Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCS 34-03 REPORT TO COUNCil Report Number: CS 34-03 Date: September 10, 2003 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: Municipal Performance Measurement Program - Provincially Mandated Public Reporting of Performance Measures Recommendation: It is recommended that Report CS 34-03 from the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received for information. Executive Summary: At its meeting of July 28, 2003 the Audit Committee received a draft of the Municipal Performance Measurement Program results that were to be submitted to Council prior to publication. The collection and reporting of these measures is not in any way associated with the annual audit and these measurements are being submitted and reported to the public by the Treasurer under direction of Provincial authority. The measures were filed with the Province on June 4, 2003 and we have continued to review and adjust these measures, as is permitted by the Province, in preparation for release to the public by the September 30 deadline. Attached are the performance measure results and supplemental information package that will be reported to the public. Financial Implications: None. Background: Attachment 1 is the information mandated by the Province to be reported to the public by September 30, 2003. With this being the third Year of Performance Measurement reporting, one must bear in mind that these measures are still evolving as feedback from municipalities are received and are taken into consideration by the Province in determining and the development of the Performance Measures to be reported upon. In Year 1,2000, there was data collected for 35 measures of which 16 were required to be publicly reported. Of these only 14 applied to the City. In Year 2,2001,25 measures were required to be completed and publicly reported. Of these only 15 performance measures were applicable for the City of Pickering. For 2002 40 measures were required to be completed and publicly reported, but only 19 applied to the City. Report CS 34-03 Date: September 10, 2003 Subject: Municipal Performance Measurement Program - Provincially Mandated Public Reporting of Performance Measures Page 2 The feedback received from municipalities after the first two years has resulted in refinements to the way measures are defined and calculated which leads to improving the measures to better serve the interests of the public and municipal needs. In addition the Province's Financial Information Return (FIR) is also evolving which is the basis of the data used in the calculations for Performance Measures. For example for 2001 the methodology for reporting General Government costs was significantly changed. In that year municipalities had the option of using the same method as in 2000, which was the case in Pickering pending further information, or the new method for reporting General Government costs resulting from the CAO's benchmarking study. The method for reporting General Government costs based on the CAO's benchmarking study was mandatory for reporting in 2002. This change alone significantly affects the comparability of results from one year to another. Moreover, I must strongly emphasize that all of the foregoing makes municipality-to-municipality comparisons relatively meaningless. It will only be through continuing efforts, ongoing experience, further clarifications from the Province and consistent reporting formulas that year-to-year comparisons within the municipality and across municipalities will start to become meaningful. As was reported to Council in September of last year, 2002 comments pertaining to the compilation and interpretation of the data have been included. This aids in the explanation and understanding of what is being reported. The Province has made provision for these comments and encourages their inclusion, as many municipalities do. According to the Provincial mandate the City has the following options for public reporting: 1. Direct mail to taxpayers/households 2. Insert with the property tax bill 3. Public "advertising" in local newspapers 4. Posting on the Internet In the interests of efficiency and expediency, City staff have opted for the fourth option. The information will be posted on the City's website, as was the case last year, and a notice to this effect will be included in the next "Community Page" in the local newspaper, Attachment 3. The information will also be available to anyone wishing to pick it up at City Hall. Report CS 34-03 Date: September 10, 2003 Subject: Municipal Performance Measurement Program - Provincially Mandated Public Reporting of Performance Measures Page 3 Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 2002 Provincial Performance Measurement Program - Public Reporting Comparison of 2002 and 2001 Performance Measures Public Notice to be included in the Community Page of the News Advertiser Prepared By: ~M~ ~ristine Senior Manager, Accounting Services Prepared I Approved I Endorsed By: < ~-~\- Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Prepared By: ~,^QJ~ ~'nQ~ Shanty amoutar Senior Financial Analyst GAP:vw Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Operations & Emergency Services Director, Planning & Development Solicitor for the City City Clerk Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council It , ATTACHMENT#-L- TO REPORT#~iV'Oj CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2002 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT OVERVIEW As required by