HomeMy WebLinkAboutFIN 19-13 Lrlt� a� Report to
Executive Committee
?JCKERING Report Number: FIN 19-13
Date: September 9, 2013
From: Paul Bigioni
Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
Subject: 2012 Municipal Performance Measurement Program — Provincially
Mandated Public Reporting of Performance Measures
Recommendation: It is recommended that Report FIN 19-13 from the Director,
Corporate Services & City Solicitor be received for information.
Executive Summary: The City is mandated by the Province of Ontario to report
yearly Performance Measures of specific key service areas provided to the public. This
reporting system supports local government transparency and provides the City with
useful data to make informed service level decisions while optimizing resources . The
collection and reporting of these efficiency and effectiveness measures is derived from
the Financial Information Return filed by the City with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing. These measures are being submitted and reported by the (Acting)
Division Head, Finance & Treasurer as required by the Province.
Each year, measures for reporting are refined, altered and added to by the Province,
making year over year comparison difficult Over the years, the number of measures to
be reported from different service areas has increased significantly. For 2012 reporting,
municipalities had the option to report efficiency measures based on total costs
excluding interest on long-term debt. However, City staff have decided not to report on
these optional measures due to the fact the exclusion of long-term debt costs does not
present a fair and accurate measure. Also, through the years, the formulas used in
calculating specific measures are revised making them incomparable to prior years'
calculations.
The attached Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP) results for 2012
and a supplemental information package will be made available on the City's website.
The package includes a comparison of the 2012 measures against 2011, where
applicable, and a copy of the Public Notice that will appear in the News Advertiser at the
end of September, 2013.
Financial Implications: This report does not have any financial implications.
35
Report FIN 19-13 September 9, 2013
Page 2
Discussion: Attachment 1 is the 2012 information mandated by the Province to be
reported to the public by September 30, 2013. Note that all measures are from service
areas that the City provides to the public. Service areas not provided by the City (like
police services, transit, waste water, drinking water and solid waste) are not included in
the report.
The set of measures required for public reporting changes every year, as identified by
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Comments pertaining to the compilation
and interpretation of City data have been included to aid in the explanation and
understanding of what is being reported.
Every year, these measures continue to evolve as existing ones are revised and new
ones added as feedback from municipalities is received and taken into consideration by
the Province. In addition, there are continuous refinements to the way measures are
defined and calculated, especially in the areas of Roadways, Parks, Recreation and,
most recently, Building Services, where new and modified measures are being reported.
Municipalities also continue to improve on their data collection methods in an effort to
ensure consistency and accuracy in year-over-year reporting. This leads to improving
the measures to better serve the interests of the public and support municipal needs for
evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of services we provide to the municipality.
However, caution must still be taken against municipality-to-municipality comparisons
due to the fact that no two municipalities are identical in their geography, rural vs. urban
mix, the level of service provided and treatment of information for data collection. It in
only through continuous efforts, ongoing experience, further clarifications from the
Province and consistent reporting formulas that year-to-year comparisons within the
municipality and possibly across municipalities will become meaningful.
The 2012 measures will be posted on the City's website for public access in September
2013. A notice to this effect, per Attachment 3, will be included in the "Community
Page" of the local newspaper. The information will also be available to anyone wishing
to pick up a copy at City Hall.
Attachments:
1. 2012 Municipal Performance Measurement Program — Public Reporting
2. Comparison of 2012 and 2011 Performance Measures,
3. Public Notice to be included in the Community Page of the News Advertiser
36
Report FIN 19-13 September 9, 2013
Page 3
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
ce/Cac-x--f Q.CA -
/!--.' Z;---,G-----------1'a
tDennis Arboleda Stan Karwowsk.
Supervisor, Accounting Services (Acting) Divisio _.d, Finance & Treasurer
- A±l►-
Paul Bigioni
Director, Corpora - - -s & City Solicitor
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering C Council
d /,i , 1.3, 2t)/3
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
37
ATTACHMENT# 1 TO REPORT#1 tr( i
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Overview
As required by the Ontario Government's Municipal Performance Measurement
Program (MPMP), the (Acting) Division Head, Finance & Treasurer of the City of
Pickering, as part of its 2012 Financial Information Return (FIR) package, has submitted
financial and related service performance measurements to the Province.
This program was announced in year 2000 by the Ontario Government, which requires
municipalities to collect data on measures of effectiveness and efficiency in key service
areas and report these measures to the Province and the Public. This initiative is
designed to provide stakeholders with useful information on service delivery and provide
municipalities with a tool to improve on those services over time.
The objectives of the Province are: to enhance local government transparency and
accountability by reporting specific measures to the taxpayers; to increase taxpayers
awareness on service plans, standards and costs at the municipal level; to improve
local service delivery by sharing best practices with comparable municipalities and
provide municipalities with useful data to make informed local service level decisions
while optimizing available resources. As municipalities change and grow, its
constituents expect to receive quality, cost effective services. Performance
measurements are a means of benchmarking these services that will allow the City to
review and improve their delivery. Existing measures are continuously refined and new
measures are introduced depending on the value and importance for public information.
In reporting the results to the public, each measure is accorripanied by comments
regarding aspects of the calculation. The comments are an integral part in the
interpretation of the results. These results should not be compared across
municipalities without consideration of the comments that impact the interpretation and
understanding of individual results. Also, influencing factors in the collection of data or
refinements while the measures are still evolving could affect the current year's results
and the year over year comparability.
Starting with the 2009 reporting year, efficiency measures based on Total Costs per
Unit are to be reported to the public. Total Costs are calculated as the sum of Operating
Costs, Interest on Long Term Debt and Amortization of related capital assets. The Total
Costs per Unit measure adds an important dimension to efficiency measures by
including capital costs and interest on long term debt. Information provided by these
measures are useful to Council and the public as they provide the complete cost of
delivering municipal services.
In 2010, all Total Costs per unit measures are to be calculated to net out Revenue from
Other Municipalities related to Tangible Capital Assets (inputs on Schedule 12). This
was previously reported in Schedule 52 prior to 2009 but was discontinued thereafter.
Since the City has not receive any revenue from other municipalities related to capital
assets from 2010, yearly result on measures affected by this change should be
comparable.
38
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
In 2011, two efficiency and four effectiveness measures were added on to the reporting
list coming from the Building Permits and Inspection Service area.
For 2012 reporting there was an optional method of calculating efficiency measures
whereby the interest on long-term debt was excluded from total operating costs used in
the numerator. As the reporting is optional, City staff have chosen not to report these
results as staff deem interest as a cost of doing business and by its inclusion, provides
the complete cost of delivering municipal services.
For the calculation of measures pertaining to a per person or per 1,000 persons bases,
the City population in 2012 was estimated at 94,022. An increase of about 1.8% from
92,364 in 2011.
39
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
General Government
1.1a Operating Costs for Governance and Corporate Management
2012 2011
6.60% 7.70%
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.
• The level of service provided to the corporation and the public.
Detailed Comments
Calculation of this measure includes the total of the operating costs for governance,
corporate management and related allocation from program support expenditures net
of tax write-offs over total municipal operating costs.
The 14% decrease in the resulting measure is due to a reduction in operating costs
from 2011 as a result of one-time provisions provided in the prior year for doubtful
accounts and contract settlements.
