HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 9, 2013 Cif,/ a? z. Executive Committee Meeting
*, ; Agenda
Monday, September 9, 2013
_ _ KERI Council Chambers
7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Dickerson
(I) Matters for Consideration Pages
1. Director, City Development, Report PLN 20-13 1-22
Heritage Permit Application
Whitevale Bridge over the West Duffins Creek on Whitevale Road
Whitevale Heritage Conservation District
Recommendation
1. That the Heritage Permit Application submitted by GHD, on behalf of the City of
Pickering, to allow the removal and replacement of the Whitevale Bridge over
West Duffins Creek, located within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation
District, be approved, subject to the following condition:
a) that staff, in consultation with the Whitevale Bridge Committee and the
Heritage Committee,
(i) consider the use of materials other than concrete for the proposed
curb and gutter located at the ends of the replacement bridge;
(ii) identify appropriate remnants of the former bowstring Arch bridge
and the existing Whitevale Bridge for salvage and identify an
appropriate location and display to commemorate the history and
significance of the existing and former Whitevale Bridges; and
(iii) develop an appropriate wording and location for a plaque to
commemorate the history and significance of the existing and
former Whitevale Bridges.
2. Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 01-13 23-25
2014 Standing Committee and Council Meeting Schedule
Recommendation
That the 2014 Standing Committee and Council Meeting Schedule included as
Attachment 1 to this report be approved.
Accessible • For information related to accessibility requirements please contact
PICKET NG Linda Roberts
Phone: 905.420.4660 extension 2928
TTY: 905.420.1739
Email: Iroberts(a.oickering.ca
Executive Committee Meeting
City 4 , Agenda
=;g 1®- -:' -u Monday, September 9, 2013
PICKERI Council Chambers
7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Dickerson
3. Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report FIN 18-13 26-34
Cash Position Report as at June 30, 2013
Recommendation
It is recommended that Report FIN 18-13 from the Director, Corporate Services &
City Solicitor be received for information.
4. Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report FIN 19-13 35-98
2012 Municipal Performance Measurement Program — Provincially Mandated
Public Reporting of Performance Measures --
Recommendation
It is recommended that Report FIN 19-13 from the Director, Corporate Services &
City Solicitor be received for information.
(III) Other Business
(iV) Adjournment
city Report to
Executive Committee
... : ommittee
:
Report Number: PLN 20-13
Date: September 9, 2013
From: Thomas Melymuk
Director, City Development
Subject: Heritage Permit Application
Whitevale Bridge over the West Duffins Creek on Whitevale Road
Whitevale Heritage Conservation District
Recommendation:
1. That the Heritage Permit Application submitted by GHD, on behalf of the City of
Pickering, to allow the removal and replacement of the Whitevale Bridge over West
Duffins Creek, located within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District, be
approved, subject to the following condition:
(a) that staff, in consultation with the Whitevale Bridge Committee and the Heritage
Committee,
(i) consider the use of materials other than concrete for the proposed curb and
gutter located at the ends of the replacement bridge;
(ii) identify appropriate remnants of the former bowstring Arch bridge and the
existing Whitevale Bridge for salvage and identify an appropriate location
and display to commemorate the history and significance of the existing and
former Whitevale Bridges; and
(iii) develop an appropriate wording and location for a plaque to commemorate
the history and significance of the existing and former Whitevale Bridges.
Executive Summary: The Hamlet of Whitevale and surrounding environs is
designated as a Heritage Conservation District, under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act
(see Location Map, Attachment#1). In addition to other approvals, owners of properties
within the boundaries of the Heritage Conservation District are required to obtain a
Heritage Permit when altering buildings and structures, including demolition and new
construction, to ensure that the proposal complies with the Heritage Conservation
District Guidelines and respects and complements the character of the District.
In July 2008, the Hamlet experienced severe flooding which caused erosion to the
banks around the Whitevale Bridge. Temporary repairs to the structure and erosion
repairs to the existing banks were undertaken. In 2010, as part of the City's Asset
Management Plan, a Bridge Inspection Report was carried out. The report concluded
that the Whitevale Bridge required replacement rather than rehabilitation.
1
Report PLN 20-13 September 9, 2013
Subject: Heritage Permit Application Whitevale Bridge Page 2
Subsequently, the City initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA),
which was completed in January 2012, and recommended replacement of the existing
two lane bridge with a new two lane bridge. As part of the EA process, a Heritage
Impact Assessment was prepared to evaluate the cultural and heritage significance of
the Whitevale Bridge.
During both the EA and the detailed design process that followed, consultation
continued with stakeholders including the Whitevale and District Residents' Association
Bridge Committee and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
On May 23, 2013, the City's engineering consultants, GHD, presented the Heritage
Permit Application and provided an overview and details of the bridge design to the
Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee. The Heritage Committee did not support the
bridge design as presented, and remains concerned with the scale and width of the
bridge.
Staff supports the bridge design. The bridge design reflects the outcome of the EA
process. The scale and width of the bridge is in keeping with the heritage features of
the existing bridge and complements and blends in with the heritage character of the
Hamlet. The bridge design maintains the overall objectives of the Whitevale Heritage
Conservation District while meeting the current minimum bridge design standards for
operation and safety, both vehicular and pedestrian.
Accordingly, staff recommends approval of the Heritage Permit Application submitted by
GHD, on behalf of the City of Pickering, to allow the removal and replacement of the
Whitevale Bridge over West Duffins Creek, subject to the condition noted in the
recommendation section of this Report.
Financial Implications: There are no direct costs of approving the Heritage Permit.
The expenditure funding for the removal and replacement of the Whitevale Bridge was
approved by City Council on February 21, 2012, in Report to Council CST 03-12.
1. Background
1.1 An Environmental Assessment was undertaken after severe flooding in
2008 left the Whitevale Bridge over West Duffins Creek in a poor state of
repair
The Whitevale Bridge is located in the Hamlet of Whitevale and was built to carry
Whitevale Road over West Duffins Creek and link the east and west sides of the
Hamlet (see Location Map, Attachment#1). Whitevale Bridge is a landmark
within the community and forms part of the Seaton Hiking Trail, which follows the
banks of West Duffins Creek through this area.
2
Report PLN 20-13 September 9, 2013
Subject: Heritage Permit Application Whitevale Bridge Page 3
The existing bridge was designed and built in 1929 following the collapse of the
previous concrete bowstring Arch Bridge constructed only three years earlier in
1926. The existing bridge is a two span, concrete T-beam bridge with a 32 metre
span. This bridge underwent modifications in the 1950s and 1970s for which no
details are available. Also, in October 1954, as a result of damage from
Hurricane Hazel which caused West Duffins Creek to overflow, the bridge was
temporarily closed for repairs.
In July 2008, the Hamlet of Whitevale experienced a severe rain storm, which
caused erosion to the banks around the existing bridge structure. The
engineering consulting firm at the time determined that a temporary repair was
required for the northwest abutment of the structure. In the fall of 2008, a
contractor was hired to install a steel beam to support the abutment, and erosion
repairs to the existing banks were carried out. In 2010, Engineering Services
initiated a•City-wide Municipal Structure Inspection. The Bridge Inspection
Report concluded that the Whitevale Bridge required replacement, rather than
rehabilitation. As a result of the recommendations of the Bridge Inspection
Report, the City initiated an Environmental Assessment (EA).
The City retained the engineering firm GHD to undertake the EA to identify and
evaluate alternatives for addressing deficiencies. The alternatives considered for
the project included:
• do nothing
• restrictive signage/traffic diversion
• removal of the bridge
• replacement with a one-lane bridge; and
• replacement with a two-lane bridge
The alternatives took into consideration the natural, social, economic and cultural
environments, and the problems and opportunities associated with the poor
condition of the bridge. The EA was completed and filed January 2012. A
request for a Part II Order to require an individual EA was submitted to the
Minister of the Environment by the Whitevale and District Residents' Association
Bridge Committee due to their concern with the scale and width of the proposed
bridge. It was concluded that an individual Environmental Assessment was not
required and the Minister denied the Part II order. Based on the decision of the
Minister, the City can now proceed with the project subject to obtaining other
required permits and approvals.
The EA recommended replacing the existing two-lane bridge with a new two-lane
bridge with design characteristics that mitigate impacts. As part of the EA
process, a Heritage Impact Assessment was.prepared to evaluate the cultural
and heritage significance of the bridge. The Heritage Impact Assessment
concluded that the bridge retains moderate historical associations with the
historical development of Whitevale given its sole link between.the east and west
sides of the Hamlet and as a focal meeting place within the community.
3
Report PLN 20-13 September 9, 2013
Subject: Heritage Permit Application Whitevale Bridge Page 4
The bridge retains strong contextual values resulting from its landmark status
within the community, contribution to the heritage character of the Hamlet
through its current scale and grade, its role as a traditional river crossing, and its
relationship with the former bridge that previously carried Whitevale Road over
West Duffins Creek.
Given the identified heritage value of the bridge, mitigation measures and
strategies were recommended through the EA process. The design
characteristics were developed based on a review of existing practices identified
in the Ontario Heritage Bridge Program Guidelines as well as those developed by
other municipalities when replacing heritage bridges located in Heritage
Conservation Districts.
