The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutIR 10061 INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 10061 To the Mayor and Members of the City Council October 24, 2017 h�T�i7 Page 1 of 2 �i {i7 Y *a SUBJECT: PerformanceSTAT PROGRAM OVERVIEW #qrF rn Y g 7'.L Background As part of Fort Worth's 2016/2017 What Works Cities (WWC) engagement, the Performance & Budget Department worked with Johns Hopkins University's Center for Government Excellence (GovEx) to design the PerformanceSTAT program. PerformanceSTAT has its roots in the CompStat approach used by the New York City Police Department in the 1990's. Since then, the approach has been adapted to a wide range of public sector settings. What is PerformanceSTAT PerformanceSTAT is a leadership approach that uses ongoing data-driven meetings with city staff to review key performance indicators, service levels, discuss challenges and identify opportunities to improve the services we deliver to the residents of Fort Worth. Topics are identified by the city's executive management team and the Performance & Budget Department. Department managers and analysts work together with the Performance & Budget Department to pull together material for PerformanceSTAT meetings. The meetings are short, discussion-oriented, and teams provide follow-up information to address questions that arise during the discussion. Topic leads use key performance indicator data and other detailed metrics to discuss current service levels, acknowledge challenges and recognize improved performance. The PerformanceSTAT meetings are conducted during City Manager Office/Department Directors Team Meeting. Since this meeting involves a range of relevant staff this expedites the conversation because questions can often be answered on the spot. This forum supports our practice of data-driven decision making and provides all departments with greater insight into how the City is operating on a regular basis. PerformanceSTAT presentations Service areas/key processes discussed in 2017 include: • Worker's compensation • Fire run volume and response time • Municipal Court ticket collections • Stray animals • Call center service levels (all call centers) • Fleet acquisition and preventative maintenance • City mowing — traffic dividers and right-of-ways • Street maintenance ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 10061 To the Mayor and Members of the City Council October 24, 2017 h�T�i7 Page 2 of 2 �i {i7 Y *a SUBJECT: PerformanceSTAT PROGRAM OVERVIEW #qtF rn f e'?5 Future 2017 scheduled topics • Forestry and park maintenance • Public information requests Benefits • Establishing flow of information and regular reporting on a detailed level of operations to the executive team. • Familiarity with key personnel through the ranks in city departments, facilitating both a sense of accountability and culture of continuous process improvement. • Deep understanding of operations and data, facilitating process transparency and productive communication with the ultimate goal of solving problems. • Regular source of ideas for efficiency and innovation. • Improved performance via discussion, scrutiny, accountability, and follow-up. Attachment The most recent PerformanceSTAT presentation covering Street Maintenance is attached. We will distribute all future reports to the City Council for your information. If you have any questions, contact Lynda Johnson, Performance & Budget Director, at 817-392- 6222. David Cooke City Manager ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS PerformanceSTAT: Pre-Meeting Memo Meeting Date: 08/24/2017 Major Topic Area: Street Maintenance Originating/Lead Department: Transportation & Public Works Topic Lead: Richard Martinez, Assistant Director—Streets &Stormwater Operations Requested Meeting Attendees: Allen Hall - Street Operations Superintendent, Riad Nusrallah—Streets Program