the Ontario Government's Municipal Performance Measures Program (MPMP), the Treasurer of the City of Pickering, as part of its 2002 Financial Information Return (FIR) package, has submitted financial and related service performance measurements to the Province. This program was announced in 2000 by the Ontario Government, which requires municipalities to collect and report data in the form of performance measurements on key service areas to the Province and the Public. The objective of the Province is: to enhance accountability by reporting to taxpayers; to increase taxpayer awareness; and, to improve service delivery by sharing best practices with comparable municipalities. In keeping with enhancing accountability to taxpayers, the Province accepted new categories for reporting General Government costs recommended by the Ontario Municipal CAO's Benchmarking Imitative (OMBI). Commencing for 2002 reporting all municipalities were required to use the new General Government categories developed by OMBI and the City has implemented this change. As municipalities change and grow, its citizens expect to receive quality, cost effective services. Performance measurements are a means of benchmarking these services. The City is committed to refining and developing new methods of collecting data so as to have more efficient and effective benchmarking tools. The benefits of this program will not be seen immediately, as municipalities in conjunction with personnel of the Ontario Government's Municipal Performance work towards standardizing information collected in calculating the related measures which will ultimately allow for fair comparisons from year to year and across municipalities. This year, for the first time, results for both 2002 and 2001 are included for comparative purposes. In addition, a comparability table has been provided that highlights which results are comparable within the municipality's own measures and includes comments explaining why they are not comparable. . Each measure is also accompanied by comments regarding aspects of the measurements. The comments are an integral part in the interpretation of the performance measure results. These results should not be compared across municipalities without consideration of the comments that impact on interpreting and understanding the results. In addition, influencing factors in the collection of data or refinements while the measures are still evolving could affect the results and comparability of same year over year. Comparability Table - Reporting Year 2002 Operating costs for governance and corporate management as a percentage of total municipal operating costs Not Comparable to 2001, due to change in General Government categories The 2001 calculation was based on old General Government categories whereas the 2002 calculation is based on new General Government's categories developed by OMSI Operating costs for paved (hard top) roads per lane kilometre Operating costs for unpaved (loose top) roads per lane kilometre Operating costs for winter maintenance of roadways per lane kilometre maintained in winter Percentage of paved lane kilometres where the condition is rated as good to very good Percentage of winter events where the response met or exceeded locally determined road maintenance standards Not comparable to 2001 due to formula change Not comparable to 2001 due to formula change Not comparable to 2001 due to formula change Comparable to 2001 Comparable to 2001 Rents & Financial Expenses, Inter-functional adjustments and allocation of program support were added to the formula. Rents & Financial Expenses, Inter-functional adjustments and allocation of program support were added to the formula. Rents & Financial Expenses, Inter-functional adjustments and allocation of program support were added to the formula. The percentage of paved lanes was consistently rated as ood. All roads met the required standards. In 2001 the results reported were based on operating costs of the City of Pickering transit division only. The 2002 results represent the operating costs and service area for the amalgamation of both Pickering and Ajax transit divisions. Number of conventional transit passenger trips per person in the service are in a year Not comparable to 2001 In 2001 the results reported were based on operating costs of the City of Pickering transit division only. The 2002 results represent the operating costs and service area for the amalgamation of both Pickering and Ajax transit divisions. Comparability Table - Reporting Year 2002 Operating costs for solid waste diversion per tonne Comparable to 2001 The Region is responsible for collection of Blue Box materials. This cost represents the cost of collection of yard waste done by the City and of the organic stream pilot project for 12 months. Number of complaints received in a year concerning the collection of garbage and recycled materials per 1 ,000 household Comparable to 2001 Percentage of residential solid waste diverted for recycling based on tonnes Comparable to 2001 The amount of complaints used for this calculation was an estimate provided by the operating division as calls were not formally tracked in 2002. A formal tracking system for complaints is being implemented for commencement in 2004. The region is responsible for the collection of all blue box materials. The result represents the diversion rate related to collection of ard waste onl Percentage of new lots, blocks and/or units with final approval which are located within the settlement areas