1.2 The details of the replacement bridge design were recommended through
the Environmental Assessment
The EA recommended the following Preferred Solution bridge design and
characteristics (see Whitevale Bridge Replacement Plan and Elevation,
Attachment#2):
• a two lane bridge with a total span of 36 metres
• maximum lane widths of 3.2 metres which match the existing laneway widths
on the bridge and on the approaches to the bridge
• introduction of a 0.5 metre recovery zone (a safety requirement for
pedestrians and vehicles, which provides additional space between the travel
lane and the sidewalk)
• a north sidewalk having a width of 1.5 metres, whereas currently no sidewalk
exists on the north side (there is an existing ledge of approximately 0.6 metres)
• a 2.0 metre wide sidewalk on the south side replacing the existing 1.5 metre
sidewalk
• sidewalks will extend the entire length of the bridge
• a bridge width of 7.4 metres between sidewalk faces and an overall bridge
width of 11.5 metres
• exterior precast concrete girders that are infilled to recreate the appearance
of the existing bridge T-beams
• a railing design known as a Texas Classic Railing
• native plantings and materials
The revised detailed design has resulted from consultation with the Whitevale
and District Residents' Association (WDRA) Bridge Committee, the Ministry of
Tourism, Culture and Sport, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA) and other stakeholders.
4
Report PLN 20-13 September 9, 2013
Subject: Heritage Permit Application Whitevale Bridge Page 5
1.3 Council's approval of a Heritage Permit Application is required to remove
and replace the Whitevale Bridge
The bridge structure is located within the boundaries of the Whitevale Heritage
Conservation District, designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. A
heritage permit is required for both the removal, and the replacement, of the
bridge. A Heritage Permit Application was submitted by GHD, on behalf of the
City of Pickering, on May 15, 2013. The Permit Application included the Heritage
Impact Assessment, a detailed plan of the proposed bridge design and
supporting documentation. A copy of the Heritage Permit Application is available
for review in the City Development Department.
Under the Ontario Heritage Act, Council may consent to the application, with or
without terms and conditions, or refuse the application.
2. Comments from Key Stakeholders were not supportive
2.1 The Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee did not support the Heritage
Permit Application
On May 23, 2013, the City of Pickering's consultants from GHD, including
John Semjan, Bridge Manager (Roads and Bridges) and Lynn Collins,
Senior Environmental Project Coordinator presented the Heritage Permit
Application to the Heritage Advisory Committee (see Excerpts of Minutes of the
Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, Attachment#4).
The consultants provided an overview of the bridge replacement project including
the EA process and the consultation that was undertaken with stakeholders
including the WDRA Bridge Committee, approval agencies such as the TRCA,
and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.
The City's consultants described the bridge design in detail and the refinements
that have occurred to minimize the overall scale and width of the Bridge since the
preliminary design. The consultants also explained the technical constraints
involved in bridge design and the City's responsibility to meet minimum safety
requirements. The consultants responded in detail to the questions and
comments from the Committee members. Despite completion of the EA, the
Heritage Committee remains concerned with the design and does not support the
approval of the Heritage Permit. The Heritage Committee provided the following
comments for Council's consideration:
• construct a new bridge to match the scale of the existing bridge and consider
reducing the width of the proposed bridge
• remove the north sidewalk
• reduce the length of guiderail
• concern with guiderail adjacent to the trail
• reduce speed on the bridge 5
Report PLN 20-13 September 9, 2013
Subject: Heritage Permit Application Whitevale Bridge Page 6
• consider alternative material to concrete curb
• support the railing style
• support the native plantings proposed and flower planters
• request City staff work with the Heritage Committee to install a plaque to
commemorate the Bridge
• request City staff work with the Heritage Committee to determine the location
of salvage remnants of the former bridge from West Duffins Creek
Lloyd Thomas, representative of the WDRA Bridge Committee was present at
the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting and expressed the concerns
from the Residents' Association which were primarily with respect to the scale
and width of the bridge and the length of the guiderail.
2.2 The Whitevale and District Residents' Association Bridge Committee also
expressed concerns with the design of the bridge
The WDRA Bridge Committee had two formal meetings with City staff and staff
from GHD in September 2011 and December 2012 on the replacement Bridge
project. In addition, the WDRA Bridge Committee provided a letter dated May
21, 2013 to the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee for their consideration (see
Attachment#5). An overview of the Bridge Committee comments and
suggestions include:
• design the new bridge to match the scale of the existing bridge as closely as
possible
• develop a sympathetic design of the heritage replacement bridge, ensuring
that it retains a heritage feel and does not resemble a standard bridge
• design the Bridge to limit the impact on the surrounding natural and historic
environment
3. Staff Comments
3.1 The Bridge design was refined through the Environmental Assessment and
design process to minimize the scale and width within practical
engineering and technical requirements of the approval agencies
The recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment, the comments from
the WDRA Bridge Committee and the requirements to meet minimum Bridge
design standards for operations and safety, both vehicular and pedestrian, were
taken into consideration during the development of the preferred solution through
the Environmental Assessment and detailed design processes.
The recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment and WDRA Bridge
Committee generally included the request to design the bridge to match the scale
and width of the existing bridge as closely as possible and developing a
sympathetic design ensuring that it retains a heritage feel and to blend in with the
heritage character of the Hamlet.
6
Report PLN 20-13 September 9, 2013
Subject: Heritage Permit Application Whitevale Bridge Page 7
The dimensions of the bridge including the length and width were developed and
refined through the EA and design process to minimize the scale and width within
practical engineering and technical constraint requirements of the approval
agencies (see Whitevale Bridge Replacement Plan and Elevation, Attachment#2).
Specific negotiations and refinements to the bridge design were conducted with
the TRCA. TRCA's original requirement included a bridge span of 112 metres.
The project team consulted with the TRCA and recommended a minimum
technically feasible span of 36 metres. This will ensure that: minimum safety
standards are met; the span of the bridge will accommodate the flow and channel
migration as required by TRCA; and the span of the bridge will provide terrestrial
passage along the western bank of West Duffins Creek as requested by the
TRCA.
3.2 The bridge width was reduced in response to comments from the Whitevale
Bridge Committee
The study team refined the original design recognizing the concerns expressed
by the Whitevale Bridge Committee where possible (see Cross Section of
Preliminary Preferred and Revised Preferred Solutions, Attachment#3).
The study team's Preliminary Preferred Solution recommended two lanes, each
at 3.5 metres wide, whereas the existing bridge has two lanes each at 3.2 metres
wide. In response to concerns, the lane width was reduced to 3.2 metres in the
Revised Preferred Solution. The existing bridge does not include a recovery
zone which is a safety requirement. The design team originally proposed a
recovery zone of 1.0 metre on each side of the bridge. It was reduced to a
minimum acceptable width of 0.5 metres on each side.
Currently, there is a 1.5 metre sidewalk on the south side of the bridge. The
Preliminary Preferred Solution proposed 2.0 metre wide sidewalks on both the
north and south sides of the bridge. The WDRA Bridge Committee requested the
removal of the north sidewalk in an effort to reduce the total width of the bridge.
The study team investigated the request, and concluded that the removal of the
sidewalk would be at the expense of public safety. The removal of the sidewalk
would result in the narrowing of the Bridge by 0.8 of a metre, not by 1.5 metres,
as removal of the sidewalk necessities an increase in the recovery zone from 0.5
metres to 1.2 metres. The Revised Preferred Solution proposed a 2.0 metre
wide sidewalk on the south side of the bridge and 1.5 metre on the north side.
The City is of the opinion that the benefit of maintaining the sidewalk on the north
side provides a safe refuge for pedestrians who regularly use the bridge to view
West Duffins Creek. This includes Whitevale residents, Seaton trail uses,
tourists, club and community and school groups. Additionally, the City's
sustainability policies encourages walkable neighbourhoods and where possible,
providing sidewalks on both sides of all roads.
7
Report PLN 20-13 September 9, 2013
Subject: Heritage Permit Application Whitevale Bridge Page 8
3.3 The guiderail design and length is the most appropriate from the available
options taking into consideration safety objectives
Concerns regarding the guiderail length and the guiderail adjacent to the Seaton
Hiking Trail were expressed from the Whitevale Bridge Committee and the
Heritage Committee. A steel beam guiderail is necessary to ensure safety for
pedestrians and vehicles.
The guiderails are shown on the Whitevale Bridge Replacement Plan and
Elevation, provided as Attachment #2. The length of guiderail extending from
each corner of the bridge is as follows: 16 metres in the north-west; 29 metres in
the south-west; 16 metres in the north-east; and 7 metres in the south-east.
The design team investigated reducing the length of the guiderail during detailed
design, and as a result, the proposed guiderails are as short as possible. The
guiderails will be connected directly to a concrete a pillar, not directly to the
bridge so as to not disrupt the design of the bridge. Staff supports the guiderails
as proposed.