Manager opc Uverview The mission of Transportation & Public Works (TPW) is to protect and preserve the health, safety, and wellbeing of the residents of Fort Worth through effective and efficient maintenance and operation of the City's transportation infrastructure. TPW is responsible for maintaining over 7,500 lane miles of roadway through various pavement preservation and rehabilitation techniques. Outdated processes and equipment have been contributing factors in the ability to achieve improved drivability of the motoring public. This presentation will identify the challenges TPW/Street Operations encounters in the efforts to maintain infrastructure, as well as identify recent improvements that have been implemented to remedy some of these challenges. Other Involved Departments TPW continuously coordinates with internal and external stakeholders to include The Fort Worth Water Department, Neighborhood Services and Code Compliance, Parks and Recreation, Planning & Development, and utility companies (i.e. AT&T, Atmos, and Oncor). TPW works with these groups to ensure safety measures have been taken into account, as well as to ensure projects are completed properly and in a timely manner. Review of Related KPIS • Fill and repair 45,000 potholes annually—The purpose of repairing potholes is to remove unsafe hazards throughout the street network. This metric is a key indicator of the sustainability of our pothole repairs. We expect the annual goal to decrease as our processes for repairing potholes improve. Approximately 35,000 potholes are projected to be filled in FY 2017. • Asphalt Overlay 12 lane miles annually—This application involves the placement of HMAC 2 inches in depth which adds structural stability to the roadway. Application is performed with a laydown machine over continuous sections of roadway.This process enhances and improves the PCI of city streets and reduces the need for major repairs. Approximately 20 lane miles will be improved in FY 2017. • Chip Seal 26 lane miles annually— Chip Seal is the application of asphalt emulsion with a single layer of aggregate to continuous sections of roadways. The purpose of this type of maintenance is to seal the entire roadway surface, add skid resistance, rejuvenate weathered surfaces, and prevent further deterioration of the pavement surface while increasing the PCI and reducing the need of costly structural repairs. Approximately 30 lane miles will be improved in FY 2017. PerformanceSTAT: Pre-Meeting Memo Meeting Date: 08/24/2017 • Maintain street network pavement condition at a minimum of a 7.2 out of 10 rating—The purpose of this metric is to assist in the planning and execution of efficient and effective maintenance of the City's street network. Data is used to analyze the overall condition of each pavement section and assists in the prioritization of the 5-year Infrastructure Management Plan. What the Data Says Data trends are key indicators of the overall street network health. The decrease in the number of potholes filled in FY 2017 reveal that operational staff is completing more sustainable pothole repairs.The increase in asphalt overlay and chip seal applications are indicators that operational staff has implemented processes that enable them to complete more projects in an efficient manner. Tracking the PCI score has enabled our Pavement Management group to assess and determine how and when streets will be improved. Although internal goals have been met, Street Operations has encountered challenges, including outdated equipment, processes, and software, over the last several years, which have been barriers in achieving optimal service satisfaction. What We Have Already Done • Implemented new processes and controls, such as the annual Cost of Service review. This helps us the Division to analyze key indicators related to production, cost of applications, and efficiency