40
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
General Government
1.1b Total Cost for Governance and Corporate Mana•ement
2012 2011
- - 5.60% 6.60% ------------
Efficiency Measure
Total costs for governance and corporate management as a percentage of total
municipal 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.
• The level of service provided to the corporation and the public.
Detailed Comments
Calculation of this measure includes the total operating costs for governance and
corporate management, related interest on long term debt and amortization net of
revenue received from other municipalities on tangible capital assets over total
municipal cost.
The 15% decrease in 2012 from 2011 was driven by the decrease in related
operating costs identified on the previous measure.
•
41 •
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
•
Fire Services
2.1a Operating Costs for Fire Services
2012 _ 2011
$1.36 $1.35
Efficiency Measure
Operating costs for fire services per $1,000 of property assessment.
Objective
Provide efficient municipal fire services.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the above result across municipalities:
• Emergency response times
• Number and location of fire halls
• Urban/rural mix of properties as well as density of buildings
• Geographic size of municipality
Detailed Comments
Assessment value does not necessarily correlate to the operating costs of fire
services. With the same operating costs on a year-over-year comparison, the
resulting measures will still vary. The higher the assessment value, the lower the cost
per $1,000 assessment.
The factors that determine the need for fire services which then affect operating costs
include the frequency of emergency responses, the urban and rural mix of the
municipality, the number and geographic location of fire halls in relation to the size of
the municipality.
There is a slight increase in operating expenses in 2012 mostly from staffs salaries
and wages but with the corresponding increase in property assessment value, the
resulting measure is comparable to 2011.
42
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
• Fire Services
2.1b Total Cost for Fire Services
2012 2011
$1.43 $1.42
Efficiency Measure
Total cost for fire services per$1,000 of property assessment.
Objective
Provide efficient municipal fire services.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the above measure across municipalities:
• Emergency response times
• Number and location of fire halls
• Urban/rural mix of properties as well as density of buildings
• Geographic size of municipality
• Capital costs and interest on long term debt
Detailed Comments
The numerator in the calculation of this measure adds interest on long term debt and
amortization to the total operating cost for Fire Services. Like in the previous
measure, the assessment value which is the denominator does not necessarily
correlate to the total cost for fire services. The higher the assessment value, the
lower the cost per $1,000 of property assessment.
The incremental increase in cost of Interest on long term debt and amortization
related to tangible capital assets in 2012 is almost the same as in 2011. Hence, the
resulting measure in 2012 is comparable to 2011.
43
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Fire Services
2.2 Residential Fire Related Civilian Injuries
2012 2011
0.021 0.032
Effectiveness Measure
Number of residential fire related civilian injuries per 1,000 persons.
Objective
Minimize the number of civilian injuries in residential fires.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the above results across municipalities:
• Number of residential fires
• Emergency response times
• Number and location of fire halls
• Geographic size of municipality
Detailed Comments
This measure calculates the total number of residential fire related civilian injuries as
reported by the fire department to the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM) in the OFM
Standard Incident Report per 1,000 persons. The result measures the effectiveness
of fire protection services provided to the public.
In 2012, two residential fire related civilian injuries were reported to the OFM over a
population of 94,022 compared to three in 2011 over a population of 92,364.
44
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Fire Services
2.3 Residential Fire Related Civilian Injuries —5 Year Average
2012 2011
0.011 0.022
Effectiveness Measure
Total number of residential fire related civilian injuries averaged over 5 years from
2008 to 2012 per 1,000 persons.
Objective
Minimize the number of civilian injuries in residential fires.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the above results across municipalities:
• Number of residential fires
• Emergency response times
• Number and location of fire halls
• Geographic size of municipality
Detailed Comments
This measure presents the number of residential fire related civilian injuries as
reported by the fire department to the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM) in the OFM
Standard Incident Report from 2008 to 2012 averaged over 5 years per 1,000
persons.
The fire department reported an average of one residential fire related civilian injury
to the OFM per year from 2008 to 2012 on a population of 94,022 as compared to an
average of two injuries per year from 2007 to 2011 on a population of 92,364.
45
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Fire Services
2.4 Residential Fire Related Civilian Fatalities
2012 2011
0.000
•
0.000
Effectiveness Measure
Number of residential fire related civilian fatalities per 1,000 persons.
Objective
Minimize the number of civilian fatalities in residential fires.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the above results across municipalities:
• Number of residential fires
• Emergency response times
• Number and location of fire halls
• Geographic size of municipality
Detailed Comments
This measure presents the number of residential fire related civilian fatalities during
the reporting year as determined by the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM) per 1,000
persons.
In 2012, no residential fire related civilian fatality was reported to the OFM. The same
as in 2011.
•
46
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Fire Services
2.5 Residential Fire Related Civilian Fatalities —5 Year Average
2012 2011
0.000 0.011
Effectiveness Measure
Number of residential fire related civilian fatalities averaged over 5 years per 1,000
persons.
Objective
Minimize the number of civilian fatalities in residential fires.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the above results across municipalities:
• Number of residential fires
• Emergency response times
• Number and location of fire halls
• Geographic size of municipality
Detailed Comments
This measure presents the total number of residential fire related civilian fatalities as
determined by the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM) averaged over 5 years from 2008
to 2012 per 1,000 persons.
The average residential fire related civilian fatality per year for 5 years from 2008 to
2012 is rounded to a nil. Fatalities per year for the period are as follows: 2008-1,
2009-1, 2010-0, 2011-0, 2012-0.
47
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Fire Services
2.6 Number of Residential Structural Fires
2012 2011
0.864 0.365
Effectiveness Measure
Number of residential structural fires per 1,000 households.
Objective
Minimize the number of residential structural fires.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the above results across municipalities:
• Number of residential fires
• Emergency response times
• Number and location of fire halls
• Geographic size of municipality
Detailed Comments
This measure presents the total number of residential structural fires and explosions
reported by the fire department to the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM) in the OFM
Standard Incident Report per 1,000 households.
In 2012, there were 26 residential structural fires reported compared to 11 in 2011.
However, conditions surrounding each fire situation are always different.
48
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Building Services
4.1a Operating Costs for Building Permits and Inspection Services
2012 2011
$4.50 $5.69
Efficiency Measure
Operating costs for building permits and inspection services per $1,000 of
construction activity (based on permits issued)
Objective
Provide efficient process to undertake building permit review and inspection services.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the above results:
• Staff training
• Number and type of permit applications
• Compliance to Ontario building code and other applicable laws
• General economic activity
Detailed Comments
Building permit and inspection services include activities undertaken by the Building
Services Division that relate to the issuance of permits for the construction,
renovation or demolition of buildings under Subsection 8(1) of the Building Code Act,
1992. These services include: administration, assessment of applicable law
compliance, plans review, site inspections, building code enforcement activities
including issuing orders, processing/screening of permit applications and issuing
permits, prosecutions, record keeping and reporting obligations, staff training, other
building permits and inspection services.
In 2012, there was an increase of about 18% in operating costs (numerator) over
2011. However, the total value of construction activity based on permits issued
(denominator) increased by about 47% over 2011. The resulting measure for 2012 is
about 21% lower than 2011.