3.4 Staff supports commemorating the former bridge by salvaging historic
remnants and relocating them to a community park
The Heritage Impact Assessment recommended commemorating both the former
bowstring Arch and the existing bridges. The City is committed to working with
the WDRA Bridge Committee and the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee to
develop appropriate wording for a commemorative plaque and incorporating
elements of the existing and former bridges into a community park. It is
proposed that removal of remnants from the creek bed of the original pre-1929
bowstring Arch bridge and railing from the existing Whitevale Bridge be salvaged.
Representative remnants can be salvaged and placed in an appropriate location
to be determined by the City in consultation with the Bridge Committee and the
Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee.
The Heritage Impact Assessment also suggested that flower planters be
designed to fit over the railings of the new bridge. Any design or installation of
planters will be determined by the City in consultation with Bridge Committee and
Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee.
3.6 A request to consider a reduction to the speed limit on Whitevale Bridge is
not supported
The Heritage Committee requested that the speed limit on Whitevale Bridge be
reduced from its current 40 kilometres (km) per hour. There is a relationship
between the speed on a bridge and the width of the recovery zone between the
travel lane and the sidewalk. The selected design is already using the minimum
width of 0.5 metres.
8
Report PLN 20-13 September 9, 2013
Subject: Heritage Permit Application Whitevale Bridge Page 9
Unreasonably low posted speeds are frequently, but not always, ignored. This
leads to greater variability in the speeds between vehicles travelling on the same
road — a common cause of accidents. Whitevale Road has traffic calming on
both sides of the bridge to address speeding and a posted speed limit of
40 km per hour. It is appropriate to retain the same posted speed on the bridge.
3.6 A request to consider the use of alternate materials instead of concrete
curbs is being considered in some locations
The Heritage Committee requested the City consider the use of alternate
materials to concrete curbs. The curbs on the bridge (which are in the front face
of the sidewalk) can be only concrete. However, concrete curbs and gutter were
proposed at the ends of the bridge to direct stormwater off the bridge into the
valley. For these locations, in response to Committee's comments, City staff are
investigating options to use alternate curb treatment and materials that would be
in keeping with the rural nature of Whitevale Road, such as natural rock.
4.0 Staff recommends approval of the Heritage Permit Application submitted by
GHD, on behalf of the City of Pickering
The outcome of the ongoing consultation with the stakeholders and agencies has
resulted in a bridge design that is sensitive to the historic rural context of the
District. The bridge design addresses recommendations made in the Heritage
Impact Assessment and the objectives of the conservation district guidelines,
which encourage new development to respect and complement the character of
the Hamlet. The scenic road quality has not been sacrificed while still meeting
the current minimum bridge design standards for operation and safety, both
vehicular and pedestrian.
Council is requested to approve the application, with a condition exploring the
use of natural materials as an alternative to concrete for the proposed curb and
gutter, salvaging remnants of the existing and former bridges for relocation and
display, and erecting a plaque commemorating for the existing and former
bridges.
Attachments
1. Location Plan
2. Whitevale Bridge Replacement Plan and Elevation
3. Cross Section of Preliminary Preferred and Revised Preferred Solutions
4. Excerpts of Minutes of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee May 23, 2013
5. Whitevale and District Residents' Association Letter dated May 21, 2013
9
Report PLN 20-13 September 9, 2013
Subject: Heritage Permit Application Whitevale Bridge Page 10
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Cristina Celebre, MCIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, PP
Senior Planner— Development Review Chief Planner
& Heritage
Darrell Selsky, CET, CMM III Thomas Melym , M RPP
Manager, Capital Projects Director, City De el..ment
& Infrastructure
Ric rd Holt* n, P.Eng.
Director, Engineering & Public Works
CC:Id
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering Cii, ouncil
// l 744,1 . zit 1013
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
•
•
10
ATTACHMENT# I TO
REPORT# PLN
� 1
WHITEVAL
'STK. �
CHU�!Lu\'IL.' ' I .,III MIER
tzvir
mons 1E71111 1111 141111111111111
■
MIA
w
WH EVAL
B 'IDGE
(---) 1\4
Cliq
Location Map
r FILE No: Heritage Permit
APPLICANT: GHD on Behalf of the City of Pickering
0~`1 0:9 ■14C PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Whitevale Bridge
City Development DATE Aug.i,2013
Department /�
T.rnn.l Cnt.rpA� Inc. tl h. YpoP1.r.. NI rlQhb Rgm.tl. NM a lon of .urvoy. SCALE 1:1� 0
4013 MPAC c.ntl It. .upMl.r.. All rIQhb R...r..tl. NM o plop of SunrPy. f W PN-R
11
I .
, 1 i —
ATTACHMENT i Q( WI I , 4
1 ! ' i ,,,LIJ Z 111- t
REPORT• PD — zi I
In 1 11 ,i _.:••■■
..V,ITo
icig OLL W W,11:syi
■ I " 1 MUDS H lg 0 K 26 Ct 41 0 < aj g I •
1 it 1—w?iLl°- Z*6 i'" -3- •
i E 1 & E 1 g d. ,',.-
hl
L : I 1 1i 001 i '
6iii 1111
Iiiii
g ---, i Li g i ogi R i [ I-- 2 1
I 2.i . 3-
z
,..
. 3 .'
c 0...
'- 1 6,
V , ■
-II i ' ' w' ■
g 6
M I 1
7 g 9
i ,14 ii 1
i P ii r
R 2 ' 18
0- 5
17) e 1 `.'m 1 = \\I 1
t . '-3 E ---.-__.. ,
_, ___ ___
7
, ES '1
l. IIII
VI —
16g :1: 7:=::,.2.------_. -:11:::Li-:Tir-: — ci
....„
1 ,
-,, -- , ri- Mill
I , I
' I I 1 ''' –
'—
, 41P i .
i
n____ ._ — 1
I P
. —■ 1
Y '
.. 1,
8 3 0 0 3
1 YI
IT
171 1 il . 111.
...
E
(.. .... F----, I g; .
-.:: , .,..:1 , 6?.
-
_- ..,,
' 1
: q °-`". - - ,
'
t —.--—I
L . 1
L, la.4 I - -1.--.1-- P.
...
..1 iX I:I
— 40-- i-r I-7"=-L- •
* I tz, .• -
...
....-
8 1 111 i .:,i4.4,11 . ....
111 , -
t 't' '14''' ''11 -, 1 , , w,,_L
_ -
A 11 0 t„56 t 1 , 96 –
i /' I I n I — -7
f 1 -- -4 F--• / _
z 3 i r -
. , ...„.„„..":„
1 ... ,
LI .
2 1 1
k„,.......„. u
a N 1 I
hd CC I 1 I
8 1 2 I
4 1 ?
1 , 1 F AI.
. I—,
_ ......
I .
1 1 I
12
ATTACHMENT# 3 TO
REPORT !t PLN coo-A3
Preliminary Preferred Solution
inmi .satabi
I. RIGHT OF t WHITEVALE It RIGHT OF
WAY 1 RD_ I WAY
10.065m 10.065m
13.6m
0.3m 2.0m 1. 3.5m 3.5m 2.0m 0.3m
to ALKI 1 LANE l LANE i Orr SEDEW 1
CONCRETE
PARAPET N4 f ASPHALT
WALL AND 1 1 1
STEEL RAIL !
- REINFORCED
COPNRC -- I CI I I CONRETE
GIRDERS DECK
REINFORCED
CONCRETE
PIER
Revised Preferred Solution
> SIB
RIGHT OF tE WH(TEVAL.E RIGHT OF
WAY RD. WAY
10.055m I 10.065m
11.5m
0.3m 1.5m 3.2m 3.2m 2.0m 0.3m
tI • LANE LANE SIDEWALK
0.5m 0.5m
CONCRETE
PARAPET .
WALL AND i r
STEEL RAIL
RE -- I•I_��I
C REINFORCED
CONCRETE
GIRDERS DECK
REINFORCED
I A I CONCRETE
PIER
Figure9 1 Cross-Section of Preliminary Solution and Revised Preferred Solution
13
ATTACHMENT# 14 TO
REPOR1 # Pt-N1,;c-t3
•
CHI/ 4 ti. Excerpts of Minutes
47- _. Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee
1:4,6„ !ii iii T': - May 23, 2013
� am 7:00 pm
Main Committee Room
Attendees: Councillor Rodrigues
S. lyer
W. Jamadar
R. Lattouf
E. Mason
T. Reimer
D. Rundle
C. Sopher
J. Van Huss
C. Celebre, Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage
D. Selsky, Supervisor of Engineering
L. Roberts, Recording Secretary
Absent: T. Besso
M. Sawchuck
S. Sheehan
Guests: John Semjan, Bridge Manager, GHD
Lynn Collins, Senior Environmental Project Coordinator, GHD
Wayne Cassidy, Cassidy & Company Architectural Technologist
Jessie & Jodie Gray
Lloyd Thomas
Don Anderson
Item ! Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items l
Ref# (summary of discussion) Status •
(include deadline as
appropriate)
3.0 Delegations
2. Whitevale Bridge Heritage Permit
C. Celebre introduced the City of Pickering's consultants from
the Sernas Group Inc. as well as Darrell Selsky, Supervisor,
Engineering, City of Pickering, who were in attendance to
provide an overview of the bridge replacement project and
heritage permit application for the Whitevale Bridge. She
advised that under the Ontario Heritage Act, Council shall
consult with the Heritage Advisory Committee prior to
considering the Heritage Permit application.
