Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCST 23-12 Cif co Report To � �-�- Executive Committee PICKERING G Report Number: CST 23-12 Date: September 10, 2012 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: 2011 Municipal Performance Measurement Program — Provincially • Mandated Public Reporting of Performance Measures Recommendation: That Report CST 23-12 of the Director, Corporate Services & . Treasurer be received for information. . . Executive Summary:- The City is mandated by the Province of Ontario to report yearly Performance Measures on 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 Treasurer under the direction of Provincial authority. Each year, measures for reporting are refined, altered and added on to, making year • over year comparison difficult. For example, in 2008, the City had to collect information and report on 28 measures. In 2009, this was increased to 49 measures. Then in 2011, the City had to report on 55 measures. In other cases, the formula used in calculating specific measures are revised making them not comparable to prior years' calculations. For the reporting year 2011, attached are the Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP) results together with a supplemental information package that will be made available on the City's website. The package includes a comparison of the 2011 measures against the 2010, if applicable, and a copy of the Public Notice that will appear in the News Advertiser at the end of September 2012. Financial Implications: This report does not contain any financial implications. • • Discussion: Attachment 1 is the 2011 information mandated by the Province to be reported to the public by September 30, 2012. Note that these measures are from service areas that the City provides to the public. Other service areas not provided by the City like drinking water, police, solid waste and transit are not included in the report. The set of information required for reporting changes every year as identified by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Comments pertaining to the compilation and Report CST 23-12 Date: September 10, 2012 Subject: 2011 Municipal Performance Measurement Program Page 2 • i r interpretation of the 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 are 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 more recently in Building Services where new and modified measures are being reported. Municipalities also continue to improve on their methods of data collection in an attempt to ensure consistency and accuracy in 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 the 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 will only be through continuous efforts, ongoing experience, further clarifications from the Province and consistent reporting formulas that year-to-year comparisons within the municipality and across municipalities will become meaningful. The 2011 measures will be posted on the City's website, as was the case in past years. 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. 2011 Municipal Performance Measurement Program — Public Reporting 2. Comparison of 2011 and 2010 Performance Measures 3. Public Notice to be included in the Community Page of the News Advertiser Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: ,„/L: _ r ..a111111110.1..a -� A Dennis P. Arboleda Gillis A. Paterson, CMA Supervisor, Accounting Services Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Report CST 23-12 Date: September 10, 2012 Subject: 2011 Municipal Performance Measurement Program Page 3 ( tW v Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council 4.2 k . G1, Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer ATTACHMENT#.,.1__TO REPORT#.1/J. 3-1, City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Overview As required by the Ontario Government's Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP), the Treasurer of the City of Pickering, as part of its 2011 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. 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 accompanied by comments regarding aspects of the measurement. 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 the interpretation and understanding of individual results. In addition, 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 add an important dimension to efficiency measures by including capital costs and interest on long term debt. 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. In 2010 and 2011, the City of Pickering did not receive any revenue from other municipalities related to capital assets. Hence, all 2010 measures affected by this change should be comparable to 2011. City.of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report a New for 2011 , two efficiency measures based on operating costs and total costs were introduced for the new MPMP service area, Building Permits and Inspection Services. Four effectiveness measures for Building Permits were also added to report the median number of days to review complete building permit applications in four different building categories, namely; houses, small buildings, large buildings and complex buildings. For the calculation of measures pertaining to a per person or per 1,000 persons bases, the City population in 2011 was estimated at 92,364 compared to 93,315 in 2010. This lower count was a result of the change in the base level assumptions from which the calculation was derived according to the new census data released by Statistics Canada for 2011. ATTACHMENT# __,TO REPORT# ,,)3-/.) City of Pickering ei Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report General Government 1.1a Operating Costs for Governance and Corporate Management 2011 2010 7.70% 7.90% 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. Note