49
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Building Services
4.1 b Total Costs for Building Permits and Inspection Services
2012 2011
$4.50 $5.69 _
Efficiency Measure
Total costs for building permits and inspection services per$1,000 of construction
activity (based on permits issued)
Objective
Provide efficient process to undertake building permit review and inspection services.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the above results:
• Staff training
• Number and type of permit applications
• Compliance to Ontario building code and other applicable laws
• General economic activity
Detailed Comments
Total cost is calculated by adding the total operating costs, interest on long term debt
and amortization less revenue from other municipalities for tangible capital assets.
Since there were no related interest on long term debt and amortization in 2012, the
resulting measure is the same with that of the operating costs (4.1a).
50
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Building Services
4.2 Review of Complete Permit Applications
Effectiveness Measure
Median number of working days to review a complete building permit application and
issue a permit or not issue a permit, and provide all reasons for refusal.
Objective
To process complete building permit applications quickly and accurately.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the above results:
• Building category where the application falls under
• Scope of proposed construction work/extent of plans review necessary
• Number and type of permit applications
• Compliance to Ontario building codes and other applicable laws
• Completeness of application
• General economic activity
To be considered a complete application, a permit application must be made by the
owner or authorized agent on a form approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing. All applicable fields and schedules must be completed on the
application. All fees must be paid in reference to the applicable municipal by-law,
resolution or regulation made under clause 7(1)(c) of the Building Code Act.
51
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
4.2a Category 1: Houses
2012 2011
Median number of days achieved: Median number of days achieved:
9 days _10 days
Detailed Comments
Includes residential buildings not exceeding three storeys or 600 square meters such
as:
- A detached house, semi-detached house, townhouse, or row house where no
dwelling unit is located above another dwelling unit.
- A detached structure that serves a building listed above, that does not exceed
55 square meters in building area.
- A tent to which section 3.14 of Division B of the Building Code applies.
- A sign to which section 3.15 of Division B of the Building Code applies.
The provincial standard period for a building permit to be issued or refused is 10
working days.
52
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
4.2b Categor 2: Small Buildings
2012 2011
Median number of days achieved: Median number of days achieved:
11 days 13 days
Detailed Comments
Include buildings with three or fewer storeys in height, not exceeding 600 square
meters in area and used for major occupancies, such as:
- Group C, residential occupancies
- Group D, business and personal services occupancies
- Group E, mercantile occupancies
- Group F, Divisions 2 and 3, medium and low hazard industrial occupancies.
The provincial standard period for a building permit to be issued or refused in this
category is 15 working days.
Less time needed to review applications in 2012 mainly due to a reduction in the
complexity of the submissions compared to those received in 2011.
53
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
4.2c Category 3: Large Buildings
2012 2011
Median number of days achieved: Median number of days achieved:
13 days 10 days
Detailed Comments
Include large residential, commercial, industrial and institutional buildings used for
major occupancies classified as:
- Group A, assembly occupancies
- Group B, care or detention occupancies, or
- Group F, Division 1, high hazard industrial occupancies.
Buildings exceeding 600 square meters in building area or exceeding three storeys in
height and used for major occupancies such as:
- Group C, residential occupancies
- Group D, business and personal services occupancies
- Group E, mercantile occupancies
- Group F, Divisions 2 and 3
Also include farm buildings that exceed 600 square meters in building area.
The provincial standard period for a building permit to be issued or refused in this
category is 15 working days.
In 2012, more time on average was needed to review applications due in part to
complexity of submissions and overall volume of applications received compared to
those processed in 2011.
•
54
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
4.2d Category 4: Complex Buildings
2012 • 2011
Median number of days achieved: Median number of days achieved:
10 days 12 days
Detailed Comments
Complex buildings include:
1) Post disaster buildings such as hospitals, emergency treatment facilities, blood
banks, telephone exchanges, power generating stations, electrical
substations, control centres for land transportation, public water treatment and
storage facilities, water and sewage pumping stations, emergency response
facilities, fire, rescue and police stations, storage facilities for vehicles or boats
(used for fire, rescue and police purposes) and communication facilities
including radio and television stations;
2) High buildings to which provisions of subsection 3.2.6 of Division B of the
Building Code apply; and
3) Complex buildings with mezzanines to which provisions of Articles 3.2.8.3 to
3.2.8.11 of Division B of the Building Code apply.
The provincial standard period for a building permit to be issued or refused in this
category is 30 working days.
Less time needed to review applications in 2012 due in part to the complexity of
submissions and volume of applications received compared to 2011. For example:
the City receives many tenant building permit applications from Pickering Town
Centre that is considered to be a complex building as per the Building Code
definition.
55
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road Services
-
5.1a Operating Costs for Paved Roads
2012 2011
•
$1,479.03 $1,633.78
Efficiency Measure
•
Operating costs for paved (hard top) roads per lane kilometer.
Objective
Provide efficient maintenance of paved roads.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the above results across municipalities:
• Use of roads by heavy equipment.
• The municipality's standard for road conditions in comparison with comparable
municipalities.
• Kilometers of paved roads in the municipality.
• The method of allocating overhead costs (such as office supplies, telephone,
advertising, subscriptions, insurance, general repairs and maintenance, other
indirect costs) used in the determination of the numerator when there is not a
separate cost centre.
Detailed Comments
Paved (hard top) roads include roads with asphalt surface, concrete surface,
composite pavement, Portland cement or surface treatment.
The identified costs attributable to this measure include related employee wages &
benefits, road materials, contracted services, program support, rental of equipment
and shoulder maintenance.
The City of Pickering maintains separate accounts to track material costs related to
roads. However, the costs for administration and other indirect 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 decrease in the resulting measure in 2012 is largely due to the lower material
usage and limited use of contracted services compared to 2011.
The City maintained 723 lane kilometers of paved roads in 2012 compared to 712
lane kilometers in 2011.
56
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road Services
5.1b Total Costs for Paved Roads
2012 2011
$5,292.98 $5,423.16
Efficiency Measure
Total costs for paved (hard top) roads per lane kilometer.
Objective
Provide efficient maintenance of paved roads.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the above results across municipalities:
• Use of roads by heavy equipment.
• The municipality's standard for road conditions in comparison with comparable
municipalities.
• Kilometers of paved roads in the municipality.
• The method of allocating overhead costs (such as office supplies, telephone,
advertising, subscriptions, insurance, general repairs and maintenance, other
indirect costs) used in the determination of the numerator when there is not a
separate cost centre.
• Interest on long term debt and amortization of capital costs.
• Revenue received from other municipalities related to tangible capital assets.
Detailed Comments
The total cost is calculated by adding the operating costs, interest on long term debt
and amortization net of revenue received from other municipalities related to tangible
capital assets. No related revenue was received in 2012.
The decrease in the resulting measure from 2011 to 2012 was largely due to the
slight decrease in operating costs and a slight increase in lane kilometers of paved
road.
The City maintained 723 lane kilometers of paved road in 2012 compared to 712 lane
kilometers in 2011.
57
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road Services
5.2a Operating Costs for Unpaved Roads _
2012 2011
$6,991.76 $5,348.55
Efficiency Measure
Operating costs for unpaved (loose top) roads per lane kilometer.
• Objective
Provide 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 municipality's standard for road conditions in comparison with comparable
municipalities.