John Semjan, Bridge Manager, The Sernas Groups Inc.
(GHD) and Lynn Collins, Senior Environmental Project
Coordinator, appeared before the Committee. Through the
aid of a power point presentation and a handout of the plans
Page 1
14
ATTACHMENT# ? TO
REPORT # PLN ac-,3
Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items /
Ref# (summary of discussion) Status
'(include deadline as
appropriate)
for the bridge replacement, Mr. Semjan outlined the
proposed bridge design elements and materials to be used.
He noted the existing bridge width is 8.6 metres and the
proposed width is 11.6 metres. Mr. Semjan noted the bridge
span is currently 32 metres with 36 metres being proposed.
TRCA had requested a 112 metre span. He noted that the
Environmental Assessment had been completed and the
recommendations contained in the report had been
accepted. He stated that a public open houses had been
held and that ongoing meetings were being conducted with
the public as well as the Whitevale Bridge Committee.
He provided background information and outlined mitigation
strategies including the following;
• Erection of plaque to commemorate the site
• Incorporate elements of the existing bridge into the
community park
• Salvage of remnants from the old bridge and railings
with location to be determined by the City in
consultation with the Whitevale Bridge Committee
• ensure design of new bridge will respect the character
of the hamlet of Whitevale
Mr. Semjan outlined the modifications of the design
considerations which have been made as a result of the
consultation process. He explained the design elements
considered to address the visual character of the site, as well
as the materials to be used. He also explained the safety
standards in place to protect all users of the road.
A detailed question and answer period ensued with Mr.
Semjan and Ms. Collins providing clarification as required.
C. Sopher questioned whether there were any design
alternatives for the guardrails that would meet safety
requirements and requested that pictures of alternatives be
forwarded to him. He noted the importance of being
complimentary to the community. He also questioned the
construction of a separate pedestrian bridge.
Discussion ensued with respect to a pedestrian bridge and
the importance of this to help minimize the impact from
construction as well as allowing a safe crossing for hikers.
E. Mason questioned whether there was any recourse now
that the EA has been completed.
Page 2
15
ATTACHMENT# 11 TO
REPUR1 # Pt-N, c-13
Item / Details & Discussion &Conclusion Action Items /
Ref# (summary of discussion) Status
(include deadline as
appropriate) •
Lloyd Thomas noted that the concerns from the Whitevale
and Distrcit Residents' Association were mainly with respect
to the width of the bridge and length of the guardrails. He
noted that TRCA would like hikers to walk up and not climb
over the guardrails for safety reasons.
D. Selsky, Supervisor of Engineering, noted that the
pedestrian bridge is an entirely separate project. He also C. Celebre to
explained that the current extent of deterioration of the bridge action
which presents significant safety concerns, and the need to
move ahead with the project.
Ms. Collins noted that TRCA has confirmed they support the
EA as approved.
Comments and recommendations are noted as follows:
Members were in support of the Texas classic railing, green
rock protection planted with native shrubs proposed and
filling in of precast beam webs.
Suggestions and comments included;
• Alternatives to steel guide rails
• Construct new bridge to match the scale of existing
bridge
• Remove the north sidewalk
• Reduce width of bridge
• Reduce length of guiderails
• Use alternate material to concrete for curbs
• Construct a pedestrian bridge
• Concerns with guiderail adjacent to the trail
• Reduce speed on bridge
•
• Work with City to erect a plaque to commemorate the
•
site
• Work with future Whitevale Plaque Program
• Work with City to install flower planters
• Investigate the salvage of remnant materials from
former bridge and incorporate into community park
Moved by R. lyer
Seconded by R. Lattouf
That the recommendations noted above be forwarded to
Council for consideration of the Heritage Permit application.
Page 3
16
•
ATTACHMENT#, 7 TO
REPORT # PL-N(9O- t?
Item 1 Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items 1
Ref# (summary of discussion) Status
• (include deadline as
appropriate)__
Carried
C. Celebre explained the process involved with the heritage
permit application. She advised that she would summarize
the Committee's recommendations in a report for Council's
consideration of the Heritage Permit application.
Page 41 7
ATTACHMENT f E TO
REPORT ft Pt-t X0—i _____
g ^T OP�l WHITEVALE AND DISTRICT
IIT
1 : RESIDENTS'ASSOCIATION
Whitevale,ON
LOH IMO
May 21, 2013
Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee
RE:Whitevale Bridge Replacement—Heritage Permit
It is our understanding that a Heritage Permit Application was submitted by Sernas Group Inc. on behalf of the
City of Pickering on May 15, 2013 with respect to the replacement of the Whitevale Bridge. We have also
learned that this permit will be discussed at your upcoming Advisory Committee meeting on May 23, 2013.
Although City staff haven't forwarded the permit application to the WDRA Bridge Committee, we would like to
take this opportunity to bring a few items to the attention of the Heritage Committee.
The WDRA Bridge Committee was formed shortly after news was received that the existing Whitevale Bridge
would be replaced. Since its inception, one of the primary goals of the Bridge Committee has been to ensure
that the design of the replacement bridge is in keeping with the historic character of the village. The Bridge
Committee has reached out to the City throughout the entire design process in an effort to have input into the
final bridge design and has been granted two face-to-face meetings; one in September 2011 towards the end
of the Environmental Assessment phase and one in December 2012 at the beginning of the Detailed Design
phase. We were assured that we would be given other opportunities to comment on the design throughout
the detailed design process, but haven't been given a chance for many months now.
Historic Context
The current Whitevale Bridge was constructed in 1929 to replace the previous bridge (built only three years
earlier and noted as the"pride of the village")that was washed out in a heavy flood. The opening of the bridge
on November 30, 1929 was marked with a celebration which included residents of Whitevale and prominent
officials including the Minister of Highways and previous Pickering reeves.
The bridges of Whitevale have always held a special place in the hearts of the villagers because they serve as a
focal point in the community and they are what link the two halves of the village together; the bridges have
allowed for the village to grow and prosper. The Whitevale Bridge is consistent with the architectural evolution
of the Hamlet,which is well known as one of the few hamlets in the province that has retained the overall 19th
century character established during its humble beginnings in the early 1800's and later grew into a busy
industrial area in the 1870's.
The current Whitevale Bridge has survived at least two flood events (Hurricane Hazel in 1954 and a heavy
rainfall in the summer of 2008). Although the bridge has survived for nearly 85 years, it has been neglected by
the City in recent years and has now deteriorated to a point where the City says it needs to be replaced.
Page 1 of 5
18
WHITEVALE AND DISTRICT
RESIDENTS'ASSOCIATION •
ATTACHMENT# 5 TO
Heritage impact Assessment REPORT PL -13
The Whitevale Bridge Heritage Impact Assessment report was completed in 2011 by Archaeological Services
Inc. Although the bridge was not recommended for inclusion in the Ontario Heritage Bridge List, the report
states that it meets one of the criteria for Regulation 9/06 under the Ontario Heritage Act and may be
considered for municipal designation under that act. The bridge was also noted to have strong contextual
associations with Whitevale through its current scale and grade. The report has the following comments about
the bridge:
"The rural character of Whitevale is rooted in the nineteenth century, and it has not changed
considerably over the course of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Vestiges of its earlier
role as an industrial and commercial centre are present with the village, as demonstrated by
the remnants of a former mill site located on the east banks of the river adjacent to the
bridge. The bridge and remnants of the former concrete bowstring bridge still present
underneath the east span of the structure contribute to the character of this village given their
role as a traditional bridging point, which has direct associations with the historical
development of White vale."
"The bridge is considered a landmark feature given its important role within the local
community for providing a link between the east and west sections of the hamlet of
Whitevale."
The report also suggested the following mitigation strategies to be followed during the replacement of the
bridge:
• Erection of a plaque to commemorate the site
• Incorporate elements of the existing bridge and former bowstring arch bridge into the
community park
• Ensure that the new bridge is sympathetically designed to respect the former bridge
crossings and to blend in with the heritage character of the hamlet of Whitevale
through the incorporation of certain design considerations:
o aesthetic bowstring arch
o open concept concrete railing design
o flower planters
o chamfered soffit and tapered pier as extant in current structure
Finally,the report recommends that:
"Where engineering or other considerations permit, the character-defining elements...should
be retained and treated sympathetically during future repair/rehabilitation work or
considered in the designs of the new structure".
Page 2 of 5
19
WHITEVALE AND DISTRICT
RESIDENTS'ASSOCIATION ,.--- �Jo1
ATTACHMENT#_ 5 TD
Useful Guides for Design REPORT # Pt-,1 59O- 13
The Bridge Committee has brought forward several design references/guides to the City's attention in an effort
to assist the engineers in coming up with creative solutions for the design of the replacement structure.
