantly, the methodology developed and used is transferable to any jurisdiction.
"Weights" can be reassigned to meet each jurisdiction's conditions.
Costs; The direct costs of the HiPP Project were limited to:
^ The $25,000 consulting contract to assist with services to facilitate the process of
gathering and processing information.
^ Nominal costs (less than $2,500) as payments for the use of facilities and providing
refreshments for citizens participating in the citizen forum and focus groups.
The bulk of the project costs were in-kind services provided by Dakota County and its cities.
^ Local elected officials (including the Chair of the Dakota County Board of
Commissioners), city administrators, and County Administrator met monthly throughout
2004 as the project Steering Committee. Meetings typically were for about 90 minutes,
although sessions to narrow the list of 20 potential to the highest potential (finally, six)
projects were longer.
^ Dakota County provided apart-time (approximately, 25%) project manager and staff
support to the Steering Committee.
^ Cities contributed staff time as necessary to the project, with one city assigning a
summer intern to assist on the project on a part-time basis.
The project itself was a demonstration of collaboration and cooperation to achieve goals at a
minimal cost.
Achievement of Objectives; The HiPP Project has been a successful venture for Dakota
County and its cities in several dimensions.
^ First, the HiPP Project has clearly demonstrated the ability and desire of local
government officials to cross political boundaries and produce actionable results that are
in the broad public interest. The outcomes are described above. The ability for
governmental agencies and units to partner to address issues larger than any single local
jurisdiction for the benefit of all residents is increasingly important and growing (e.g., to
meet homeland security needs or deal with the manufacture, sale, and use of meth).
^ Second, the project has garnered ongoing interest and support from city and County
elected officials and administrators. The commitment of these leaders to a vision of
increased collaboration and cooperation is carried through their organizations.
7
Attachment B
Third, the project considered awide-ranging list of potential partnerships in order to
highlight six collaborations of highest potential benefit for Dakota County and its cities.
This prioritization process reflects both review of best practices in local government
service delivery, as well as meaningful input from citizens, staff, and elected officials
from across the County. The current work of project study teams to address
implementation issues is a strong testament to the effectiveness of the HiPP Project in
defining a short list of potential collaborations of highest mutual benefit for Dakota
County and its partners.
• Fourth, the results of the HiPP Project are highly replicable. The comprehensive methods
used to solicit partnership ideas and to distill these to the most beneficial for local
governments to employ within Dakota County may be used to evaluate any series of
initiatives. Specifically, creation of a scorecard to rate and compare collaboration ideas
across a range of measures of effectiveness has broad applicability.
^ Conc/usion
The High Performance Partnerships (HiPP) Project directly responds to the four criteria to be
recognized for an Achievement Award.
^ As noted above, the project is replicable for other counties at a minimal cost. The
"scorecard" developed for the project can be used independent of the broader effort and
is adaptable for other uses. Central lessons of the project (e.g., the broader interest in
collaboration and the ability to achieve success by involving elected and senior
administrative officials in building trust and respect) are widely applicable.
^ The HiPP Project applied innovative strategies and technologies to achieve its objectives.
Rather than trying to reach agreement on collaboration for specific projects, local elected
officials and senior administrative officers applied a "systems thinking" approach to the
project. They agreed to examine opportunities as part of the system of providing
services to citizens of Dakota County, rather than focusing on pre-determined problems
or projects. Leaders consented to an unconstrained evaluation of potential partnerships.
The ground rules provided evaluators the authorization to examine all reasonable
opportunities. Innovative uses of technology included applying electronic voting
technology in a citizen forum to provide immediate feedback and spur discussion and the
application of Web-based surveys.
• The most tangible outcome of the HiPP Project is the projected $1.4 million in operating
budget savings from the agreement to consolidate six Public Safety Answering Points
(dispatch centers) into a single PSAP. Qualitative benefits resulting from the project in
this area include improved "interoperability" of communication systems and improved
command, control, and coordination of public safety resources in cities across the
County.
In addition, the County and cities are continuing to build fiber connectivity and jointly
discussing health and wellness initiatives. Important intangible outcomes include the
trust and communication that has been built through the project Steering Committee.
• Initiative and leadership from elected officials and senior administrators of Dakota County
and its cities has driven the HiPP Project from an idea arising out of collaborative
discussions in July 2003 to quantifiable outcomes in mid-2005. The project has
successfully put in place the infrastructure necessary to improve administration and
enhance the cost-effectiveness of existing County and city programs. The project has
Attachment B
provided information that is informing and driving public policy decisions. The
acceleration of the opportunities for the consolidation of Public Safety Answering Points
and joint dispatching of emergency services is a concrete example.
In an era in which innovation is essential -- in which government is expected to provide
improved services to a wider pool of residents at less cost -- the results of the HiPP Project
have far-reaching implications, both for future partnerships and for specific program and
service delivery. The outcomes of the HiPP Project will continue to leverage cooperative
ventures both within and among local jurisdictions and agencies in Dakota County, as the
County seeks to continuously improve its services to meet citizens' needs. The results are
replicable to other jurisdictions.
0: HiPP - Amc Award