• The kilometers of unpaved roads in the municipality in comparison with
comparable municipalities.
• Locations of the unpaved roads.
• The method of allocating overhead costs (that includes office supplies, telephone, ,
advertising, subscriptions, insurance, general repairs and maintenance, other
indirect costs) used in the determination of the numerator when there is not a
separate cost centre.
Detailed Comments
Unpaved (loose top) roads include roads with gravel, stone or other loose surface.
The City of Pickering maintains separate accounts to track material costs related to
roads. However, the cost for administration and other indirect costs have been
allocated to the cost of unpaved roads based on management's best estimate of the
proportion or responsibility dedicated to the road functions such as maintenance of
paved and unpaved roads and winter control.
The operating costs of maintaining the City's unpaved roads include employee wages
& benefits, amount of granular materials used, administering dust suppressants,
program support, contracted services, rental of heavy equipment, grading, wash out
fill & repair and shoulder maintenance.
In 2012, material usage increased compared to 2011. Salaries & wages likewise
increased accordingly as more staff time were required for overall road maintenance
work. Weather conditions causing road erosion, wash-outs and frost boils contributed
to this general increase.
The City maintained 213 kilometers of unpaved road in 2012 compared to 214
kilometers in 2011.
58
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
R oad Services
5.2b Total Costs for Unpaved Roads
2012 2011
$7,048.82 $5,403.04
Efficiency Measure
Total costs for unpaved (loose top) roads per lane kilometre.
Objective
Provide 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 municipality's standard for road conditions in comparison with comparable
municipalities.
• The kilometers of unpaved roads in the municipality in comparison with
comparable municipalities.
• Locations of the unpaved lanes.
• The method of allocating overhead costs (that includes office supplies, telephone,
advertising, subscriptions, insurance, general repairs and maintenance, other
indirect costs) used in the determination of the numerator when there is not a
separate cost centre.
• Interest on long term debt and amortization on capital costs.
Detailed Comments
Calculation of total costs include the sum of the total operating cost, interest on long
term debt and amortization on capital costs net of revenue received from other
municipalities related to tangible capital assets.
The increase in 2012 from 2011 was reflective of the increase in the operating costs
calculated from the previous measure.
59
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road Services
5.3a Operating Costs for Bridges and Culverts
2012 2011
$0.00 $0.00
Efficiency Measure
Operating costs for bridges and culverts per square metre of surface area.
Objective
Provide efficient maintenance of bridges and culverts.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the above results across municipalities:
• Use of bridges and causeways.
• Location and age of bridges and culverts.
• The method of allocating overhead costs (that includes office supplies, telephone,
advertising, subscriptions, insurance, general repairs and maintenance, other
indirect costs) used in the determination of the numerator when there is not a
separate cost centre.
Detailed Comments
The operating costs of maintaining the City's bridges and culverts include employees'
wages and benefits, materials used for repairs & maintenance, contracted services,
rental of equipment, program support less revenue from other municipalities.
In 2012, the City did not incur any operating costs related to the repairs &
maintenance of bridges and culverts as was in 2011.
However, the total surface area of bridges and culverts reported in 2012 increased by
835 square meters or 9% to 9,763 square meters from 8,928 in 2011. This increase
was due to the inclusion of all right-of-way bridges and pedestrian structures which
were not previously reported.
60
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road Services
5.3b Total Costs for Bridges and Culverts
2012 2011
$19.56 $21.42
Efficiency Measure
Total costs for bridges and culverts per square metre of surface area.
Objective
Provide efficient maintenance of bridges and culverts.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the above results across municipalities:
• Use of bridges and causeways.
• Locations and age of bridges and culverts.
• The method of allocating overhead costs (that includes office supplies, telephone,
advertising, subscriptions, insurance, general repairs and maintenance, other
indirect costs) used in the determination of the numerator when there is not a
separate cost centre.
Detailed Comments
The total costs of maintaining the City's bridges and culverts is the sum of the total
operating cost, interest on long term debt and amortization less revenue from other
municipalities.
The only cost included in the 2012 calculation is the amortization on capital assets,
which is relatively the same with the cost in 2011. The decrease in the resulting
measure for 2012 compared to 2011 was due to the increase in surface area of
bridges and culverts used as denominator in the calculation.
61
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road Services
5.4a Operating Costs for Winter Maintenance of Roads
2012 j 2011
$1,154.70 $1,840.37
Efficiency Measure
Operating costs for winter maintenance of roadways per lane kilometer maintained in
winter.
Objective
Provide efficient winter maintenance of roadways.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the above results:
• The municipality's standard service levels for road conditions.
• The kilometers of paved and unpaved roads in the municipality in comparison with
comparable municipalities.
• The method of allocating overhead costs (that includes office supplies, travel,
telephone, advertising, subscriptions, insurance, general repairs and maintenance,
other indirect costs) used in the determination of the numerator when there is not a
separate cost centre.
Detailed Comments
Since 2004 the City of Pickering has maintained a separate account to track material
costs that are directly related to winter control of roadways. The costs for
administration and other indirect costs however have been allocated based on
management's best estimate of the proportion of responsibility dedicated to the road
function for winter control.
The total operating cost of the City's winter control maintenance includes related
employee wages & benefits, salt, sand & other materials, program support, equipment
rental and culvert thawing. This figure is directly related to the winter condition during
the reporting year.
The decrease in the resulting measure in 2012 from 2011 was largely due to the
decrease in material usage and salaries & wages coupled with a slight increase in total
lane kilometres of roads maintained. The measure is directly related to weather
severity and duration (see 5.7 for total winter events).
The City maintained 936 lane kilometres of total road types in 2012 compared to 926 in
2011.
•
62
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road Services _
5.4b Total Costs for Winter Maintenance of Roads
• 2012 2011
$1,154.70 $1,840.37
Efficiency Measure
Total costs for winter maintenance of roadways per lane kilometre maintained in
winter.
Objective
Provide efficient winter control operation.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the above results:
• The municipality's standard service levels for road conditions.
• The kilometers of paved and unpaved roads in the municipality in comparison with
comparable municipalities.
• The method of allocating overhead costs (that includes office supplies, travel,
telephone, advertising, subscriptions, insurance, general repairs and maintenance,
other indirect costs) used in the determination of the numerator when there is not a
separate cost centre.
Detailed Comments
The total cost for winter maintenance of roads is calculated as the sum of the total
operating cost, interest on long term debt and amortization on related assets net of
revenue from other municipalities related to tangible capital assets.
In 2012, there was no interest and amortization costs for equipment related to winter
maintenance of roadways, as was in 2011. Therefore, the resulting measure is the
same with the calculated result showing on the operating costs for winter maintenance
of roads (see 5.4a).
63
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road Services
5.5 Adequac of Roads
2012 2011
87.1% — 86.9%
Effectiveness Measure
Percentage of paved lane kilometres where the condition is rated as good to very good.
Objective
Provide a paved road 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 roads in the municipality in comparison with comparable
municipalities.
•' Volume of traffic.
•
Detailed Comments
City staff uses their best estimates to establish the percentage of roads that are rated as
good to very good. The City's road patrols, the public, employees and the Roads Needs
Study are other sources providing feedback on road conditions. As existing roads are
reconstructed, repaired and rehabilitated, the rating improves to a higher level year over
year. The City is working on introducing degradation curves (within an updated Road
Needs Study) to the road network adequacy formulae to better represent road
adequacy.