1) The Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guide states:
"Public Works projects, such as road construction, sidewalks, storm drainage, street lighting
and utility servicing, have the potential to cause profound disruption to the fabric of the
Whitevale Heritage District. In order to minimize the adverse effects on the district, the
following general principles should be considered prior to the design and implementation of
public infrastructure works:
• • The road character of the district should be preserved
• Suburban development standards would be inappropriate in the district
• The narrow pavement, shoulder treatments and grass ditches are essential to the district
character and should be maintained
• When projects in the interest of public safety must be undertaken, they should be
reviewed carefully so that the scenic road quality is not sacrificed."
2) The Ontario Heritage Bridge Guidelines list eight conservation options for bridges; the last resort option
being:
"Bridge removal and replacement with a sympathetically designed structure" which is then
further qualified by stating, "...project teams should be mindful of context,scale, massing, and
materials of the original structure. Further, the overall style and character of the original
should be preserved or reflected using similar materials and design elements where possible."
3) The Aesthetic Guidelines for MTO Bridges offers suggestions for bridge design relating to the size and scale
of the bridge:
"A bridge should be designed with sensitivity to its context. Its physical setting greatly affects
its appearance. The same bridge that appears appropriate and aesthetically pleasing in one
setting will not necessarily evoke the same response in a different environment. Appropriate
precedents for similar situations in the vicinity or elsewhere should always be analyzed for
their aesthetic strengths and weaknesses. These lessons should be applied by the designer in
order to ensure that the new bridge makes a positive contribution to its context, visually as
well as functionally."
"In a natural setting, the bridge will be the most conspicuous object in the landscape. The eye
will always be drawn to it. It is very important that the structure is sensitive to and does not
visually overwhelm the setting. Efforts should be made to convey a visual impression of
lightness."
The overriding message when designing a new bridge to replace a historic structure is to design it in such a way
that it blends into the existing historic environment and matches the existing structure as closely as possible.
Furthermore, this specific bridge is located within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District, which was
established to ensure the preservation and enhancement of the special character of Whitevale.
e---6.c7195----1;--.1 .4673---1 Page 3 of 5
2 o
WHITEVALE AND DISTRICT
RESIDENTS'ASSOCIATION
ATTACHMENT# 5 TO
Bridge Committee Suggestions REPORT # Pi. N ao-
Through this process the Bridge Committee has been assured by staff that the City of Pickering values the
historic character of Whitevale and is committed to working with the residents of both Whitevale and Pickering
to provide a design which meets the needs of the community while not detracting from the heritage character
of the Hamlet. During every communication with the City, we have made it clear that heritage is of extreme
importance to the Hamlet of Whitevale and have made numerous suggestions with respect to the bridge
design. Some of the suggestions put forward by the Bridge Committee include:
• Design the new bridge to match the scale of the existing bridge as closely as possible; suggestions
to achieve this.included:
o constructing a one-lane bridge;
o providing a separate pedestrian bridge to allow for a reduction in the number and size of
the sidewalks;
o exploring exceptions to normal bridge design practices, which is acceptable for bridges on
low speed and low volume roads; and
o reducing the proposed width of the south sidewalk and eliminating the proposed and
unnecessary north sidewalk altogether.
• Develop a sympathetic design for the heritage replacement bridge, ensuring that it retains a
heritage feel and doesn't resemble a standard looking highway bridge; suggestions to achieve this
included:
o considering alternate structural bridge types such as a rigid frame bridge;
o incorporating decorative and historic elements such as bowstring arches (similar to the
previous 1926 bridge)or spandrel arches;
o using a chamfered soffit and tapered piers similar to the current bridge;
o disguising the standard prefabricated concrete girders (if used in the design) by filling in
the web portion;
o constructing barrier walls with a heritage appearance,such as the Texas-style railing; and
o installing a heritage plaque outlining the history of the previous Whitevale bridge crossings.
• Design the bridge so that it limits the impact on the surrounding natural and historic environment;
suggestions to achieve this included:
o limiting the length of steel beam guiderails used at the bridge approaches, which severely
disrupt the heritage feel of the village;
o using rolled asphalt curbs instead of concrete curbs;
o protecting the historic blacksmith's shop located adjacent to the southwest corner of the
existing bridge;
o planting flowers on the bridge; and •
o outlining the procedure for dealing with any buried artifices that might be unearthed
during construction.
As you can see, the Bridge Committee has made continued efforts to ensure that the replacement bridge is
designed appropriately. There are many issues we have with the current design of the bridge; most notably we
feel that the scale of the bridge is much too large considering its environment and we also feel that the bridge
type (CPCI girders)don't reflect a sympathetically designed heritage structure whatsoever. While we do expect
that the City will incorporate some of the Bridge Committee's more minor and superficial suggestions so that
they can claim to have satisfied the Heritage Impact Assessment recommendations, we are concerned that
some of the major items (i.e. the,size and bridge type) will not be addressed; unfortunately we haven't been
'App. Page 4 of 5
21
ATTACFiMENT# J� TO
WHITEVALE AND DISTRICT REPORT ,4 PLt' p—1
RESIDENTS'ASSOCIATION
provided with a set of drawings since last year, so we aren't sure where the design stands at this point. We
were told that we would be consulted throughout the design process and not just at the end of it.
We were just notified today that the bridge replacement schedule will likely be postponed a year to June 2014.
We believe that this delay creates an opportunity to revisit some of the heritage design issues and hopefully
come up with a more appropriate heritage design.
The Bridge Committee wanted to bring you up to speed on this project, as we recognize you have only been
brought in at the tail end of the process when everything is already completed. We decided to present you
with this list of our previous suggestions so that when you review the current design, you can decide for
yourself what suggestions have been incorporated and determine if the City has given appropriate
consideration to heritage. As you are the City's advisors on heritage matters, we trust you will recognize the
impact that a new bridge will have on the heritage character of Whitevale and we have faith that you will make
the appropriate recommendations to ensure it is designed appropriately.
Sincerely,
Lloyd Thomas
Chair, Whitevale and District and Residents'Association,
Bridge Committee
Page 5 of 5
22
city ;- Report to
Executive Committee
_ -. =
P ERING Report Number: CLK 01-13
Date: September 9, 2013
From: Paul Bigioni
Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
Subject: 2014 Standing Committee and Council Meeting Schedule
Recommendation:
That the 2014 Standing Committee and Council Meeting Schedule included as
Attachment 1 to this report be approved.
Executive Summary:
In accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001, every municipality and local board shall
pass a procedure by-law for governing the calling, place and proceedings of meetings.
The by-law provides for the notification of the meetings of Council.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications.
Discussion:
The City of Pickering Procedural By-law provides for governing the calling, place and
proceedings of meetings. In accordance with the intent of the Municipal Act, of open,
transparent and accountable government, the 2014 meeting schedule is presented in
order for public notification to commence.
Attachments:
1. 2014 Standing Committee and Council Meeting Schedule.
23
Report CLK 01-13 September 9, 2013
Page 2
Prepared By: Approved •dorsed By:
Debbie Shields Paul Bigioni
City Clerk Director, Co +o ate ' ervices & City Solicitor
DS:Icr
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Co ncil
0 .2/. 2,013
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
24
GO N 0) CO CO N CA CD CO O u) co CO O N-
r r N r N CO r N N
u. d" r CO 1.6. N CN I c- O- N
r PJ N N LL
L
/
c- co G) — CO Lo
H co Or .- N I- [� (N N F cT r r N
•a N O CO N OM CD CO ON N a> M O , N co
N
Q Q F- N O) CO F- N C3) CO co O
H r- co r-[M N r r N Q r N co
C,..,z N
I,..
r CO r co LC) r N O l
r N N r r N '� ;i,.,N N
CO O N- O N- tt r" CO E
co co r N N M r r N CO U) N- r N N 0
m
0) r CO O co Li7 N C3) CO cn r M IX) N CA U
N r r N r N N CU
x
M r CO LO Ct r CO W
LI-u- N- y N u r r N r N N I _Do
r s-
-- N 1� O V 7t r M O N- I a�i
F- CD M
22 I N f' M r r N CO h CD r N N E
0_
E N 0) CD o m L CO CD co O
in - ON = N r N CO r .- (N >1- r
Cp 0 in LC) N 0) r CO LC)
0
I- ' N h r CO r N N z H r r N 06 m
'� ...it Ir CO O I� V •c Cu -0
co 01:M r'jT `N N co r r N c CO
CO O CO O I� CO M O !Z Cl) v
N N CO (D r N N Cn N C) r N co
> (U O
O CO0 QU if) CV A Cn r 00 N N N r CO�r N
� �1 >, r
LL f` r Co IL CO CO O N. LL CO Or V--- N CO In
5
N N r N N 0 • )
�J1 CO O N- N CD CD L. CD M O D
CCS H OrNN H Lc) rrN WH NOrNCO O CD
= LC) N CA co C ct, r CO Ln 0 r CO to N O) — !-
L "S T- r N = r r N d , r N N
Q) r CX) LC) O N V d" r CO
UL ~ r r N ~ co r r- N ~ N- r N N
CO Or i 'N M O r N ':
CO CO LC) N O) N O CO
C7 N O) 7- N (!) r M r N N Cl) L r r N
r CO Liz O N` �t • CO O ti
r r N CO r c- N CO U) CD r N N r N
A—
LL M O r LL N CA CD M O U. N C)) CO Q..c-
r r N M r N M L ,- r N a) D Q >,.