that 2010 was a municipal election year and related costs have contributed to the increase in governance and corporate operating expenses. Also, the implementation of the harmonized sales tax may have increased overall expenses on items that were previously charged only with the GST. City of Pickering rl Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report ' General Government 1.1b Total Costs for Governance and Corporate Management 2011 2010 6.60% 6.80% 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 increase from 6.0% in 2009 to 6.8% in 2010 was driven by the increase in related operating costs identified on the previous measure. • n 3 City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Fire Services 2.1a Operating Costs for Fire Services 2011 2010 $1.35 $1.36 Efficiency Measure Operating costs for fire services per $1,000 of assessment. Objective Provide efficient municipal fire services. General Comments The following factors can influence the above results across municipalities: • Emergency response times • Number and location of fire halls • Urban/rural mix of properties as well as density of buildings • Geographic size of municipality Detailed Comments Assessment value does not necessarily correlate to operating cost for fire services. The higher the assessment value, the lower the cost per $1,000 assessment. Conversely the urban/rural mix of the community affects the results as do the size and type of commercial/industrial establishments within the municipality. Number of households, response time and urban/rural mix of the municipality are factors that determine the need for fire services and not necessarily property value. Although there was a slight increase in operating expenses from 2010, the decrease in the 2011 measure was primarily due to the increase in the value of property assessment (denominator) from 2010. City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report 9 . Fire Services 2.1b Total Costs for Fire Services 2011 2010 $1.42 - $1.43 Efficiency Measure Total costs for fire services per $1,000 of assessment. • Objective Provide efficient municipal fire services. General Comments The following factors can influence the above results across municipalities: • Emergency response times • Number and location of fire halls • 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 costs for Fire Services. However, like in the previous measure, the assessment value as denominator does not necessarily correlate to the total cost for fire services. The higher the assessment value, the lower the cost per $1,000 assessment. Conversely the urban/rural mix of the community affects the results as with the size and type of commercial/industrial establishments. Number of households, response time and urban/rural mix of the municipality are key factors that determine the need for fire services and not necessarily the property value. The slight decrease in the resulting measure for 2010 was primarily due to the increase in total property assessment value from 2009. • City of Pickering t Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Fire Services 2.2 Residential Fire Related Civilian Injuries 2011 2010 0.032 0.000 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 presents 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. In 2010, no residential fire related civilian injury was reported to the OFM. However, in 2011, there were three reported cases of residential fire related civilian injuries which translates to 0.032 per 1,000 persons. City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Fire Services 2.3 Residential Fire Related Civilian Injuries — 5 Year Average 2011 2010 0.022 0.021 Effectiveness Measure Total number of residential fire related civilian injuries averaged over 5 years from 2006 to 2010 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 2007 to 2011 averaged over 5 years per 1,000 persons. The fire department reported an average of two residential fire related civilian injuries to the OFM per year from 2007 to 2011. The same five-year average as reported from 2006 to 2010. However, with the decreased population count as adjusted for 2011 compared to 2010, the resulting measure is slightly up as compared to 2010. :r= City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Fire Services 2.4 Residential Fire Related Civilian Fatalities 2011 2010 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 as determined by the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM) per 1,000 persons. In 2011, no residential fire related civilian fatality was reported to the OFM. The same as in 2010. City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report 9 Fire Services 2.5 Residential Fire Related Civilian Fatalities — 5 Year Average 2011 2010 0.011 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) from 2007 to 2011 averaged over 5 years per 1,000 persons. The average residential fire related civilian fatality per year for 5 years from 2007 to 2011 is one, as reported to the OFM. This translates to 0.011 per 1,000 persons, the same result in 2010. 