In 2012, 630 out of 723 kilometers (87.1%) of paved lane was rated to be in good to
very good condition as compared to 618 out of 711 kilometers (86.9%) in 2011.
64
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road Services
5.6 Adequacy of Bridges and Culverts
2012 2011
54.1% 74.5%
Effectiveness Measure
Percentage of bridges and culverts where the condition is rated as good to very good.
Objective
Maintain safe bridges and culverts.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the above results across municipalities:
• Use of bridges and causeways.
• Maintenance of bridges and causeways as required to meet standards.
• Locations of bridges and culverts.
Detailed Comments
The condition of a bridge or culvert in this performance measure means the condition of
only the primary components which are the main load carrying components of the
structure. This includes: decks, beams, girders, abutments, foundations, etc. Any other
components used to distribute loads such as sidewalks, curbs, sway braces and wing
walls are excluded.
In 2012, a total of 33 bridges and culverts were rated as good to very good out of 61
(54.1%) compared to 38 out of 51 (74.5%) in 2011. The adequacy rating is provided
from the City's 2012 Structure Appraisal Report.
The bridge and culvert inventory was revised to 61 in 2012 from 51 in 2011 after
clarification from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing that right-of-way and
• pedestrian bridges should be included in the total count.
The decrease in the resulting measure from 2011 to 2012 was largely due to the more
detailed bridge inspection and reporting in 2012 and the appropriate adjustment in the
bridge and culvert inventory (denominator) which reduced the resulting measure
considerably.
65
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road Services -
5.7 Winter Event Response
2012 2011
100% • 100%
Effectiveness Measure
Percentage of winter events where the response met or exceeded locally determined
road municipal service levels for road maintenance.
Objective
Provide an appropriate response to winter storm 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 kilometers of paved and unpaved roads in the municipality in comparison with
comparable municipalities.
• Hours of Service regulations under the Highway Traffic Act.
Detailed Comments
Roads are cleaned and cleared usually within 24 hours of a snowfall when adequate
resources are available in accordance with hours of service regulations. In 2012, as
was in prior years, the City did not experience a winter event where staff was not able to
meet or exceed road maintenance standards.
The City defines an event as 2-3 cm of snowfall or ice-covered roads caused by freezing
rains. Once the crews are mobilized, they work (within regulations) until the snow event
is controlled. This duration is variable depending on weather severity.
The City responded to 28 winter storm events in 2012 compared to 26 in 2011. All
responses met or exceeded the municipal standard winter control maintenance levels.
Although the City responded to more snow events in 2012, their overall durations were
shorter and required less materials and staff resources.
66
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Storm Water Management
8.1a Operating Costs for Urban Storm Water Management
2012 2011
$1,166.19 $1,870.60
Efficiency Measure
Operating costs for urban storm water management (collection, treatment, and
disposal) per kilometer of drainage system.
Objective
Provide efficient storm water management.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the efficiency rate of Urban storm water
management:
• Geography of the City
• Extent and age of the drainage system
• Inventory of pipes in the Municipality
Detailed Comments
Storm-water management has become increasingly important in the urban area as the
City continues to develop and intensify. Impacts such as flooding, erosion and poor
water quality are being addressed through watershed wide controls thus reducing the
pressures that are put on watercourses and Frenchman's Bay.
This performance measure identifies direct costs related to the efficient collection,
treatment and conveyance of stormwater from urban areas against total kilometers of
urban drainage systems. Direct costs include salaries/wages/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.
The decrease in the resulting measure in 2012 from 2011 was largely due to the
decrease in material usage, salaries & wages and contracted services. Maintenance
programs related to urban storm water were initiated later in the year but were not
completed in 2012. However, this contributed greatly to the decrease in contracted
services allotment. Also, a slight increase in the total kilometer of urban drainage
network (denominator) due to newly developed areas contributed to the lower
calculated measure.
The City maintained 301 kilometer of urban drainage system in 2012 as compared to -
298 in 2011.
67
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
S torm Water Management
8.1b Total Cost for Urban Storm Water Management
2012 2011
$7,992.36 $8,598.61
Effectiveness Measure
Total costs for urban storm water management (collection, treatment, and disposal) per
kilometre of drainage system.
Objective
Provide efficient storm water management.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the efficiency rate of urban storm water
management:
• The geography of the City
• The extent and age of the drainage system
• The inventory of pipes in the Municipality
Detailed Comments
The total cost for urban storm water management is calculated as the sum of the total
operating cost, interest on long term debt and amortization on related assets net of
revenue from other municipalities related to tangible capital assets.
In 2012, interest and amortization costs on related assets slightly increased from 2011
but the decrease in the resulting measure was largely due to the decrease in operating
costs (see 8.1a).
68
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Storm Water Marla.ement
8.2a Operating Costs for Rural Storm Water Management
_-- - 2012 2011 - -- ---
$3,787.85 $2,877.27
Efficiency Measure
Operating costs for rural storm water management (collection, treatment, and disposal)
per kilometer of drainage system.
Objective
Provide efficient rural storm water management.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the efficiency rate of rural storm water
management:
• The geography, size and nature of the rural area.
• Land erosion control.
• The frequency and time devoted to the maintenance of the rural drainage system.
Detailed Comments
A rural stormwater system is one where storm water is conveyed primarily along the
side of roadways normally with open ditches located in areas defined on rural
Pickering's Official Plan. A rural system may also include storm sewers and catch
basins.
The total operating cost sums up all related salaries/wages/benefits, contracted
services, materials, other direct costs such as culvert repairs and maintenance,
ditching, bank repair and other day-to-day maintenance activities, rentals,
interfunctional adjustments and program support over a total kilometers of drainage
system.
The increase in the resulting measure in 2012 was largely due to the increase in
materials usage, salaries & wages and contracted services. Programs such as
roadside ditching were a priority in 2012 and contributed to this increase.
The City maintained 351 kilometers of rural storm water drainage network in 2012. The
same distance maintained in prior years.
69
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Storm Water Management
8.2b Total Costs for Rural Storm Water Management
2012 2011
$3,847.99 $2,939.39
Efficiency Measure-
Total costs for rural storm water management (collection, treatment, and disposal) per
kilometer of drainage system. -
Objective
Provide efficient rural storm water management.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the efficiency rate of rural storm water
management:
• The geography, size and nature of the rural area.
• Land erosion control.
• The frequency and time devoted to the maintenance of the rural drainage system.
• Interest on long term debt and amortization.
Detailed Comments
This measure calculates the sum of operating costs, interest on long term debt and
related amortization for rural storm water management over total kilometers of rural
drainage system plus 0.005 kilometers times the number of catch basins. It provides a
picture of the cost spent in maintaining a rural drainage system on a per kilometer
basis.
The difference in the resulting measure was from the increase in operating costs as
calculated in the previous measure (8.2a).
70
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation _
11.1a O.eratin• Cost for Parks per Person _
2012 2011
$47.59 $45.40
Efficiency Measure
Operating costs for maintaining the parks per person.
Objective
Provide efficient operation of parks.