(0
?+ l- NrnCDMO F r � LnNrn 01- 7' 001n � > �
L r NCO `- N N r r N i LL co 1
tr.) -\\I (� ti r 00 O I� ;iv:, , C m M r N C r r M ,— N Q CIS (�R� C ca
�} ro0 MC 1� a CD MO _ i 6
I- r N N I- Co ,-'C : N Q) ~ O r N co E V) ti
CO . t` ®N a) CD r 143'N O) W LL W
5 fir,-" r (V Ls N N
N C3) co i .- co LU �- CO a)
co Lc) r r N 0 ' r r N C) h- r N N a)
N
J
25
Cif Report to
_sue. `= Executive Committee
I.
PICKKERING Report Number: FIN 18-13
Date: September 9, 2013
From: Paul Bigioni
Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
•
Subject: Cash Position Report as at June 30, 2013
Recommendation: It is recommended that Report FIN 18-13 from the Director,
Corporate Services & City Solicitor be received for information.
Executive Summary: The schedules attached present the City of Pickering's cash
position, continuity of taxes receivable, outstanding investments, development charges
collected and other development contribution information for the six months ended June
30, 2013.
Key indicators in the first half of 2013 are summarized as follows:
• Total development charges collected during the first half of 2013 are slightly up by
4% from $7.2M to $7.5M compared to the same period in 2012.
• Building permits are down by 7% from 503 to 466 compared to the same period in
2012.
The City's investment portfolio remains relatively balanced with the total short term
investments slightly higher than the total long term investments but at lower interest
rates.
Financial Implications: The financial position of the Corporation for the six months
ended June 30, 2013 was a net increase in cash of $9,230,430 to $14,412,552.
Sources of Funds (as shown in Attachment 1) totaled $153,750,775 and Use of Funds
(also shown in Attachment 1) totaled $144,520,345.
Discussion: This report presents a six-month period of activity ending June 30,
2013. The discussion below describes the purpose of reporting the selected data with
summary information in each of the attached schedules.
Statement of Cash Position: Attachment 1 reflects the City's sources and uses of funds
for the first half of 2013. Subcategories have been identified to highlight those cash
transactions that are material in nature or with large dollar values for the City. This
schedule summarizes the increase in cash of $9,230,430 over the first six months of the
year. As at June month end, the City had just completed payment of its interim levy and
payment-in-lieu of taxes to the Region of Durham and to the respective school boards.
26
Report FIN 18-13 September 9, 2013
Page 2
Note that comparison of the net increase/(decrease) of cash over the same reporting
period in prior years may not be useful due to the timing differences of receipts and
disbursements in each respective year.
Continuity of Taxes Receivable: Attachment 2 summarizes the tax related transactions
from January 1 to June 30, 2013 and provides the outstanding taxes receivable as at
June 30, 2013. The total amount represents all three levels of taxes billed for the City,
Region and School Boards. It includes the amounts owing for the September 27th
residential due date of approximately $34.1M. The commercial final billing is not
included in the total as this will be billed later in the year.
Outstanding Investments: Attachment 3 reflects the short-term and long-term
investments for both Current and Reserve Funds outstanding as at June 30, 2013.
Total investment portfolio as at June 30, 2013 is $81.4M with $3.1M from internal loans
and $78.3M from general investments. This represents an increase of about $6.6M or
8.8% on total investments from the same period last year. This variation is expected as
total investments differ from year to year depending on the timing of collection and
remittance of development charges and supplementary taxes.
Development Charges Collected: The City is responsible for the collection of
development charges on behalf of the City, Region and School Boards. Attachment 4
shows a total collection of$7.5M for the year as at June 30, 2013. $2.2M for the City,
$4.8M for the Region and $0.5M for the School Boards. Total collection slightly
increased by about 4.2% compared to the $7.2M collected over the same period in
2012.
Please note that the development charges collected as reported under the Sources of
Funds on Attachment 1 does not match the remittance amounts to the Region and
School Boards indicated under the Use of Funds, also in Attachment 1. This variance is
a result of: (a) timing differences in payments to the Region and School Boards, as
monies become due 25 days following the month of collection, and (b) the City portion is
not reported as a line item under the Use of Funds.
Other Development Contributions: Attachment 5 is provided to show other significant
development contributions received in the first half 2013.
Multi Year Receipts: Attachment 6 shows multiyear receipts of the City's share of
development charges as presented on a linear chart. The $2.2M total amount collected
for the six months ending June 30, 2013 was the fourth highest six-month collection in
the past 20 years.
27
Report FIN 18-13 September 9, 2013
Page 3
Attachments:
1. Statement of Cash Position .
2. Continuity of Taxes Receivable
3. Outstanding Investments
4. Development Charges Collected
5. Other Development Contributions
6. City Portion of Development Charges Collected 2003 -2013 (semi-annual)
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
7K44..-i-4..;. ' Cs\Q-1:-=-1 _____--- -._—_.......____________
. Dennis Arboleda Stan Karwowski ,
' Supervisor, Accounting Services (Acting) D. ' on Head, Finance & Treasurer
Paul Bigioni
Director, C. p• at- Services & City Solicitor
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City - •uncil
I /
iii a".
Tony Pre edel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
28
ATTACHMENT# I TO REPORT# *-1 fJ 13
City of Pickering
Statement of Cash Position
for six months ending June 30, 2013
Sources of Funds:
Accounts Receivable collected 1 $ 1,175,791
Development charges collected 2 7,537,245
Operating 21,461,515
Grants-in-lieu:
Federal 867,220
Provincial 517,224
Ontario enterprises 4,110,890
Municipal enterprises 1,918,064
Linear Properties -
Federal specific grants 51,399
Ontario specific grants 137,788
Interest Income 242,004
Tax payments received 115,731,635
Total $ 153,750,775
Use of Funds:
Operating and Capital Expenditures $ 32,822,433
Payroll 18,109,295
Region Levy 67,359,677
Regional portion of Dev.Charges 4,335,823
School Board Levies 21,110,499
School Board portion of Dev. Charges 436,008
Debenture payment to Region 346,610
Total $ 144,520,345
Net Cash Increase(Decrease) $ 9,230,430
Financial Position
Bank Balance Net Cash Bank Balance
Jan 1, 2012 Provided (Used) June 30, 2012
Current Fund $ 5,182,122 $ 9,230,430 $ 14;412,552
Total $ 5,182,122 $ 9,230,430 $ 14,412,552
1 Includes DRT fuel and recovery of 2012 levy adjustment due from Region
2 Includes City,Region and School Boards
29
ATTACHMENT# .;l TO REPORT#FlN iii-i..
r CO r CO C) CO r
a) C`7 CO O Cn O 1.0 N N CO CD u) LO
li C) CD CL) N O d" 0 U) CA O CO h-
t.- Cf) f` 6) CO Cn C� O N (fl C7 c.
O > N r 'C N- 0) r O N- N CO N N- O
co
in ' r O CO N- N D CO r
U o O O >
y r U M r CD
L Q) CO U
0 N
1( _ _
V (C C CO r N- O to r t` Cf) Ri.
f" � -c LC) N CO N N. CO O '� V CO 0
w N ' LD Lf) r 'V r "Cr N 0) CD CD
O C (C C D) ti CO N O) CA O (D D) - V'
r CA N N (D CO C`
- N y E N N V:' O N CD N CA tt CO Ch CD N �' Ln
= r C) Cl)
r
C c E
J+ Q >'
L
O E 0_ a -
.u) Cf") O V- co N (h U)
L N N CO N 0 LO if)
',� V CA C
�O X 0 Lr) CO N a) 6) Lo-
co
O C
+�+ 6F} N .� (O
� N
CO
-0
1____ - -- ---. __ Q a)
N
cci >
Q
,.., CU L.' 0_
C = al m
E °° N •U
CU Cl) _0 0
d O O O
CL X LL -L]
z• F- CO N CD 0
co C eL` C
a) O CV CO
C) C) D Cr) -0 u)ii CO a0 O N
Cl) 'D 'ct' 02$ C N O
N a)
X N- t` CO
m r ` v m 73
a) (� U (o,
E C a) O
-6 E w E Ca
m 0 i I-f) CO m ai ' .>
Ti v U >
Q Cf) r _ a)
ro
• < i CO NV Dr) r- = C C C
+>'+ CO N N �- CV V m :=.= = a)
CZ C') EmmE
CD d m m
d �.., 4) C_ C a)
C O C CL CL co
E
N V' CD V 0 O N D) CO - - -
N Cf) N- CO LO V' 'V O LC) CO T OX • N-
CV
CU CD C) CO CO C.C) O C)) )) CO 1— CD 2 C CJ
,Q CO O CO LC) U) N CO N- V' 0) a) 4 a) q
f6 V CO 1` CO V' CD co '- O O CO E N
r (D C) Ln V r ') co co CO CD CD w a)
th is* r r t` O 'J U
C) .'IS CD co- N r Q
d• a) C 0 —.
