Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCS 17-02 100 Ciú¡ o~ REPORT TO THE FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Report Number: CS 17-02 Date: September 9,2002 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: Municipal Performance Measurement Program - Provincially Mandated Public Reporting of Performance Measur~s Recommendation: It is recommended that Report CS 17-02 from the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be approved and that: 1, the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to make any necessary changes to the attachments in order to ensure completeness and accuracy in the information reported to the public; and, 2. the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. Executive Summary: At its meeting of July 17, 2002 the Audit Committee directed that a draft of the Municipal Performance Measurement Program results be submitted to the Finance & Operations Committee 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. As was the case in 2001, the measures were filed with the Province by the July 31 deadline, In the meantime 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 results of that exercise that will be reported to the public. Financial Implications: None. Report CS 17-02 Date: September 9, 2002 101 Subject: Municipal Performance Measurement Program - Provincially Mandated Public Reporting of Performance Measures Page 2 Background: Attachment 1 is the information mandated by the Province to be reported to the public by September 30,2001. With this being the second 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 developing 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, In Year 2, 2001, there was data collected for 25 measures and all are required to be publicly reported. Of these only 15 performance measures are applicable for the City of Pickering. The feedback received from municipalities after the first year 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. However this also impacts the comparability of the results from year to year. 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 and further clarifications from the Province that year to year comparisons within the municipality and across municipalities will start to become meaningful. As was reported to Council in September, 2001 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 4. The information will also be available to anyone wishing to pick it up at City Hall, 102 Report CS 17-02 Date: September 9, 2002 Subject: Municipal Performance Measurement Program - Provincially Mandated Public Reporting of Performance Measures Page 3 Attachments: 1, 2, 2001 Provincial Performance Measurement Program - Public Reporting 2000 Provincial Performance Measurement Program - as reported to the public in the City's website Comparison of 2000 and 2001 Performance Measures Public Notice to be include in the Community Page of the News Advertiser 3. 4, Prepared I Approved I Endorsed By: GAP:vw Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Operations & Emergency Services Director, Planning & Development Solicitor for the City City Clerk <-~4&/ -~ Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council " I/f' i~TTACHMEt\j Î #---L- TO REPORT#CS 17-1J J 1 I) 3 2001 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORTING CITY OF PICKERING CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT SEPTEMBER, 2002 104 OVERVIEW As required by the Ontario Government's Municipal Performance Measures Program (MPMP). The Treasurer of the City of Pickering, as part of its 2001 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. 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 would 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. The following results are the City of Pickering performance measures for the year 2001. Each measure is 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. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2001 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT 105 LOCAL GOVERNMENT OPERATING COSTS FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MUNICIPAL OPERATING COSTS 2001 Results 12.79% of total municipal operating costs General Comments The following factors can influence the above results across municipalities: . The extent to which a municipality's administrative function and costs are centralized or decentralized. The extent to which a municipality's administrative services are provided in-house or externally. . Detailed Comments The City of Pickering operates a centralized Purchasing function, which in turns leads to a centralized Accounts Payable function, The City of Pickering also has centralized Information Technology Services and Legal Services. 