General Comments
Operating costs in maintaining outdoor open spaces including parks, parkettes, flower
gardens, natural areas, playgrounds, public squares, skateboard parks, outdoor skating
rinks, sports fields, splash pads, trails and similar spaces are included in the determination
of this measure. To calculate this measure, the total operating cost is divided by the total
City population.
Detailed Comments
The City maintains the parks on a daily basis during summer. The scheduled grass cutting
cycle of 5 to 10 days is maintained to control growth and keep all parks available and safe
for public use at all times during the summer months. However, the amount of precipitation
received during this time directly affects the grass cutting cycle.
The increase in the resulting measure from 2011 to 2012 was due to the increase in wages
and material costs required to maintain all parks.
71
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation
11.1b Total Cost for Parks per Person
2012 2011
$56.86 $54.96
Efficiency Measure
Total costs for maintaining the parks per person.
Objective
Provide efficient operations of parks.
Detailed Comments
Total cost calculation sums up the total operating cost, interest on long term debt and
amortization on capital assets related to parks, divided by the total population.
This measure provides a picture of how much the City spent in maintaining the parks on a
per person basis. The increase in the resulting measure from 2011 to 2012 was largely due
to the increase in operating costs (11.1a).
72
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation
11.2a Operating Costs for Recreation Programs per Person
2012 2011
$51.01 _ $47.97
Efficiency Measure
Operating costs for recreation programs per person.
Objective
Provide efficient operation of recreation programs.
Detailed Comments
Recreation programs include a wide range of programs, services and activities offered by the
City to the public. This measure is calculated by dividing the total operating cost with total
population. Total operating cost in running the programs includes salaries, wages, benefits,
materials, contracted services, rents, transfers and adjustments.
Recreation programs are continuously reviewed and changed depending on public demand.
Seasonality of activities also affects the type and frequency of program offerings.
In 2012, there was an increase in the overall operating cost for recreation programs from 2011
which was consistent with the increase in total participant hours for recreation programs in the
year. Although total population in 2012 increased slightly from 2011, the resulting measure was
still an increase of$3.04 per person from 2011.
73
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
•
Parks and Recreation
11.2b Total Costs for Recreation Programs per Person
2012 2011
$51.01 $47.97
Efficiency Measure
Total cost for the operation of recreation programs per person.
Objective
Provide efficient operation of recreation programs.
Detailed Comments
The total cost is calculated as the sum of operating costs, interest on long term debt and
amortization related to recreation programs. In 2012, like in prior years, no interest and
amortization related to recreation programs were allocated. Hence, the total costs per person
is the same as the operating cost per person reported in 11.2a above.
•
74
•
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation _
11.3a Operating Costs for Recreation Facilities per Person
2012 2011
$85.86 $85.96
Efficiency Measure
Operating costs for recreation facilities per person.
Objective
Provide efficient operation of recreation facilities.
Detailed Comments
Recreation facilities include built or enclosed structures used for the purposes of community
recreation and leisure. These facilities normally involve some form of operating function either
mechanical, electrical or both and some form of controlled access. Recreation facilities include
community centres, gymnasiums, arenas, fitness centres, indoor skating rinks, indoor and
outdoor swimming pools, lawn bowling greens, tennis courts, youth/senior centres, wading
pools, etc.
Included in the calculation of this measure are salaries/wages/benefits, materials, contracted
services, rents, transfers and adjustments related to the operation of all recreation facilities,
divided by total population.
The total operating cost in 2012 increased by about 1.7% from 2011 but the population
(denominator) likewise increased by almost the same percentage over the same period. This
resulted to almost the same calculation for both years.
75
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
•
Parks and Recreation
11.3b Total Costs for Recreation Facilities per Person
2012 2011
$100.37 $100.02
Efficiency Measure
Total cost for recreation facilities per person.
Objective
Provide efficient operation of the City's recreation facilities.
Detailed Comments
Total cost includes operating costs, interest on long term debt and amortization, less revenue
from other municipalities for tangible capital assets related to the operation of all recreation
programs and facilities.
In 2012, a slight increase in the amortization expense resulted to a small increase in the
calculation of this measure compared to 2011.
76
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation
11.4a Operating Costs for Recreation Programs and Recreation Facilities per Person
(Subtotal)
2012 2011
$136.88 $133.93
Efficiency Measure
Operating costs for recreation programs and recreation facilities per person.
Objective
Provide efficient operation of the City's recreation programs and facilities
Detailed Comments
Included in this measure is the cost of salaries/wages/benefits and all other direct costs related
to the operation of recreational programs and facilities. This is the sum of the measures as
calculated in 11.2a and 11.3a above.
77
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation
11.4b Total Costs for Recreation Programs and Recreation Facilities per Person
(Subtotal)
2012 2011
$151.38 $147.99
Efficiency Measure
Total costs for recreation programs and recreation facilities per person.
Objective
Provide efficient operation of the City's programs and recreation facilities .
Detailed Comments
Total costs include the operating costs calculated in 11.4a above plus the interest on long term
debt and amortization per person related to the operation of recreation programs and
maintenance of facilities less revenue from other municipalities for tangible capital assets
related to programs and facilities. This is the sum of items 11.2b and 11.3b above.
•
78
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation
11.5 Total Kilometres of Trails per 1,000 Persons
2012 2011
0.170 km 0.173 km
Effectiveness Measure
Kilometres of trails per 1,000 persons
Objective
Measure the effectiveness of trails in the City that provide recreation opportunities.
Detailed Comments
Total kilometres of trails owned by the City plus trails owned by third parties where the City has
a formal lease contract, joint use agreement or reciprocal use agreement for every 1,000
residents were used in the calculation of this measure.
The City maintained 16 kilometres of trail in both 2012 and 2011. The decrease in the
calculated measure in 2012 was a result of the higher population over 2011.
79
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation
11.6 Hectares of Open Space and Hectares of Open_pace per 1,000 Persons
2012 2011
2.329 ha 2.371 ha
Effectiveness Measure
Hectares of open space (City owned) per 1,000 person.
Objective
Measure the adequacy of open space for the population.
Detailed Comments
Total hectares of City owned open space over total population was used in this calculation.
Open space includes all outdoor open spaces that provide opportunities and benefits for
active, passive and programmed community recreation and leisure that are accessible to the
public. This includes but not limited to allotments, horticultural areas, natural areas, parks and
parkettes, playgrounds, public squares, skateboard parks, sports fields and trails.
The City maintained 219 hectares of municipally owned open space in 2012 and 2011. The
decrease in the calculated figure was the result of a higher population count in 2012 compared
to 2011 (denominator).
•
80
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation
11.7 Total Participant Hours for Recreation Programs
2012 2011
21,493 hrs 21,609 hrs
Effectiveness Measure
Total participant hours for recreation programs per 1,000 persons.
Objective
Measure the effectiveness of programs provided by the City.
Detailed Comments
Participant hours are based only on the number of active registrants or participants in a
program. Hours for special events are not part of this measure.
Total participant hours for every 1,000 person in the City including registered, drop-in and
permitted recreation programs and activities was used in this calculation.
In 2012, there was an overall increase in participant hours from 2011. Most of these were from
permitted programs specifically from the use of pools, arenas and sports fields. However, due
to the increase in population for 2012, the resulting measure decreased by 116 hrs per 1,000
persons from 2011.