Percentage of land designated for agricultural purposes which was not re-designated for other uses durin 2002 Percentage of land designated for agricultural purposes, which was not re-designated for other uses relative to the base ear of 2000. Number of hectares of land originally designated for agricultural purposes which was re-designated for other uses durin the re ortin ear 2002 Number of hectares land originally designated for agricultural purposes which was re-designated for other uses since Janua 1 , 2000 Comparable to 2001 Comparable to 2001 Comparable to 2001 Comparable to 2001 Comparable to 2001 100% of new lots, blocks and/or units with final approval by the City were located within the settlement areas. No agricultural lands were re-designated during 2002 No agricultural lands were re-designated during 2002 CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2002 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT LOCAL GOVERNMENT 1.1 OPERATING COSTS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2002 6.06% Efficiency Measure Operating costs for governance and corporate management as a percentage of total municipal operating costs. Objective To determine the efficiency of municipal management. General Comments The following factors can influence the above results: . The extent that cost centers within municipalities directly relate to the functions included under the governance and corporate management categories Detailed Comments Note: Comparatives not included as there was a change in reporting General Government categories used for reporting costs for 2002. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2002 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT FIRE SERVICES 2.1 OPERATING COSTS FOR FIRE SERVICES 2002 2001 $1.26 $1.31 Efficiency Measure Operating costs for fire services per $1 ,000 per assessment. Objective Efficient municipal fire services. General Comments The following factors can influence the above results across municipalities: . Emergency response times . Number and location of fire halls Detailed Comments Assessment value does not necessarily correlate to operating cost for fire services. The higher the assessment value, the lower the cost per $1,000 assessment. Conversely the urban/rural mix of the community will affect the results as will the size and type of commercial/industrial establishments. Number of households, response time and urban/rural mix of the municipality are factors that determine the need for fire services not the property value. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2002 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT ROAD SERVICES 4.1 OPERATING COSTS FOR PAVED ROADS 2002 $432.10 Efficiency Measure Operating costs for paved (hard top) roads per lane kilometre Objective Efficient maintenance of paved roads. General Comments The following factors can influence the above results across municipalities: . Use of the roads by heavy equipment. . The municipality's standard for road conditions in comparison with comparable municipalities. . Kilometres of paved roads in the municipality. . The allocation of operating costs used in the determination of the numerator when there is not a separate cost centre. Detailed Comments At the present time the City of Pickering does not maintain a separate cost centre to track costs that directly relates to paved roads. However, direct costs attributable to this function have been identified. The costs for administration and other related costs have been allocated to the cost for paved roads based on management's best estimate of the proportion of responsibility dedicated to the road functions such as maintenance of paved and unpaved roads and winter control The identified costs attributable to this function include employee wages & benefits, asphalt, line painting, program support, rental of heavy equipment, ditching and culvert maintenance The City maintains 719 paved lane kilometres. Note: Comparatives not included as there was a change to the formula for 2002. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2002 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT ROAD SERVICES 4.2 OPERATING COSTS FOR UNPAVED ROADS 2002 $6,035.56 . Efficiency Measure Operating costs for unpaved (loose top) roads per lane kilometre. Objective Efficient maintenance of unpaved roads. General Comments The following factors can influence the above results across municipalities: . Use of the roads by heavy equipment. . The kilometres of unpaved roads in the municipality in comparison with comparable municipalities. . Locations of the unpaved lanes. . The allocation of operating costs used in the determination of the numerator when there is not a separate cost centre. Detailed Comments At the present time, the City of Pickering does not maintain a separate cost centre to track costs that directly relates to unpaved roads. However, direct costs attributable to this function have been identified. The cost for administration and other related costs have been allocated to the cost for unpaved roads based on management's best estimate of the proportion of responsibility dedicated to the road functions such as maintenance of paved and unpaved roads and winter control. The operating cost of maintaining the City's unpaved roads includes employee wages & benefits, granular materials, administering calcium programs, ditch cleaning, program support, rental of heavy equipment, grading, culvert and shoulder maintenance. Due to the geographic location of the City's rural boundaries, commuter traffic using Hwy 407 are using these unpaved roads to connect to a continuous developing Durham Region. These roads now require continuous maintenance to keep up with the increased volume of traffic. The City maintains 244 unpaved lane kilometres. Note: Comparatives not included as there was a change to the formula for 2002. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2002 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT ROAD SERVICES 4.3 OPERATING COSTS FOR WINTER MAINTENANCE OF ROADS 2002 $768.90 Efficiency Measure Operating costs for winter maintenance of roadways per lane kilometre maintained in winter. Objective Efficient winter control operation. General Comments The following factors can influence the above results: . The municipality's standard service levels for road conditions. . The kilometres of paved and unpaved roads in the municipality in comparison with comparable municipalities. . The allocation of operating costs used in the determination of the numerator when there is not a separate cost centre. Detailed Comments At the present time, the City of Pickering does not maintain a separate cost centre to track costs that directly relates to winter control. However, direct costs attributable to this function have been identified. The costs for administration and other related costs have been allocated to the cost for winter control based on management's best estimate of the proportion of responsibility dedicated to the road functions such as maintenance of paved and unpaved roads and winter control. The operating cost of the City's winter control maintenance includes employee wages & benefits, salt, sand, program support, equipment rental, culvert thawing The City maintains a total of 963 lane kilometres. Note: Comparatives not included as there was a change to the formula for 2002. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2002 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT ROAD SERVICES 4.4 CONDITION OF PAVED ROADS 2002 2001 75.10% 75.10% Effectiveness Measure Percentage of paved lane kilometres where the condition is rated as good to very good. Objective Provide a paved lane system that has a pavement condition that meets municipal standards. General Comments The following factors can influence the above results: . The municipality's standard service levels for road conditions. . The kilometres of paved and unpaved roads in the municipality in comparison with comparable municipalities. Detailed Comments The City's staff uses their best estimates to establish the % of roads that are rated as good. The City's road patrols, the public and employees are another source for providing feedback on road conditions. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2002 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT ROAD SERVICES 4.5 WINTER EVENT RESPONSE 2002 2001 100% 100% Effectiveness Measure Percentage of winter events where the response met or exceeded locally determined road maintenance standards. Objective Provide an appropriate response to winter events. General Comments The following factors can influence the above results: . The municipality's standard service levels for road conditions. . The frequency and severity of the winter weather. . The kilometres of paved and unpaved roads in the municipality in comparison with comparable municipalities. Detailed Comments Roads are cleaned and cleared within 24 hours of a snowfall. The City did not experience a winter event which staff was not able to meet or exceed road maintenance standards. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR20~PERFORMANCEMEASUREMENTREPORT CONVENTIONAL TRANSIT 5.1 OPERATING COSTS 2002 $3.59 Efficiency Measure Operating costs for conventional transit per regular service passenger trip. 2001 $3.11 Objective Efficient conventional transit services. General Comments The following factors can influence the above results: . The service hours of the transit operations, for example the level of weekend or holiday service provided. . The population distribution and the geography of the service area. . Service levels required to accommodate passenger trips transferred from outside of the City's boundaries. . Unexpected events that may be included in operating cost that has no correlation to service levels. . The urban/rural mix of the service area. Detailed Comments The 2002 results reflect 100% of APT A's operations even thought the Transit Authority is jointly owned by the City of Pickering and Town of Ajax. In 2001 Ajax and Pickering operated separate transit departments. These two departments were amalgamated for 2002 resulting in some one-time transitional costs. In 2002 under the provincial reporting program, the allocation of program support costs incurred by each municipality changed substantially. This resulted in a formula driven increase in the amount allocated to APT A, for reporting purposes, not an actual increase in operating costs. Trips deemed as transfers are excluded from the denominator of passenger trips. However, the costs would be impacted to ensure that appropriate service levels are provided to accommodate these additional passengers. For 2002, the number of passenger trips excluding transfers was 2,187,442 and used in the calculation above. The number of trips including transfers would be 2,465,950 and if these were included the cost per passenger trip would become $3.19. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2002 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT CONVENTIONAL TRANSIT 5.2 PUBLIC TRANSIT USE 2002 2001 13.52 13.84 Effectiveness Measure Number of conventional transit passenger trips per person in the service area in a year. Objective Maximum utilization of municipal transit services. General Comments The following factors can influence the above results: . The service hours of the transit operations, for example the level of weekend or holiday service provided. . The population distribution and geography of the service area. . The percentage of the service area to the total municipal area. Detailed Comments The 2002 measure is based on a combination of the population of the service areas in the City of Pickering and the Town of Ajax. For 2002 there was a GT A wide trend of a decrease in ridership. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2002 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT STORM WATER 7.1 OPERATING COSTS FOR URBAN STORM WATER MANAGEMENT (NEW MEASURE) 2002 $1,482.17 Efficiency Measure Operating costs for urban storm water management (collection, treatment, and disposal) per kilometre of drainage system. Objective Efficient storm water management. General Comments The following factors can influence the efficiency rate of urban storm water management: . The geographic location of the City . The extent and age of the drainage system Detailed Comments Operating costs include salaries and benefits, contracted services and materials, storm pipe cleaning, flushing, video inspection, catch basin/manhole repairs storm pipe repairs, cleaning of specialized oil and grit separators. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2002 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT SOLID WASTE 9.1 OPERATING COSTS FOR GARBAGE COLLECTION 2002 2001 $58.28/per tonne $67.32/per tonne Efficiency Measure Operating costs for garbage collection per tonne or per household. Objective Efficient garbage collection services General Comments The following factors can influence the above results: . The number and frequency of collection and the extent of the yard waste collection program. . Whether the service is provided internally or externally and if provided externally, then the timing of the contract renewals. . The effectiveness of any 3A's initiatives and education/promotional efforts. . The urban/rural mix and size of the municipality. Detailed Comments The City of Pickering currently contracts out collection of residential waste. Contract costs are based upon tonnes collected. Homeowners are allowed a limit of 4 bags and 2 large items per week. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2002 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT SOLID WASTE 9.3 OPERATING COSTS FOR SOLID WASTE DIVERSION (RECYCLING) 9.8 DIVERSION OF SOLID WASTE 2002 9.3 - $264.96 per tonne 9.8 - 8.49% of residential waste diverted Efficiency Measure Operating costs for solid waste diversion (recycling) per tonne or per household. 2001 9.3 - $168.24 per tonne 9.8 - 8.86% of residential waste diverted Effectiveness Measure Percentage of residential solid waste diverted for recycling. Objective Efficient solid waste diversion (recycling) services. Municipal waste programs divert garbage from landfills and incinerators. General Comments The following factors can influence the above results: . The frequency of collection. . The type of materials included in the recycled program. . The promotion of the recycling program. . The participation in the program by residents. Detailed Comments The collection of recycling materials (blue box) is the responsibility of the Region of Durham and results are not reported above. The diversion rate reported above indicates the diversion of yard waste collected as this is performed by the City. The City of Pickering has adopted grass-cycling and does not collect grass clippings. Therefore, grass clippings are not included in the diversion rate above. The City's yard waste collection program results in diversion from landfill. Tonnes collected per year vary due to gardening and yard work activity. Grass-cycling reduces the amount of yard waste collected. Late 2001 the City initiated a fully automated cart based three stream waste collection pilot project in the Amberlea area within Ward 1 which consists of 520 homes. This project ran for the full year of 2002 and the associated costs are included in the above calculation. These costs are higher than traditional collection methods used. It includes leasing of specialized collection vehicles, purchase and leasing of specialized containers and bins and ongoing educational material. The diversion rate for the pilot project area was 52.7% for 2002. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2002 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT SOLID WASTE 9.5 COMPLAINTS FOR SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION 2002 2001 28 30 Effectiveness Measure Number of complaints received in a year concerning the collection of garbage and recycled materials per 1,000 households. Objective Improved garbage collection services. General Comments The following factors can influence the above results: . The types of calls received. . The level of service provided. Detailed Comments Solid Waste collection is contracted out and the Region collects recycling materials, however, the City's manages complaints by assisting taxpayers directly. The total number of complaints in the year was an estimate provided by the operating division, as the City does not maintain a formal system for tracking complaints. In 2004 a formal system will be implemented to track complaints. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2002 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT LAND PLANNING USE 10.1 GROWTH AND SETTLEMENT PATTERN 2002 2001 100% 100% Effectiveness Measure Percentage of new lots, blocks and/or units with final approval which are located within settlement areas. Objective New lot creation is occurring in settlement areas. Detailed Comments The City of Pickering is responsible for approving all plans. All approved new lots were located within settlement areas. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2002 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT LAND PLANNING USE 10.2 PRESERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN REPORTING YEAR 2002 2001 100% 100% Effectiveness Measure Percentage of land designated for agricultural purposes which was not re-designated for other uses during 2002. Objective PreseNe agricultural land. Detailed Comments No agricultural lands were re-designated in the year 2002. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2002 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT LAND PLANNING USE 10.3 PRESERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND (RELATIVE TO 2000) 2002 2001 99.83 % 99.83 % Effectiveness Measure Percentage of land designated for agricultural purposes which was not re-designated for other uses relative to the base year of 2000. Objective Preserve agricultural land. Detailed Comments This represents land that was re-designated during the year 2000. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2002 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT LAND PLANNING USE 10.4 HECTARES AGRICULTURAL LAND (DURING REPORTING YEAR) 2002 2001 0 .0 Effectiveness Measure Number of hectares of land originally designated for agricultural purposes which was re- designated for other uses during 2002. Objective Preserve agricultural land. Detailed Comments No agricultural lands were re-designated in the reporting year. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2002 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT lAND PLANNING USE 10.5 CHANGE IN AGRICULTURAL lAND (SINCE 2000) 2002 2001 15 15 Effectiveness Measure Number of hectares of land originally designated for agricultural purposes which was re- designated for other uses since January 1, 2000. Objective Preserve agricultural land. Detailed Comments These lands were redesignated during 2000. ATTACHMENT#~ TO REPORT # cs 3<¡~O..3 COMPARISON OF YEARS 2002 AND 2001 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT Efficiency Measures General Government - General Government as a % of total municipal operating costs General Government - Operating cost for governance and Corp. Management as a % of total operating cost (NEW) Fire Services - Operating costs for Fire service per $1,000 of assessment Paved Roads - Operating costs for paved (hard top) roads per lane kilometer Unpaved Roads - Operating costs for unpaved (loose top) roads per lane kilometer Winter Control - Operating cost for winter maintenance of roadways per lane kilometer Conventional Transit - Operating cost for conventional transit per regular service passenger trip Storm Water - Operating costs for urban storm water management per kilometer of drainage system (NEW) Solid Waste - Operating costs for solid waste collection per tonne Solid Waste Diversion - Operating costs for solid waste diversion per tonne Effectiveness Measures Adequacy of Roads - % of paved lane kilometers where the condition is rated as good Effective Snow and Ice Control - % of winter events where the response met or exceeded locally determined road maintenance standards Conventional Transit Ridership - Number of conventional transit passenger trips per person in the service area in a year Solid Waste Management - # of complaints received in a year concerning the collection of garbage and recycled materials per 1,000 household Diversion of Residential Solid Waste - % of residential solid waste diverted for recycling Location of New Development - Percentage of new lots approved which are located within settlement areas Preservation of Agricultural Land in Reporting Year - % of designated agricultural land preserved during the year Preservation of Agricultural Land Relative to Base Year - % of designated agricultural land preserved since the base year 2000 Number of Hectares redesignated during the Year - # of hectares of designated agricultural land which was redesignated during the year Number of Hectares redesignated since Jan 1, 2000 - # of hectares of designated agricultural land which was redesignated since Jan 1, 2000 2002 2001 n/a 12.79% 6.06% n/a $ 1.26 $ 1.31 $ 432.10 $ 500.25 $ 6,035.56 $ 4,414.35 $ 768.90 $ 889.66 (1) $ 3.59 $ 3.11 $ 1,482.17 n/a $ 58.28 $ 67.32 $ 264.96 $ 168.24 75.10% 75.10% 100.00% 100.00% (1) 13.52 13.84 28 30 8.49% 8.86% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.83% 99.83% 0 0 15 15 (1) Although APT A is jointly controlled by both the City of Pickering and the Town of Ajax, performance measure results provided for Transit above represent a 100% of operations and service area. ¡ fACH¡"!EI\!'~ ¡tt.3....TOREPORT# CS'3<¡~ð3 Performance Measures The Performance Measures required to be reported publicly under the Provincially mandated Performance Measurement Program will be available on the City of Pickering's website citvofpickerinq.com as of September 30,2003. Copies are also available at City Hall, Cashiers Counter, 2nd Floor.