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.