81
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation
11.8 Square Metres of Indoor Recreation Facilities and Square Metres of Indoor
Recreation Facilities per 1,000 Persons (Municipally Owned)
2012 _ 2011
437.121 sqm 442.066 sqm
Effectiveness Measure
Square metres of indoor recreation facilities per 1,000 persons.
Objective •
Determine the adequacy of indoor recreation facility space available to the public.
Detailed Comments
City owned indoor recreation facilities include built or enclosed structures used for the
purposes of community recreation and leisure.
In 2012, the City maintained 41,099 square meters of municipally owned indoor recreation
facilities as compared to 40,831 square meters in 2011. The reopening of Don Beer arena ice
rink one after over a year of reconstruction has added additional surface area for indoor
recreation usage in 2012.
The decrease in the calculated measure for 2012 from 2011 was a result of the higher
population count used (denominator) in the calculation.
82
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation
11.9 Square Metres of Outdoor Recreation Facility Space and Square Metres of Outdoor
Recreation Facility Space 'er 1,000 Persons Munici sail Owned)
2012 2011
282.796 sqm 287.872 sqm
Effectiveness Measure
Square metres of outdoor recreation facility space per 1,000 persons.
Objective
Determine the adequacy of outdoor recreation facility space available to the public.
Detailed Comments
Total area in square metres of municipally owned outdoor recreation facility space with
controlled access and electrical or mechanical functions per 1,000 persons were used in this
calculation.
The City owns and maintains 26,589 square metres of outdoor space. The decrease in the
2012 measure was a result the higher population used in the calculation (denominator)
compared to 2011.
•
83
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
•
Library Services
12.1a Operating Costs for Library Services per Person
2012 2011
$57.83 $57.66
Efficiency Measure
Operating costs for library services per person.
Objective
Provide efficient library services to the public.
Detailed Comments
The City has five library locations servicing its residents in 2012. The cost for all five locations
is included in the calculation of this measure, which includes salaries, wages, benefits,
materials, rent and all other operating costs divided by total population.
There was an increase in total salaries and wages in 2012 from 2011 but the increase was
slightly offset by the reduction in the cost of purchased materials and higher population count
(denominator) used in the calculation.
84
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Library Services
12.1 b Total Costs for Library Services per Person
2012 2011
$63.97 $66.73
Efficiency Measure
Total costs for library services per person.
Objective
Provide efficient library services to the public.
Detailed Comments
Total cost for this measure is the sum of the operating costs, interest on long term debt and
amortization of related capital assets divided by total population.
The resulting measure decreased in 2012 from 2011 due to the lower amortization on related
capital assets. The increase in the population count (denominator) used in the calculation also
contributed to the lower total cost for library services per person in 2012.
85
•
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Library Services
12.2a Operating Costs for Library Services per Use
2012 2011
$1.69 $1.72
Efficiency Measure
Operating costs for library services per use.
Objective
Provide efficient library services to the public.
Detailed Comments
The City has five locations servicing its residents in 2012. The total operating costs for all five
locations and the total library uses was used in the calculation of this measure.
In 2012, there was a slight increase in operating costs compared to 2011. But this was offset
by an increase in total library uses (denominator) resulting to a slightly lower calculated
operating cost for library service per use.
86
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Library Services
12.2b Total Costs for Library Services per Use -_
2012 2011
$1.87 $1.99
Efficiency Measure
Total costs for library services per use.
Objective
Provide efficient library services to the public.
Detailed Comments
The total costs for all five library locations in 2012 was used in the calculation of this measure
against total library uses. The total costs include the sum of the operating costs, interest on
long term debt and amortization of related capital assets. The decrease in the calculated
measure for 2012 was due to a lower amortization costs on library materials compared to
2011.
87
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Library Services
12.3 Library Uses per Person
2012 2011
34.141 33.563
Effectiveness Measure
Library uses per person.
Objective
Increased use of library services.
General Comment
Although population changes impact the resulting measure, it does not necessarily affect the
level of service provided. A change in usage alone is a satisfactory indicator of service levels.
Detailed Comments
Total electronic and non electronic library uses from all five locations together with the total
population of the City were used in the calculation of this measure.
A higher total library usage per person in 2012 compared to 2011 was the result of an actual
increase in both electronic and non-electronic total library usage (numerator).
Total usage was up by about 3.6% from 3,100,002 in 2011 to 3,209,970 in 2012.
•
88
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Library Services
12.4 Electronic Library Uses as a Percentage of Total Library Uses
2012 2011
35.8% 36.2%
Effectiveness Measure
Electronic library uses as a percentage of total library uses.
Objective
Effectiveness of information on library usage.
Detailed Comments
The percentage of electronic uses includes 2012 data from the five library locations. Uses
include the number of people using on-site library computers, number of times electronic
collections (e-books, etc.) are accessed, number of users of wireless connection and number
of electronic visits to the library website.
In 2012, the actual number of electronic library uses increased from 2011. However,
as a percentage of total library usage for the year, electronic usage decreased from 36.2% in
2011 to 35.8% in 2012. This was due to a higher non electronic usage in the year.
89
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Library Services
12.5 Non Electronic Library Uses as a Percentage of Total Library Uses
2012 2011
64.2% 63.8%
Effectiveness Measure
Non-electronic Library uses as a percentage of total library uses.
Objective
Effectiveness of information on library usage.
Detailed Comments
Non-electronic uses includes data from the five library locations in 2012. Uses include
program attendance, in-library materials use, number of standard reference transactions,
number of reader's advisor transactions and number of in-person visits to the library.
From among the categories under non electronic library uses mentioned above, the increase in
the resulting measure for 2012 was primarily due to an increase in both the number of in-
person visits made to the library and the use of in-library materials compared to 2011.
•
90
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Land Use Planning
13.1 Percentage of New Residential Units Located Within Settlement Areas
2012 2011
100.0% 99.6%
Effectiveness Measure
Percentage of new residential units located within settlement areas.
Objective
New residential development is occurring within settlement areas.
Detailed Comments
The number of new residential units in detached houses, semi-detached houses, row
/town houses and apartments/condo apartments within the settlement areas are used for
the calculation of this measure as a percentage of the total number of new residential
units created within the entire City. Settlement areas include areas within the City which
have been designated for residential development in an approved municipal official plan.
In 2012, there were 286 new dwelling units within the City as compared to 566 in 2011.
All of the 286 new units in 2012 were located within the designated settlement areas
whereas only 564 out of 566 in 2011 were located within the settlement areas.
•
91
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Land Use Planning
13.2 Preservation of Agricultural Lands
2012 2011
100.0% 100.0%
Effectiveness Measure
Percentage of land designated for agricultural purposes which was not re-designated for
other uses during the reporting year.
Objective
Preservation of agricultural land.
Detailed Comments
The City of Pickering maintained 8,823 hectares of land designated for agricultural
purposes in both 2012 and 2011. No area was re-designated to other uses in the reporting
year.
92
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Land Use Planning
13.3 Preservation of Agricultural Lands Relative to 2000
2012 2011
99.5% 99.5%
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
Preservation of agricultural land.
