HomeMy WebLinkAboutCS 26/01
-
REPORT TO COUNCIL
FROM:
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
DATE: September 19,2001
REPORT NUMBER: CS 26-01
SUBJECT: Municipal Performance Measurement Program - Provincially Mandated Public
Reporting and Performance Measures
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Report CS 26-01 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be
received for information.
ORIGIN:
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
AUTHORITY:
-
The Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended and Regulations thereunder
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Not applicable.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At its meeting of June 18, 2001 the Audit Committee, prior to the establishment of the Finance
Committee, directed that a draft of the Municipal Performance Measurement Program results be
submitted to the Committee. 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. Therefore, in the future it is
anticipated they will be submitted through the Finance Committee to Council.
Attached are the results of that exercise that will be reported to the public.
BACKGROUND:
Attached is the information mandated by the Province to be reported to the public by September
30,2001. You may recall that this information was originally to be reported on June 30, 2001,
however, the Province extended that date. Complicating matters was the lack of clear definitions
and advice from the Province that has necessitated the lateness of the date of filing.
-
One must bear in mind that being the first year of Performance Measurement reporting, together
with changes in the Financial Information Return and the implementation of Public Sector
Accounting Board requirements, some of the definitions and guidelines are still unclear. This
together with the limitations of our current reporting system, the need to allocate certain
departmental costs in a different manner to meet the reporting requirements make the exercise
Report to Council CS 26-01
Date: September 19, 2001
-
Subject: Municipal Performance Measurement Program
Provincially Mandated Public Reporting and Performance Measures
Page 2
all the more difficult. 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 will start to become meaningful. Originally, 35
measures were to be reported, however, the Province reduced this to 16 of which 9 apply to the
City of Pickering.
According to the Provincial mandate the City has the following options:
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, and a notice to this effect will be included in
the next "Community Page" in the local newspaper. The information will also be available to
anyone wishing to pick it up at City Hall.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Provincial Performance Measurement Program - Public Reporting
-
Prepared / Approved / Endorsed By:
~~~f=
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
GAP:vw
Attachment
Copy: E. Buntsma, Director, Operations & Emergency Services
N. Carroll, Director, Planning and Development
1. Reble, Solicitor
B. Taylor, Clerk
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering
City Council .
Thomas J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer
-
,-
2000
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
REPORTING'
-
CITY OF PICKERING
CORPORATE SERVICES.
DEPARTMENT
-
SEPTEMBER, 2001
-
OPERATING COSTS FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AS A PERCENTAGE 0]
TOTAL MUNICIPAL OPERATING COSTS
Pickering's 2000 Result 13.39% of total municipal operating costs
General Comments The following comments are an integral part in the interpretation of
the above noted performance measure result. These results should
not be compared across municipalities without consideration of the
variety of factors that impact on interpreting and understanding
results.
The following factors can influence the above result:
· 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 acentralized Purchasing function
which in turns leads to a centralized Accounts Payable function.
-.
The City of Pickering has centralized Information Technology
Services and Legal Services.
-
City of Pickering
1
Corporate Services Department
'-'"
OPERATING COSTS FOR FIRE SERVICES PER $1,000 OF ASSESSMENT
Pickering's 2000 result
$1.30 per $1,000 of assessment
General Comments
The following comments are an integral part in the
interpretation of the above noted performance measure
result. These results should not be compared across
municipalities without consideration of the variety of
factors that impact on interpreting and understanding
results.
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 urban/rural mix of the
community will affect the results as will the size and type
of commercial/industrial establishments.
Number of households, response time and.the urban/rural
mix of the municipality are factors that determine the
need for fire services not the property value.
'..-
City of Pickering
2
Corporate Services Department
-
OPERATING COSTS FOR WINTER CONTROL PER LANE KILOMETRE
Pickering's 2000 result
$976.43 per lane kilometer
General Comments
The following comments are an integral part in the
interpretation of the above noted performance measure
result. These results should not be compared across
municipalities without consideration of the variety of
factors that impact on interpreting and understanding
results.
The following factors can influence the above result:
. The frequency and severity of the winter events
· The municipality's standard service levels for road
conditions.
· The number and mix of paved versus gravel roads
which have differing programs and costs for
materials.
-
Detailed Comments
At the present time, the City of Pickering does not
maintain winter control as a separate cost center. As a
result, direct costs attributable to winter control such as
labour and materials were easily identifiable however
equipment charges and other indirect costs such as
administration and overhead had to be estimated.