E o .Q
,
(O i� U a) C
c co
m C
co N• „_
,7 O
C) 0) Cl) C!) U) U
N N N 41 O C
N a) a) a) a`) E O Cl
C C C C C N @ N 06
- -0 a D co V-- t`
CZ CO CO CO CO `) CO Jo ,C O CO .
>- > w CO _> E x O
CO = C!1
C Q)) CC a`!)) (C a a)) CO Q) CO a) CD CC) d F o
C x C x C x c x C CO
co X a) N CO a) `– CO a) O CO a) `p CO a) „a X U
U N N N d- I— N I— CO 3
ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT#fin!,.(. /-
C) w M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o O O O O o ° ° o O O O
C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) CD 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •
C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 O O6 N t(7
.a' CD tV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 an rn
E ;t, 000000000 0 000 o 000 0O 00000 0000 o 0
O ,(c-o• O m N r O 'V er• n (I v N C) C) C C) 7 to N O W N N (D Ui O] O C) N O O V
M > 7 co 0) O N U)0 N 0 CO W Q O) CO (O 0 O 0 0 C) cO n 0 CO N O 0
Q. 41 d m W .- CD O N N C .-- N C) n N 0 r n r N 0) CO n 1!) e{ co .c- , Q 'V C) 0) N 0)
V- > C cC U) CD m C) "?N C C) U) O N N N N N N N'— r N N 1— s- a- (D (D
O C O `r co r-
' a is
a CD
(0 p
N N C) N N
O ti .0
m T w .N.) �w o ) w aw >
O O o O o n o si n V ,� °' (!� m`° (`).m 0 0 (� W (n O
• O rnNrnmrnrnm a _ m a 06 a ,g 063 C) ,(y z
o co 0 w CO W C) W W ',...j M N w N' N 0
U) C) W (a Q ' co O rt D C ❑ CL X }
o CO o CO N N n 0 O CO co ?0 O w 2 m tt `O Q<2 co o 2 2 2
v CO m v to C) ('7 m r- m ° Q C Q E
Ci (O Vi r'i (pro at uiv
a Q O Q Q j Q Q Q Q n Q Q ¢ m
m N nnm'UN nm o Eico2_ 02 v2m (i) C) .- ro (n6
W CD N N CO 0 N O CD 0 U) Q
Er. o u) vi m an'ui of v o n Q W Q ' Q W Q ¢ Q Q W W W Q W w 111
0
c
' N O N o < Owo0Oc 00 ¢ 00003000
— a ❑ Z O a w z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ z Z Z O Z Z Z
Z , a Z ❑ N a z Z Z Z a a a Z a O )) E
O N- w 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 W w 0 w w w
m Z o m 0 Z ❑ m m m m ❑ ❑ ❑ m 0 ❑ ❑ I-
0
O N O N O N C) eT 0 n '- '- N CO n n N- U) co sr s> 0 0 0 N- (0 0 n � 0 0
C) U7 V CO U) O CD ' N CO n o C) CO CD C) 0 (D N 0 '0 CO C) O C) 0 O
(O M •ci (D M 0 O.V U) W (O N f- V C) n O .: cri 0 0 cD N O) C) ((i N (D t'7 to
T (O N N tO n• O 0 CO n N O N '- C) n CO N `U N O C) n N CO 0) 0)
m C CO N V C)U)n CO CI N 7 (D CD 0. U) O C) 'Q O N a0 0) [O N O CO 0) 1- n CO N
> ' a- 0 N. 0,- 070,- CN CO CO a- T'U N 10 C) 0 n n
n n O Y< V n CO CD O U) n CO N CD CO U) CO OD 0) N N r N r
m 0 .- CD 0 N N U) .- N CO In Cl) (D CO 0 CO CO 0 (D CO (O e{ 0) r s} 'V Cr C) 0) n C)
> c N CD 0 Ci V N Ni C) Vi O *- N N C) N N N N N .. s- N N nH c0 g
c a (') r
. tn en v »
Na• a•a•a.a• C') a a° a° 0o CL) o a. O p C') C a. a:' E
on Y C) N O 7 < Tr N C) N U) CD 0 0 CD tO 0 0 U) tO tO C) N (D m N e{ 0
Et' CO W O CO CO CO t D m m n N O 0 N .- C) 0 O) C) CO 0 N N N o`
0 0 0 r- 0 0 0 0 O 0 N ? U) Q N C C Q C) N C) C) (V N N N N N n C
sj
co 0 co 0 0 0 M C) C) V co sf CD O. V CO n N CO U) N r- n CO 0 (O 0 n
a d C N 6. @ Q U d Q U d
?
•'U j 0 a 0 U O.0 (nm 7 Qm cm❑m Cm m ° m 0 m m m a U m m m m
(9 ' 2 2 m 2 u? ❑ m Q Q co o w
U) v0 ti N� c0 o m 0 h n .- co' N N 00 o 0 N N O 0 (7 I s-
C O
0 N .- N s- s- O N O O O o , O N `- N O 0 N p 0
000000000 0 O 0 o 0 1- a- '- r N N N N CO CO C) CO CO
m
>m a - T C V) V U m O 2 m U U d a fT6 O
Cl) m m j(C 0 0 n a m 7
-C 5555 -.? -77--' 3000On ❑ 0552 zu_ 22 --,
-?m
m 0 0 0
❑ co m(n o ui Ui (n o m (� (j7 us N ° N (o m
7 O C) C) CO N C) 0 0 0 0 N N 0 N
a O N N N N
CO
W
W F-
r a N- 0 con HI- I- ( z Ow CC aV) z N- N-
O 0 »> ( DN00Nu10000 0 1" 7 ZZ
W m x 0 0 0 Z ¢ a Z Q ¢ ¢ ~ Z w •w j u~j o
C m m__ _ C) ,1 ❑ H F- F- F- H Z h F- O N H ❑ 0 0 0
C
❑oo F- c z ZZZOzz z U) m O a
LL E Z O O O w ,° i00000200 = 0 .,,‘-' 00 Z w w W
m mQm� m000mE .L0' -' 0W000000 < 0 — WW Z wOm (Y m m
r- >m F- CO CO m CO N C) > Q > O >> > Y >> Q > C) v) co 0
z cc000nmco m0co w F- czOOOOOZ OO7000000 co co m o
w —z m m Lu z z z m z > Z < C m C Lu m Q Lu Lu < W 2 m m m m z Z
• c m O O LL m m m O m Z w O a m a a a co a a O a m O m cc O co m E
CO LL D LL > m
> m W CO m c E
i
O .l' Z .1 m m co co r"' > C m CO m 0 c 0 m m m 0 0 m m m m m >CO
m 'o 2 p D E D E E co E E E E t- z m D C C C C C C C C D C C C D C D ■ E E C
m > > > > > > > > C m > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > m E c
E O m ccmmmmE'mmmm 0 oc cc mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm f"'w Z C) F-' °e.0 z 1D D D z 3 10 (n w *8 d 15 73 E Z Z A a d 1) A C > E
~ c m 0 m 0 0 0 m m m ~ c U ami m co m m en en m m ami m co co m m m m CO m m -, c °)
CO :Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z FQ'- z .d. Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z @ c
=(d 0 0 W O D H N--
31
ATTACHMENT# 14 TO REPORT# �'� ( �-(�
a) D M
C a)
•L O
Yd N rn (D 1` V
Q - (fl "Cr N CD
- O CO .N 64 N- C) r 0 r- 1�
M OD
fl.. V O N to ti to tf)I— co tz N C N N. N
O m
>.■ C) __)
.1-+ L t)
O c°
i
U s
Y C
C a) p 'a
a) t ca
o N a D 0) CO (D O rn
N D Q '-' U C' o r o C O — (fr o D O O V- LD N
N
L
Q .K 0
N
L
— U
.4-+ CO a) Cr) N- O
O m co co m co
E o CO 01 0 to VI
co O (D C7
L .0
i U
❑
E
CO
0 </- OD CD N co CD
❑ CD a0 CD (r) ' CO
�O (Jr, Ch to CO O O O
C- CO N 1` O N CD C CO CO O CO Nt- CO
o — r '— 4
N
eL
•
C
0 co
rn N W N r- c7
O 'Ct O) Cn O h
0 C7 CD
_
CD
Cl) V (D 'Q' CO CO N
j, CD 1- Nt Ni
0
t
C
O
E
'B O
Y U)
U C
a O
o o
U
L'• m
C j C U — OO a C6
a
p c C6 o_ 0 CO C O
E - U 2 < S 2 -) )-.
4
32
ATTACHMENT#. _TO REPORT#FlAflg_13
C C
CO
Tr-
M o 0
O
a N
o
C
>� 0
U C
m C
E
Q.
