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 çood 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.