0 City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Fire Services 2.6 Number of Residential Structural Fires 2011 2010 0.365 1.068 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 2011, there were 11 reported residential structural fires compared to 32 in 2010. • City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Building Services 4.1a Operating Costs for Building Permits and Inspection Services 2011 (New) $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 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. On permits: processing/screening of permit applications and issuing permits, prosecutions, record keeping and reporting obligations, staff training, other building permits and inspection services. Operating costs (numerator) used in the calculation of this measure is the sum of salaries, wages and staff benefits, contracted services, rents, financial expenses, external transfers, allocation of program support and interfunctional adjustments. This amount divided by the total value of construction activity (denominator) based on permits issued divided by $1,000. City of Pickering 1 0 E Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Building Services 4.1b Total Costs for Building Permits and Inspection Services 2011 (New) $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 costs in 2011, this equals the operating costs. • City of Pickering ; Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Building Services 4.2 Review of Complete Permit Applications 2011 (New) 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 Process complete building permit applications efficiently 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 • Completeness of application • Compliance to Ontario building code and other applicable laws • 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, and all applicable fields and schedules must be completed in 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. 4.2a Category 1: Houses 2011 (New) Median number of days achieved: 10 days Detailed Comments Include 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. . • • I. 0 3 City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report 4.2b Category 2: Small Buildings 2011 (New) Median number of days achieved: 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. City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report I n 4.2c Category 3: Large Buildings 2011 (New) Median number of days achieved: 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 20 working days. CI City of Pickering 1 t' Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report 4.2d Category 4: Complex Buildings 2011 (New) Median number of days achieved: 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. City of Pickering 1 ;i ; Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Road Services 5.1a Operating Costs for Paved Roads 2011 . 2010 $1,633.78 $1,814.61 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. • Kilometres 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 heavy 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 for 2011 can be attributed to a combination of a decrease in the total volume of purchased materials and an increase in the kilometer of paved roads maintained compared to 2010. With the repairs done on existing paved roadways, cost of maintenance are reduced accordingly. In 2011, the City maintained 712 kilometers of paved roads compared to 704 kilometers in 2010. 7 of Pickering I 's` Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Road Services 5.1 b Total Costs for Paved Roads 2011 2010 $5,423.16 $5,574.86 Efficiency Measure Revised 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 on 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. Although no related revenue was received in 2011, the decrease in the calculation for 2011 was largely due to the decrease in the volume of purchased materials compared to 2010. The City maintained 712 kilometers of paved road in 2011 compared to 704 kilometers in 2010. City of Pickering "? cJ Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Road Services 5.2a Operating Costs for Unpaved Roads 2011 2010 $5,348.55 $5,188.99 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 granular materials, administering calcium programs, program support, contracted services, rental of heavy equipment, grading, wash out repair and shoulder maintenance. In 2011, the City used more granular materials on many unpaved roads due to higher rate of washouts in the spring which resulted to increased expenditures. The City maintained 214 kilometers of unpaved lanes in 2011 and in 2010. j 9 City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Road Services 5.2b Total Costs for Unpaved Roads 2011 2010 $5,403.04 $5,243.48 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 over 214 kilometers of unpaved lanes maintained in 2011. The increase in 2011 from 2010 was reflective of the increase in the operating costs calculated from the previous measure. City of Pickering ,, Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report I i 0' Road Services 5.3a Operating Costs for Bridges and Culverts 2011 2010 $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 2011, the City did not incur any operating costs related to the repairs & maintenance of bridges and culverts, as was in 2010. However, the total surface area of bridges and culverts measured in 2011 was 8,928 square meters compared to 9,474 in 2010. This decrease was due to the exclusion of bridges and culverts that measure less than 3.0 meters in accordance with the definition, and two railway bridges which were determined to be under the jurisdiction of the railway company. City of Pickering 1 '1 111 Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Road Services 5.3b Total Costs for Bridges and Culverts 2011 2010 $21.42 $21.35 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 related to tangible capital assets. The slight increase in 2011 compared to 2010 was due to the decrease in the surface area of bridges and culverts used as denominator in the calculation. City of Pickering i 2 Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Road Services 5.4a Operating Costs for Winter Maintenance of Roads 2011 2010 $1,840.37 $963.32 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 increase in cost of winter maintenance on roads from 2010 was due to the higher intensity of winter events experienced in 2011. This resulted in more use of de-icing materials and related staff time. The City