Detailed Comments
Of the 8,865 hectares of land originally designated for agricultural purposes in the official plan
as of January 1, 2000, a total 42 hectares was re-designated since then. No agricultural land
was re-designated in the reporting year 2012.
93
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Land Use Planning
13.4 Hectares of Agricultural Land which was Re-designated for Other Uses During
the Reporting Year
2012 2011
0 0
Effectiveness Measure
Number of hectares of land originally designated for agricultural purposes which was re-
designated for other uses during the reporting year.
Objective
Preservation of agricultural land.
Detailed Comments
There was no re-designation of agricultural land to other classifications in 2012.
94
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Land Use Planning
13.5 Hectares of Agricultural Lands which was Re-designated for Other Uses Since
2000
2012 2011
-- -- — 42 ha 42 ha ----
Effectiveness Measure
Number of hectares of land originally designated for agricultural purposes which was re-
designated for other uses since January 1, 2000.
Objective
Preservation of agricultural land.
Detailed Comments
A total of 42 hectares of agricultural land was re-designated to other uses since 2000.
95
ATTACHMENT# - TO REPORT#fife
CITY OF PICKERING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
COMPARISON OF 2012 & 2011 MEASURES
Performance Measures 2012 2011
General Government-Efficiency
-Operating cost for governance and corporate management 6.60% 7.70%
as%of total municipal operating costs
-Total cost for governance and corporate management
as%of total municipal costs 5.60% 6.60%
Protection Services-Efficiency&Effectiveness of Fire Services
-Operating cost for fire services per$1,000 of assessment $ 1.36 $ 1.35
-Total cost for fire services per$1,000 of assessment $ 1.43 $ 1.42
-Number of residential fire related civilian injuries per 1,000 persons 0.021 0.032
-Residential fire related civilian injuries-5 year average per 1,000 persons 0.011 0.02.2
-Residential fire related civilian fatalities per 1,000 persons $ - $ -
-Residential fire related civilian fatalities-5 year average per 1,000 persons $ - 0.011
-Number of residential structural fires per 1,000 households 0.864 0.365
Building Services-Efficiency&Effectiveness
-Operating cost for building permits and inspection services $ 4.50 $ 5.69
-Total cost for building permits and inspection services $ 4.50 $ 5.69
-Median number of days to process a complete building permit application
-Category 1: Houses 9 days 10 days
-Category 2: Small buildings 11 days 13 days
-Category 3: Large buildings 13 days 10 days
-Category 4i Complex buildings 10 days 12 days
Transportation Services-Efficiency of Roadways
-Operating cost for paved roads per lane kilometer $ 1,479.03 $ 1,633.75
-Total cost for paved roads per lane kilometer $ 5,292.98 $ 5,423.16
-Operating cost for unpaved roads per lane kilometer $ 6,991.76 $ 5,348.55
-Total cost for unpaved roads per lane kilometer $ 7,048.82 $ 5,403.04
-Operating cost for bridges&culverts per sq m of surface area $ - $ -
-Total cost for bridges&culverts per sq m of surface area $ 19.56 $ 21.42
-Operating cost for winter control maintenance of roads per lane kilometer $ 1,154.70 $ 1,840.37
-Total cost for winter control maintenance of roads per lane kilometer $ 1,154.70 * $ 1,810 37
Tranportation Services -Effectiveness of Roadways
-Percentage of paved lane kilometer rated as good to very good 87.10% 86.90%
Percentage of bridges&culverts rated as good to very good 54.10% 74.5D%
-Percentage of winter event response that met or exceeded set standards 100.00% 100.00%
Environmental Services -Efficiency of Storm Water System
-Operating cost for urban storm water management(collection,treatment
and disposal)per kilometer of drainage system(URBAN) $ 1,166.19 $ 1,870.60
-Total cost for urban storm water management(collection,treatment
and disposal) per kilometer of drainage system(URBAN) $ 7,992.36 $ 8,598.61
-Operating cost for rural storm water management(collection,treatment
and disposal)per kilometer of drainage system(RURAL) $ 3,787.85 $ 2,877.27
-Total cost for rural storm water management(collection,treatment
and disposal)per kilometer of drainage system (RURAL) $ 3,847.99 $ 2,939.39
Parks&Recreation -Efficiency of Parks Operation
• Operating cost for parks per person $ 47.59 $ 45.40
-Total cost for parks per person $ 58.86 $ 54.96
Recreation Programs-Efficiency in the Operation of Recreation Programs
-Operating cost for recreation progams per person $ 51.01 $ 47.97
-Total cost for recreation progams per person $ 51.01 $ 47.97
96
CITY OF PICKERING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
COMPARISON OF 2012 & 2011 MEASURES
Performance Measures 2012 2011
Recreation Facilities -Efficiency in the Operation of Recreation Facilities
-Operating cost for recreation facility per person $ 85.86 $ 85.96
-Total cost for recreation facility per person $ 100.37 $ 100.02
Parks,Recreation Programs&Recreation Facilities-Operations of Parks,
Recreation Programs and Recreation Facilities Efficiency
-Operating cost for recreation programs and recreation facilities
per person(subtotal) $ 136.88 $ 133.93
-Total cost for recreation programs and recreation facilities
per person(subtotal) $ 151.38 $ 147.99
Trails -Provide recreational opportunities
-Total kilometers of trails and total kilometers of trails per 1,000 person 0.170 km 0.173 km
Parks&Recreation-Adequate Open Space for the population
-Hectares of Open Space per 1,000 person 2.329 ha 2.371 ha
Participant Hours for Recreation Programs-How Effective the City
is in servicing the needs of residents for Recreation Programs
-Total participant hours for recreation programs per 1,000 person 21,493 hs 21,609 hrs
Recreation Facility Space-Recreation facility space is adequate for
population(municipally owned)
-Square metres of indoor recreation facility space per 1,000 person 437.121 sq.m. 442.066 sq.m.
-Square metres of outdoor recreation facility space per 1,000 person 282.796 sq.m. 287.872 sq.m.
Library Services-Efficiency
-Operating cost for library service per person $ 57.83 $ 57.66
-Total cost for library service per person $ 63.97 $ 66.73
-Operating cost for library service per use $ 1.69 $ 1.72
-Total cost for library service per use $ 1.87 $ 1.99
Library Services-Library Services Effectiveness
- Library uses per person 34.141 33.563
- Percentage of Electronic Library uses 35.80% 36.20%
- Percentage of Non-Electronic Library uses 64.20% 63.80%
Planning and Development-Effectiveness of Land Use Planning
- Percentage of new residential units located in settlement areas 100.00% 99.60%
- Percentage of lands designated for agricultural purposes which was not
re-designated for other uses during the reporting year 100.00% 100.00%
-, Percentage of land designated for argicultural purposes which was not
re-designated for other uses relative to the base year of 2000. 99.50% 99.50%
- Number of hectares of land originally designated for agricultural purposes
which was re-designated for other uses during the reporting year 0 0
- Number of hectares of land originally designated for agricultural purposes,
which was re-designated for other uses since January 1,2000. _ 42 ha 42 ha
97
ATTACHMENT#.,,,E_TO REPORT# 1,1,) 0-13
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
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 pickerinq.ca as of September 30, 2013 or available at the Corporate
Services Department, 2nd Floor, Pickering Civic Complex.
•
98