-
City of Pickering
3
Corporate Services Department
,-"
PERCENTAGE OF WINTER EVENT RESPONSES THAT MET OR EXCEEDED
MUNICIPAL ROAD MAINTENANCE STANDARDS
Pickering's 2000 result
1 00.00% met or exceeded municipal road maintenance
standards
General Comments
The following comments are an integral part in the
interpretation of the above noted performance measure
result. These results should not be compared across
municipalities without consideration of the variety of factors
that impact on interpreting and understanding results.
The following factors can influence the above result:
· The frequency and severity of the winter events
· The municipality's standard service levels for road
conditions.
Detailed Comments
The City did not experience a winter event which staffwas
not able to meet or exceed road maintenance standards.
......"
City of Pickering
4
Corporate Services Department
-
-
^~
OPERATING COSTS FOR CONVENTIONAL TRANSIT PER REGULAR
SERVICE PASSENGER TRIP
Pickering's 2000 result $3.12 per passenger trip
General Comments The following comments are an integral part in the
interpretation of the above noted performance measure
result. These results should not be compared across
municipalities without consideration of the variety of
factors that impact on interpreting and understanding
results.
The operating costs can be influenced by the following
factors:
. The service hours of the transit operations, for
example the level of weekend or holiday service
provided.
. Service levels required to accommodate passenger
trips transferred from outside of City's boundaries.
. An unexpected event that may be included in
operating costs that have no correlation to service
levels.
. The urban/rural mix of the service area.
Detailed Comments 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 are excluded from the denominator of
passenger trips. However the costs would be impacted to
ensure that appropriate service levels are provided to
accommodate these additional passengers.
For 2000, the number of passenger trips including transfers
was 1,409,353 compared to 1,246,699 passenger trips
excluding transfers.
City of Pickering
5
Corporate Services Department
NUMBER OF CONVENTIONAL TRANSIT PASSENGER TRIPS PER PERSON
INTHE SERVICE AREA IN A YEAR
Pickering's 2000 result 14.68 trips per person in service area
General Comments The following comments are an integral part in the
interpretation of the above noted performance measure
result. These results should not be compared across
municipalities without consideration of the variety of
factors that impact on interpreting and understanding
results.
The following factors can influence the above result:
. The service hours of the transit operations, for
example the level of weekend or holiday service .
provided.
. The percentage of the service area to the total
municipal area.
Detailed Comments
City of Pickering
6
Corporate Services Department
--
~
-
-
OPERATING COSTS FOR WASTE COLLECTION PER TONNE
Pickering's 2000 result $69.73 per tonne
General Comments The following comments are an integral part in the
interpretation of the above noted performance measure
result. These results should not be compared across
municipalities without consideration of the variety of factors
that impact on interpreting and understanding results.
The efficiency rate can be influenced by the following
factors:
. The number and frequency of pick-ups and the
extent ofthe 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
7
Corporate Services Department
--
PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE DIVERTED FOR
RECYCLING AND TONNES OF RESIDENTIAL WASTE DIVERTED
Pickering's 2000 result
· 8.77% of residential solid waste diverted
· 1,948 tonnes of residential solid waste diverted
General Comments
The following comments are an integral part in the
interpretation of the above noted performance measure
result. These results should not be compared across
municipalities without consideration of the variety of
factors that impact on interpreting and understanding
results.
The diversion rate can be influenced by the following
factors:
. The frequency of collection.
· The type of materials included in the recycling
program.
· The promotion ofthe 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
collected and non-collected compostable materials only.
The City of Pickering has adopted grasscycling and does
not collect grass clippings.
The weight of non-collected compostables (i.e. grass) has
been estimated by the Region.
,......'"
City of Pickering
8
Corporate Services Department
-
PERCENTAGE OF DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVED
DURING THE YEAR
Pickering's 2000 result 99.83% of land preserved
General Comments The following comments are an integral part in the
interpretation of the above noted performance measure
result. These results should not be compared across
municipalities without consideration of the variety of factors
that impact on interpreting and understanding results.
Detailed Comments The reduction in agriculturally designated lands occurred as
a result of Pickering Council's and Regional Council's
approval of an application to develop a nine hole golf
course.
-
--
City of Pickering
9
Corporate Services Department