Loading...
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