106 CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2001 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT FIRE SERVICES OPERATING COSTS FOR FIRE SERVICES PER $1,000 OF ASSESSMENT 2001 Results $1.31 per $1 ,000 of assessment General Comments The operating costs can be affected by the following factors: . Emergency response times . Number and location of fire halls Assessment value does not necessarily correlate to operating costs for fire services, The higher the assessment value, the lower the cost per $1,000 assessment. Conversely the urbanlrural 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 2001 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT 107 ROAD SERVICES OPERATING COSTS FOR PAVED ROADS PER LANE KILOMETRE 2001 Results $500,25 Per paved lane kilometre General Comments The following factors can influence the above results: . Use of the roads by heavy equipment. . The municipality's standard for road conditions in comparison with comparable municipalities, . Kilometers of paved roads in the municipality. . The allocation of operating costs used in the determination of the numerator. 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 cost 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 responsiblility dedicated to the road functions such as maintenance of paved and unpaved roads and winter control. 108 CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2001 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT ROAD SERVICES OPERATING COSTS FOR UNPAVED ROADS PER LANE KILOMETRE 2001 Results $4,414,35 Per unpaved lane kilometre General Comments The following factors can influence the above results: . Use of the roads by heavy equipment. . The kilometres of unpaved roads in municipality in comparison with comparable municipalities, . Locations of the unpaved lanes. . The allocation of operating costs used in the determination of the numerator. 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. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2001 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT 109 ROAD SERVICES OPERATING COSTS FOR WINTER CONTROL PER LANE KILOMETRE 2001 Results $889.66 Per lane kilometre 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, 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 cost 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. 110 CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2001 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT ROAD SERVICES PERCENTAGE OF PAVED KILOMETRES THAT WAS RATED GOOD TO VERY GOOD IN THE MUNICIPAL 2001 Results 75,10% of the roads were rated good to very ç ood in the municipality. 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 used best estimates to establish that the roads were rated good to very good in the municipality. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2001 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT 111 ROAD SERVICES PERCENTAGE OF WINTER EVENT RESPONSES THAT MET OR EXCEEDED MUNICIPAL ROAD MAINTENANCE STANDARDS 2001 Results 100,00% met or exceeded municipal road maintenance standards, 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 The City did not experience a winter event which staff was not able to meet or exceed road maintenance standards. 112 CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2001 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT TRANSIT SERVICES OPERATING COST FOR CONVENTIONAL TRANSIT PER REGULAR SERVICE PASSENGER TRIP 2001 Results $3.11 per passenger trip. 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, . An unexpected event that may be included in operating costs that has no correlation to service levels. . The urban/rural mix of the service area. Detailed Comments Effective September, 2001 the City operates a "joint board of management" in conjunction with the Town of Ajax which serves the transit needs of both municipalities. The City of Pickering has a GO-transit station and a shopping mall located within its boundaries that would increase the passenger usage by individuals outside of Pickering's boundaries, These trips would be deemed as transfers and 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 2001, the number of passenger trips excluding transfers was 1,189,625 and used in the calculation above. The number of trips including transfers would be 1,382,356 and if these were included the cost per passenger trip would become $2.67. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2001 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT 113 TRANSIT SERVICES NUMBER OF CONVENTIONAL TRANSIT PASSENGER TRIPS PER PERSON IN THE SERVICE AREA IN A YEAR 2001 Results 13.84 trips per person in the service area. 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, 114 CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2001 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT SOLID WASTE OPERATING COST FOR WASTE COLLECTION PER TONNE 2001 Results $67,32 per tonne. General Comments The efficiency rate can be influenced by the following factors: . 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 3R's initiatives and educational/promotional efforts, . The urban/rural mix and size of the municipality. Detailed Comments The City of Pickering currently contracts out all waste collection services. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2001 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT 115 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPLAINTS RECEIVED IN A YEAR PER 1,000 HOUSEHOLD 2001 Results 30 complaints were received in the year per 1,000 household. General Comments The efficiency rate can be influenced by the following factors: . The types of calls received. . The level of service provided. Detailed Comments The City contracts out its services however, it manages complaints by assisting taxpayers directly. 