maintained 926 kilometers of lanes during the 2011 winter season compared to 918 kilometers in 2010. City of Pickering 1 1 Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Road Services 5.4b Total Costs for Winter Maintenance of Roads 2011 2010 $1,840.37 $963.32 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 2011, there was no interest and amortization costs for equipment related to winter maintenance of roadways, as was in 2010. Therefore, the resulting measure is the same as the calculated result showing on the operating costs for winter maintenance of roads (see 5.4a). • City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Road Services 5.5 Adequacy of Roads 2011 2010 86.9% 86.6% 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. In 2011, 618 out of 711.6 kilometers (86.9%) of paved lane was rated to be in good to very good condition as compared to 610 out of 704 kilometers (86.6%) in 2010. City of Pickering I Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Road Services 5.6 Adequacy of Bridges and Culverts 2011 2010 74.5% 73.1% 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 wingwalls are excluded. In 2011, a total of 38 bridges and culverts were rated as good to very good out of 51 (74.5%) compared to 38 out of 52 (73.1%) in 2010. The bridge and culvert inventory was revised to 51 in 2011 because the inventory in 2010 included in error a culvert that was less than 3.0 meter in diameter. • City of Pickering 1 r ti • Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Road Services 5.7 Winter Event Response 2011 2010 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 2011, the City did not experience a winter event where staff was not able to meet or exceed road maintenance standards. The City responded to 26 winter storm events in 2011 compared to 27 in 2010. All responses met or exceeded the municipal standard winter control maintenance levels. However, note that although there were less winter events in 2011, most were intense as compared to those experienced in 2010. I , City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Storm Water Management 8.1a Operating Costs for Urban Storm Water Management 2011 2010 $1,870.60 $1,617.07 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: • The geography of the City • The extent and age of the drainage system • The 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 City maintained 298 km of urban drainage system in 2011 as compared to 295 in 2010. The increase in the resulting measure for 2011 from 2010 was largely due to the increase in staff salaries/wages/benefits and contracted services. City of Pickering 1 1 s Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report I Storm Water Management 8.1 b Total Costs for Urban Storm Water Management 2011 2010 $8,598.61 $8,289.91 Efficiency 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 This measure sums the total operating costs for urban storm water management, interest on long term debt and amortization on urban storm capital assets over total kilometers of urban drainage system plus 0.005 kilometer on the total number of catch basins. This provides a picture of how much was spent in the complete management of our urban storm water systems on a per kilometer bases. The City maintained 298 kilometers of urban drainage system in 2011 as compared to 295 kilometers in 2010. A slight increase in the 2011 interest on long term debt and amortization cost related to capital assets resulted to an increase in the measure from 2010. • 1, 9 City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Storm Water Management 8.2a Operating Costs for Rural Storm Water Management 2011 2010 $2,877.27 $2,744.23 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 stormwater is conveyed primarily along side of roadways normally with open ditches located in areas defined as 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 measures, rentals, interfunctional adjustments and program support over the total kilometers of drainage system. The 351 km of rural drainage system in 2010 remained unchanged in 2011. The operating cost increase in the resulting measure for 2011 from 2010 was largely due to the increase in maintenance materials throughout the reporting year. • City of Pickering , E.1 ., Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Storm Water Management 8.2b Total Costs for Rural Storm Water Management 2011 2010 $2,939.39 $2,805.46 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 how much was spent in maintaining a rural drainage system on a per kilometer basis. The City maintained a total of 351 km of rural drainage system in both 2011 and 2010. The difference in the resulting measure was from the increase in operating costs as calculated in the previous measure (8.2a). City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Parks and Recreation 11.1a Operating Cost for Parks per Person 2011 2010 $45.40 $41.49 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. With a relatively wetter summer experienced in 2011, costs of materials and contracted services were more compared to 2010. Also, the slight decrease in population count used in the calculation based on the recently released 2011 Census data, the operating cost per person in 2011 came out to be higher as compared to the 2010 calculation. • City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report 1 2 2 Parks and Recreation 11.1b Total Cost for Parks per Person 2011 2010 $54.96 $50.59 Efficiency Measure • Total costs for maintaining the parks per person. Objective Provide efficient operations of parks. - Detailed Comments Calculation of this measure totals the operating costs, 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 in 2011. Other than the increase in the operating costs as calculated in 11.1a, there