improvements. • Acquired new equipment for our pothole program that enables staff to complete sustainable potholes • Re-trained staff to optimize basic techniques and expanded on current application processes What We Plan to Do Next • A new asset management software has been purchased,which will not onlytrack all infrastructure assets, but will also provide risk assessment data of the street network. This system will also include a budget forecasting mechanism that will allow the department to produce a more accurate 5-year Infrastructure Management Plan. Ultimately, this system will enable the department to identify achievements and successes relative to existing needs. Major topics for today's meeting Topic Title Topic Lead 1 Street Maintenance Richard Martinez 30 mins STAT meeting process & purpose � Display Identify Dis la & � Identi Establish Follow Up Discuss for Action Context Data Success Items & Adjust • FoRTWORTH..,,-, IMTRO TO P I C Why is this important? • To ensure safety, improved drivability, and optimal customer satisfaction of the motoring public • Maintenance of City Streets • Quickness of Repairs • Project Completion Which KPIs are related to this topic? • Fill and repair 45,000 potholes • Asphalt Overlay 12 lane miles • Chip Seal 26 lane miles • • Maintain street network at a pavement condition of a minimum of a 7.2 out of 10 rating This issue aligns with the city's key focus area of Safety 1 Livability 1 Maintenance & Growth 1 High Performing Government FORT WORTH. --E-Emw potholes Highlights • Overall indicator of street network condition Potholes Filled • Potholes per year • FY 2015 — FY 2017 • Proactive vs. Reactive 50,000 Challenges 45,000 • Outdated processes and equipment • Rigid concrete streets — Type B repair 40,000 Recent improvements a, 35,000 • Complete retraining and implementation of new processes and s° 30,000 controls a° 25,000 • Acquisition of new equipment 20,000 ° Target info 15,000 • % of annual decrease 10,000 � Internal Comparative Data 5,000 • Texas Tort Liability Standard = 48 hours 0 • Internal goal = 24 hours • Cost of Service FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 -FY 2015 Manual = $11 .78 - FY 2016 Manual = $17.36 .Total PH Proactive -FY 2015 Mechanical = $17.83 - FY 2016 Mechanical = $10.31 : Data Source: ITSM FoRTWORTH..,,-, _ =- -.MEMO Old Process Improved Process ; Mechanical 4 f ■ FORT WORTH. 1p, Potholes A do 42117 -..NM M— 1% MP- Improved Equipment Cl) iL C� - x r - �► •' ■r ■ r r !J■ 'saw O ~� i� FORT WORTH . aIt overlaY Asph ow-, — Highlights Asphalt Overlay - Lane Miles (LM) & Cost of Service (COS) *Lane Miles (LM) *Current year target = 12 LM 12 • FY 2017 Completed = 20 LM ° 100 cn Challenges 80 N *Transport equipment o * Milling machine : 60 _ 40 Recent improvements0 • Re-trained paving crew avi n : 20 - • * Improved equipment utilization ° FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Internal Comparative Data Lane Miles COS • FY 2016 Cost of Service — Cost/Lane: Mile decreased by 5% from FY 2015 Data Source: ITSM FORT chiSeal 1 - Highlights * Pavement Preservation Process Chip Seal - Lane Miles (LM) & Cost of Service (COS) * Utilized primarily on rural roadways * Pavement life is 10-15 years 120 $22.4 *Current year target = 26 100 $22.2 N * FY 2017 Completed = 32 _ 80 $22.0 N • a � Challenges60 $21.8 s *Outdated equipment ~ • *Transport equipment 40 — $21.6 Ln — 0 20 $21.4 V Recent improvements *Acquisition of new equipment $21.2 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Lane Miles COS Internal Comparative Data • FY 2016 Cost of Service — Cost/Lane • Mile decreased by 3% from FY 2015 • Data Source: ITSM 7 • Description Highlights ' • Current condition score: 7.8 FY 2017 Miles of Roadway Condition of Roadways • Internal goal is 7.2 or 72 • Transitioning from a 10 to 100 scaleInk ■ , i Challenges • Flexible vs. Rigid pavements CHASE—CT • • % Flexible = 57% : 7580 • % Rigid = 43% : 7570 - 7560 ot Recent improvements 7550 r • Increase in PayGo Funding 12Y • Implementation of pavement preservation ; 7540 y techniques 7530 ` -97 : 7520 Related projects/initiatives 7510Ui Assessment of the street network 7500 { Implementation of asset managementAmk • software Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Internal DataHAWTHORNE • Annual funding increase r _ • Condition Score by Year: ; _ .. „J. e rreeem Pa.emam caroMn - FY 2015 = 7.4 - FY 2017 = 7.8 Data Source: Pavement Management Database Classification of Streets PQI Condition Principal Arterial Collector Local Residential Total Percent of percent Condition Network 884.62 316.96 2,769.17 3,970.75 52.21% • • • 543.31 231.51 1,431.74 2..206.56 29.01 44.68 155.50 108.10 928.34 11191.94 15.67 0 • • 12.86 13.73 209.65 236.24 3.11 • 1596.29 670.30 5,338.90 7,605.49 100.00% 100.00% New Street Classification Categories Street Rehabilitation Matrix 'Ararnanr Rvaarvsnon PCI Street Classification • • Law High Arterial Collector Local Rural Classification of Streets 0 30 ReoaR mwnstructien rrstruction 31 40 Rccramalis3n 41 50 overlay PCI Principal Local Percent of Percent 51 60 Grorlay Collector Total 61 7p Hat in Place Recycling Ovcrcny 71 80 Microsurfaaing Seal Coating Condition Arterial Residential Network Condition Fob Seal 81 90 91 95 Crack Seal Crack Seal 1't�i't 96 100 No Maintenance CONCRETE PCI Street Classification • • • #1###.## #1###.## tt1i•t##.i• # tt1i•t##.i• # ###.##% Low 30 High Arterial Collector Local Rural ..µµ ..µµ..µµ..µµ ..µµ..µµ ..µµ ..µµ..µµ..µµ ..µµ..µµ ..µµ ..µµ..µµ..µµ ..µµ..µµ ..µµ ..µµ..µµ..µµ ..µµ..µµ ..µµ..µµ..µµ ..µµ..µµ 0 40 Reoun5truction • • r tt1###.## 1't1i'ti'f#.i' # 1't1i'f'1' #.i' # 1't1i'f'1'f#.i' # 1'ti' #.i'tif Al 50 51 8o Concreta Restoration ..µµ ..µµ..µµ..µµ ..µµ..µµ ..µµ ..µµ..µµ..µµ ..µµ..µµ ..µµ ..µµ..µµ..µµ ..µµ..µµ ..µµ ..µµ..µµ..µµ ..µµ..µµ ..µµ..µµ..µµ ..µµ..µµ 61 70 1't1i' ##.i' # 1't1i' ##.i' # 1't1tf1'ti'f.1' # 1't1tf1'ti'f.1' # ###.## 71 80 Concrete Restoration 81 90 Concrete Repair Concrete Repair(Type$) 91 95 JointScal a • • #1###.### 1't1i'ti' #.i' # #1###.## #1###.## ###.##% # 88 100 No Maintenance #1###.## .µµ.µµ.µµ .µµ.µµ .µµ .µµ.µµ.µµ .µµ.µµ #1###.## µµ .µµ.µµ.µµ .µµ.µµ #1###.## µµ .µµ.µµ.µµ .µµ.µµ ###.##% µµ.µµ.µµ .µµ.µµ PCt Street Classification Low High Arterial Collector Local Rural ..µµ ..µµ..µµ..µµ ..µµ..µµ ..µµ ..µµ..µµ..µµ ..µµ..µµ ..µµ ..µµ..µµ..µµ ..µµ..µµ ..µµ ..µµ..µµ..µµ ..µµ..µµ ..µµ..µµ..µµ ..µµ..µµ 0 30 Reconstruction tt,###.## tt,###.## tt,###.## tt,###.## ###.## 31 40 41 50 . 51 60 61 70 &ids Restoration 71 so . 81 90 91 95 96 100 No Maintenance 1p— Funding Gap $55,000,000 -.4 $50.5M $50,000,000 $48.3M $46.3M $49.9M $44.3M $45,000,000 C $42.4M $46.2M $40.5M $42.7M $40,000,000 $38.7M $36.9M $35.2M $36.fM $3,9.6M 4 $35,000,000 $32M $33.6M $33PM u $29M$29.7M $30.4 31.2M $31AM �I $30,000,000 $29.1M �I $26.9M ` $2 .4M $25,000,000 $23.1M 2k, 7.2 28.3M 21.4M ��26� $ C ��24.2M$25.1M$ $20,000,000 $18.3M1f9.8M ` 21.5M$22.3M�23.2 $19.9M$20.7M$ $15,000,000 $17.7M$18.4M$19.1M $10,000,000 +II $5,000,000 tiA tiCb tiC tiQ) titi ti� ti� ti� tih ti� ti^ tiCb ti9) ,ti0 ,LO ,LO ,LO ,LO ,LO ,LO ,LO ,ti0 ,ti0 ,ti0 ,ti0 ,ti0 ,LO ,LO ,4% PayGo Growth —0—Full Maintenance Requirement 8% PayGo Growth 11 FoRTWORTH..,,-, -- _ strategies =- Current State Asset * Currently above national standard for network Management pavement conditions • Continual benchmarking (Cost of Service) Mayor Challenges • Resource allocationApplication Street Process • Supply chain (i.e. materials and contractors) Maintenance • Competition for talent acquisition (20%-5%) Next S •Working thru process improvements f • • Technology improvements • Transitioning to innovative equipment • Expanding maintenance techniques - • Partnerw/ Capital Delivery on an advanced scheduling and resource leveling software (i.e. P6) 12