116 CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2001 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT SOLID WASTE OPERATING COST FOR SOLID WASTE DIVERSION PER TONNE PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE DIVERTED 2001 Results . $168.24 per tonne, . 8.86% of residential waste diverted. The diversion rate can be influenced by the following factors: General Comments . 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 performance measure indicates the diversion rate of yard waste collected as this is performed by the City, The City of Pickering has adopted grasscycling and does not collect grass clippings. Therefore, grass clippings are not included in the diversion rate above. In November, 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. The diversion rate on this project for November and December was 64,71 %. CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2001 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT 117 LAND USE PLANNING PERCENTAGE OF LOTS, BLOCKS AND/OR UNITS WITH FINAL APPROVAL LOCATED WITHIN THE SETTLEMENT AREA 2001 Results 100% was within the settlement area. General Comments The Region of Durham circulates draft plans to the City who In turn holds meeting and reports back to the Region: . The City ensures that the applicants meets all the required conditions. . The draft plans are then returned to the Region for final approval. The City of Pickering percentage of involvement in the approving of these plans is approximately 80% and the Region 20%, 118 CITY OF PICKERING YEAR 2001 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT LAND USE PLANNING PERCENTAGE OF PRESERVATION OF ARGICUL TURAL LAND IN REPORTING YEAR 2001 Results Page 1 of 1 City of Pickering - Performance Measures ATTACHMENT#L TO REPORT # C:5 1 7 "'Ù~ IT Y HA t l FINANCE & TAX MUNICIPAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES General Government Operating Costs for Municipal Administration as a % of Total Municipal Operating Cost Protection Services - Fire Operating Cost for Fire Services per $1,000 of Assessment Transportation Services - Roads Operating Costs for Winter Control per lane Kilometre Percentage of Winter Event Responses that Met or Exceeded Municipal Road Maintenance Standards Transportation Services - Transit Operating Costs for Conventional Transit per Regular Service Passenger Trip Number of Conventional Transit Passenger Trips per Person in the Service Area in a Year ., Environmental Servjces - Garbage Operating Costs for Waste Collection per Tonne Percentage of Residential Solid Waste Diverted for Recycling Total Tonnes of Residential Solid Waste Diverted for Recycling in a Year land-Use Planning Percentage of Designated Agricultural land Preserved During the Year 119 2000 RESULT 13,39% $1.30/$1,000 $976.43/km 100.00% $3.12/trip 14.68 trjps/person $69,73/tonne 8,77% 1,948 tonnes 99,83% These measures should not be compared against those of other municipalities without consideration of size and urban/rural composition of the municipality and the municipality's service levels and standards, all of which may affect the results and their interpretation and understanding. Contact DiL~f:!Q1}' I Ev~nJ§ I Eorm~ I Maps I Ne~~ I :D:<:I!!.:ill1 Links Çopyright @ 2001, Corporation of The City of Pickering at" ¡;rIll http :/ /www.cityo[pickering.com!standard!ci tyhal1/ finance/performance.html 9/9/2002 Performance Measures for the year ended December 31, 2001 PERFORMANCE MEASURE 2001 2000 General Government - Protection Services - Fire Services - Transportation Services - Roadways - Efficiency Transportation Services - Roadways - Effectiveness Transit Services - Transit - Efficiency ;:. Operating ,costs for conventional 'transit pet regular service passenger trip Transit Services - Transit - Effectiveness 2351 .:JìN,umberofconventional tri:insitpassenger trips per person in the service area ina year Environmental Services - Solid Waste Management - Efficiency 3402,', "qperating costs for solid,waste collection per tonne Environmental Services - Solid Waste Management - Effectiveness :}452;. ....' , Number of complaints ina year concerning garbage còllectionandrecycled material per 1,000 households Environmental Services - Recycling - Efficiency '3602~Operåth1gcasts for solid waste diversíori per tonne Environmental Services - Recycling - Effectiveness 3655 . Percentage of residential solid waste div~rted . Planning and Development - Land Use Planning - Effectiveness * Note: The recycling pilot project 'Rolling to Reduce" undertaken by the City in September 2001, has not been included in the diversion rate above as the Region of Durham is responsible for the collection of recycling materials. This pilot project will be highlighted and commented upon in the public information package released in September. The diversion rate above is for yard waste collection which is the responsibility of the City. ;-.. ;") -=:> ,". -t ~ (") ::r: :3; m Z -I F -I 0 ~ .." 0 ~ =It ~ -..J , ~ }tJ ATTACHMENT#~TOREPOR¡ Cs /,7, ð~ 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 www.citvofpickerinQ.com as of September 30, 2002. . Copies are also available at City Hall, Cashiers Counter, 2nd Floor. 1'11.