were also slight increases on the amortization and interest on long term debt in 2011 as compared to 2010. These contributed to approximately 8.6% increase in total cost for parks per person from 2010 to 2011.. r �- City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Parks and Recreation 11.2a Operating Costs for Recreation Programs per Person 2011 2010 $47.97 $47.76 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. Existing recreation programs are continuously reviewed and changed depending on public demand. Seasonality of activities also affects the type and frequency of program offerings. In 2011, there was a slight decrease in the overall operating cost for recreation programs from 2010. However, with the lower population count used in the calculation, the resulting figure came out slightly higher compared to 2010. City of Pickering i w; Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report • Parks and Recreation 11.2b Total Costs for Recreation Programs per Person 2011 2010 $47.97 $47.76 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 2011, 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. -, 3 City of Pickering "' Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Parks and Recreation 11.3a Operating Costs for Recreation Facilities per Person 2011 2010 $85.96 $86.44 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. In 2011, there was a slight decrease in the general cost of repairs and maintenance and the overall use of materials compared to 2010. However, this decrease was partially offset in the calculation with the use of a lower population count in 2011. • City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Parks and Recreation 11.3b Total Costs for Recreation Facilities per Person 2011 2010 $100.02 $99.62 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 2011, a slight increase in the interest on long term debt and amortization expense resulted to a small increase in the calculation of this measure compared to 2010. City of Pickering 7 Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Parks and Recreation 11.4a Operating Costs for Recreation Programs and Recreation Facilities per Person (Subtotal) 2011 2010 $133.93 $134.20 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 related direct costs in the operation of recreational programs and facilities. This is the sum of the measures as calculated from 11.2a and 11.3a above. In 2011, the overall decrease was primarily due to the decrease in the operating costs for recreation programs and recreation facilities. As previously noted, this decrease was partially offset by the use of the lower but more accurate population estimate in 2011. The resulting figure however, still came out lower compared to 2010. City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report 1 -' Parks and Recreation 11.4b Total Costs for Recreation Programs and Recreation Facilities per Person (Subtotal) 2011 2010 $147.99 $147.38 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 interest on long term debt and amortization related to the operation of recreation programs and maintenance of facilities less revenue from other municipalities for tangible capital assets on programs and facilities. This is the sum of items 11.2b and 11.3b above. City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Parks and Recreation 11.5 Total Kilometres of Trails per 1,000 Persons 2011 2010 0.173 km 0.171 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 2011 and in 2010. The increase in the calculated measure was a result of the lower but more accurate population estimate used in 2011 compared to 2010. City of Pickering • Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report 1 3 0 • Parks and Recreation 11.6 Hectares of Open Space and Hectares of Open Space per 1,000 Persons 2011 2010 2.371 ha 2.347 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. In both 2011 and 2010, the City maintained 219 hectares of municipally owned open space. The increase in the calculated figure in 2011 from 2010 was the result of the lower but more accurate population estimate used in 2011. • 131 City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Parks and Recreation 11.7 Total Participant Hours for Recreation Programs 2011 2010 21,609 hrs 21,030 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 2011, a combination of the increase in participant hours from squash and racquetball leagues and the lower population estimate contributed to the increase in the resulting measure as compared to 2010. • City of Pickering 1 3 2 Year 2011 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) 2011 2010 442.066 sqm 437.561 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 2011 , the City maintained 40,831 square meters of municipally owned indoor recreation facilities. This was the same area maintained in 2010. The small increase in the calculated measure in 2011 from 2010 was a result of the lower but more accurate population estimate used (denominator) in the 2011 calculation. City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Parks and Recreation 11.9 Square Metres of Outdoor Recreation Facility Space and Square Metres of Outdoor Recreation Facility Space per 1,000 Persons (Municipally Owned) 2011 2010 287.872 sqm 284.938 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 26,589 square metres of City owned outdoor space reported in 2011 was the same as in 2010. The slight increase in the 2011 calculation was a result of the lower but more accurate population estimate in 2011 (denominator) compared to 2010. City of Pickering 1 3 4. Year 2011 Performance.Measurement Report Library Services 12.1a Operating Costs for Library Services per Person 2011 2010 $57.66 $55.27 Efficiency Measure Operating costs for library services per person. Objective Provide efficient library services to the public. Detailed Comments The City has five library locations servicing its residents. The cost for all five locations is included in the calculation of this measure, which includes wages, benefits, materials, rent and all other operating costs divided by total population. The increase in library operating costs per person was due to a slight increase in staff salaries, benefits and maintenance costs due to ageing facilities. The lower but more accurate population estimate for 2011 used in the calculation (denominator) also contributed to the higher resulting measure compared to 2010. °$ ` 5 City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Library Services 12.1b Total Costs for Library Services per Person 2011 2010 $66.73 $66.83 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 calculation slightly decreased in 2011 from 2010 due to the decrease in the allocated amortization on related capital assets. Although the population estimate used in the calculation (denominator) was lower, the resulting measure still came out slightly lower as compared to 2010. City of Pickering 1 3 6 Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Library Services 12.2a Operating Costs for Library Services per Use 2011 2010 $1.72 $1.76 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. The total operating costs for all five locations and the total library uses was included in the calculation of this measure. The resulting measure in 2011 was slightly lower compared to 2010. Although there was an increase in total operating cost in 2011 (numerator), there was also a corresponding increase in total library uses (denominator) in the same year. 3 : City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Library Services 12.2b Total Costs for Library Services per Use 2011 2010 $1.99 $2.13 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 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 2011 resulting measure was due to a lower allocated amortization costs as compared to 2010.. • 12 City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Library Services 12.3 Library Uses per Person 2011 2010 33.563 31.340 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. Just 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. The 7.1% increase in total library usage per person in 2011 compared to 2010 was due to a combination of an actual increase in total library usage (numerator) and the use of a lower but more accurate population estimate (denominator) in the calculation. -, 9 City of Pickering I Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Library Services 12.4 Electronic Library Uses as a Percentage of Total Library Uses 2011 2010 36.2% 28.8% 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 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 electronic reference transactions, number of users of wireless connection and number of electronic visits to the library. The increase in this measure in 2011 from 2010 was due to: a) increase in the number of patrons using public library wireless connection, and b) increase in the number information communication technology, software and social media support requests. City of Pickering .� Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report 1 "4 u Library Services 12.5 Non Electronic Library Uses as a Percentage of Total Library Uses 2011 2010 63.8% 71.2% 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. Uses include borrowing books, program attendance, in-library materials, number of standard reference transactions and number of in-person visits to the library. From among the categories under non electronic library uses mentioned above, the decrease in the resulting measure for 2011 was primarily due to the decrease in the total number of in- person visits made to the library compared to 2010. As a result, all other non-electronic uses decreased as well. • 1 4 l City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Land Use Planning 13.1 Percentage of New Residential Units Located Within Settlement Areas 2010 2010 99.6% 100.0% 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 2011, there was a total of 566 new dwelling units created within the City's designated settlement areas compared to the 107 created in 2010. This represents a 429% increase in new residential units created compared to 2010. Of the 566 new units, all except two of were created in the urban/settlement area. City of Pickering 1 4 Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Land Use Planning 13.2 Preservation of Agricultural Lands 2011 2010 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 2010 and 2011. No area was re-designated to other uses in the reporting year. • 14 City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Land Use Planning 13.3 Preservation of A ricultural Lands Relative to 2000 2011 2010 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, 42 hectares was re-designated since then. However, no land was re- designated in the reporting year 2011. City of Pickering Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report 1 4 4 Land Use Planning 13A Hectares of Agricultural Land which was Re-designated for Other Uses During the Reporting Year 2011 2010 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 2011. • 1 4+ r City of Pickering M Year 2011 Performance Measurement Report Land Use Planning 13.5 Hectares of Agricultural Lands which was Re-designated for Other Uses Since 2000 2011 2010 42 42 • 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. • ATTACHMENT#,..1_TO REPORT#t;$ 3-/Q City of Pickering • Year 2011 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 pickering.ca as of September 30, 2012 or available at the Corporate Services Department, 2nd Floor, Pickering Civic Complex.