O
d N
> 4-
d
0 0
E
C K
— N
0 L
0
D
m C
7c
iv
a
0
a)
J
C D
a)
_C J
H U
0 t
to
.G
To
C O
0 i
U
33
'ii TACHMENT# C TORECRT#ritJ / -/3
L
G
O
N
(N �, 4 M
r Q
_ ° N
Lp D
ti
d
E D
ni a- N
kr
ZN U N �so
`" iao
N N
-
o
rn� -0 4- O
C o
N N
-
v- O
t-• O
.E csi
a .0 w rn
CO. N .0• N
w_
U a) _ r rn
l6 O
INC
O
w () d � v_ 00
O
° v, M m °
C ° T"
2.° O7 C3 o w- CO
f VCS
N . t O• o
O I N
a. U M � °= o
C 76.� CC) _ `�' sN
0 E �, • o:• NI
Q `." ,C
O a
y N .0
v CO
N R
CI
-C
o N w
C
N �
1 N
111111111111111'°
, N To o
v
L N
'� O
c�v NZN
T
..., 4... ..t
C N O
� ' v_ , O
co N
is — M
to
qiu C vp rn N
._, w. M
N a O
r - N
t
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
6 6 O O O O O O
o O o o O O O
o O O O O O O
p p O O O O O
a o 0 0 0 0 0
�.n o 1..r) o u) o u,
M M N N r' V-
34
city 00 Report to
- �'- Executive Committee
PIK
Report Number: FIN 19-13
Date: September 9, 2013
From: Paul Bigioni
Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
Subject: 2012 Municipal Performance Measurement Program — Provincially
Mandated Public Reporting of Performance Measures
Recommendation: It is recommended that Report FIN 19-13 from the Director,
Corporate Services & City Solicitor be received for information.
Executive Summary: The City is mandated by the Province of Ontario to report
yearly Performance Measures of 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 (Acting)
Division Head, Finance & Treasurer as required by the Province.
Each year, measures for reporting are refined, altered and added to by the Province,
making year over year comparison difficult. Over the years, the number of measures to
be reported from different service areas has increased significantly. For 2012 reporting,
municipalities had the option to report efficiency measures based on total costs
excluding interest on long-term debt. However, City staff have decided not to report on
these optional measures due to the fact the exclusion of long-term debt costs does not
present a fair and accurate measure. Also, through the years, the formulas used in
calculating specific measures are revised making them incomparable to prior years'
calculations.
The attached Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP) results for 2012
and a supplemental information package will be made available on the City's website.
The package includes a comparison of the 2012 measures against 2011, where
applicable, and a copy of the Public Notice that will appear in the News Advertiser at the
end of September, 2013.
Financial Implications: This report does not have any financial implications.
35
Report FIN 19-13 September 9, 2013
Page 2
Discussion: Attachment 1 is the 2012 information mandated by the Province to be
reported to the public by September 30, 2013. Note that all measures are from service
areas that the City provides to the public. Service areas not provided by the City (like
police services, transit, waste water, drinking water and solid waste) are not included in
the report.
The set of measures required for public reporting changes every year, as identified by
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Comments pertaining to the compilation
and interpretation of City 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 is 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,
most recently, Building Services, where new and modified measures are being reported.
Municipalities also continue to improve on their data collection methods in an effort to
ensure consistency and accuracy in year-over-year 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 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 in
only through continuous efforts, ongoing experience, further clarifications from the
Province and consistent reporting formulas that year-to-year comparisons within the
municipality and possibly across municipalities will become meaningful.
The 2012 measures will be posted on the City's website for public access in September
2013. 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. 2012 Municipal Performance Measurement Program — Public Reporting
2. Comparison of 2012 and 2011 Performance Measures,
3. Public Notice to be included in the Community Page of the News Advertiser
36
Report FIN 19-13 September 9, 2013
Page 3
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Dennis Arboleda Stan Karwowsk.
Supervisor, Accounting Services (Acting) Divisio ;.d, Finance & Treasurer
Paul Bigioni
Director, Corpora - - -s & City Solicitor
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering C' Council
J / 'ii C . 13, 2 /3
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
37
ATTACHMENT# I TO REPORT#f0-1_t`L__
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Overview
As required by the Ontario Government's Municipal Performance Measurement
Program (MPMP), the (Acting) Division Head, Finance & Treasurer of the City of
Pickering, as part of its 2012 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. This initiative is
designed to provide stakeholders with useful information on service delivery and provide
municipalities with a tool to improve on those services over time.
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 calculation. The comments are an integral part in the
interpretation of the results. These results should not be compared across
municipalities without consideration of the comments that impact the interpretation and
understanding of individual results. Also, 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 adds an important dimension to efficiency measures by
including capital costs and interest on long term debt. Information provided by these
measures are useful to Council and the public as they provide the complete cost of
delivering municipal services.
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.
Since the City has not receive any revenue from other municipalities related to capital
assets from 2010, yearly result on measures affected by this change should be
comparable.
38
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
In 2011, two efficiency and four effectiveness measures were added on to the reporting
list coming from the Building Permits and Inspection Service area.
For 2012 reporting there was an optional method of calculating efficiency measures
whereby the interest on long-term debt was excluded from total operating costs used in
the numerator. As the reporting is optional, City staff have chosen not to report these
results as staff deem interest as a cost of doing business and by its inclusion, provides
the complete cost of delivering municipal services.
For the calculation of measures pertaining to a per person or per 1,000 persons bases,
the City population in 2012 was estimated at 94,022. An increase of about 1.8% from
92,364 in 2011.
39
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
General Government
1.1a Operating Costs for Governance and Corporate Management
2012 2011
6.60% 7.70%
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 g'ovemance,
corporate management and related allocation from program support expenditures net
of tax write-offs over total municipal operating costs.
The 14% decrease in the resulting measure is due to a reduction in operating costs
from 2011 as a result of one-time provisions provided in the prior year for doubtful
accounts and contract settlements.
40
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
General Government
1.1b Total Cost for Governance and Corporate Management
2012 2011
5.60% 6.60%
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 15% decrease in 2012 from 2011 was driven by the decrease in related
operating costs identified on the previous measure.
•
41
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Fire Services
2.1a Operating Costs for Fire Services
2012 2011
$1.36 $1.35
Efficiency Measure
Operating costs for fire services per$1,000 of property assessment.
Objective
Provide efficient municipal fire services.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the above result 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 the operating costs of fire
services. With the same operating costs on a year-over-year comparison, the
resulting measures will still vary. The higher the assessment value, the lower the cost
per$1,000 assessment.
The factors that determine the need for fire services which then affect operating costs
include the frequency of emergency responses,the urban and rural mix of the
municipality, the number and geographic location of fire halls in relation to the size of
the municipality.
There is a slight increase in operating expenses in 2012 mostly from staffs salaries
and wages but with the corresponding increase in property assessment value, the
resulting measure is comparable to 2011.
42
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
• Fire Services
2.1 b Total Cost for Fire Services
2012 2011
$1.43 $1.42
Efficiency Measure
Total cost for fire services per$1,000 of property assessment.
Objective
Provide efficient municipal fire services.
General Comments
The following factors can influence the above measure 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 cost for Fire Services. Like in the previous
measure, the assessment value which is the denominator does not necessarily
correlate to the total cost for fire services. The higher the assessment value, the
lower the cost per$1,000 of property assessment.
The incremental increase in cost of Interest on long term debt and amortization
related to tangible capital assets in 2012 is almost the same as in 2011. Hence, the
resulting measure in 2012 is comparable to 2011.
43
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Fire Services
2.2 Residential Fire Related Civilian Injuries
2012 2011
0.021 0.032
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 calculates 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 per 1,000 persons. The result measures the effectiveness
of fire protection services provided to the public.
In 2012, two residential fire related civilian injuries were reported to the OFM over a
population of 94,022 compared to three in 2011 over a population of 92,364.
44
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Fire Services
2.3 Residential Fire Related Civilian Injuries—5 Year Average
2012 2011
0.011 0.022
Effectiveness Measure
Total number of residential fire related civilian injuries averaged over 5 years from
2008 to 2012 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 2008 to 2012 averaged over 5 years per 1,000
persons.
The fire department reported an average of one residential fire related civilian injury
to the OFM per year from 2008 to 2012 on a population of 94,022 as compared to an
average of two injuries per year from 2007 to 2011 on a population of 92,364.
45
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Fire Services
2.4 Residential Fire Related Civilian Fatalities
2012 2011
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 during
the reporting year as determined by the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM) per 1,000
persons.
In 2012, no residential fire related civilian fatality was reported to the OFM. The same
as in 2011.
46
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Fire Services _
2.5 Residential Fire Related Civilian Fatalities —5 Year Average
2012 2011
0.000 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) averaged over 5 years from 2008
to 2012 per 1,000 persons.
The average residential fire related civilian fatality per year for 5 years from 2008 to
2012 is rounded to a nil. Fatalities per year for the period are as follows: 2008-1,
2009-1, 2010-0, 2011-0, 2012-0.
47
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Fire Services
2.6 Number of Residential Structural Fires
2012 2011
0.864 0.365
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 2012, there were 26 residential structural fires reported compared to 11 in 2011.
However, conditions surrounding each fire situation are always different.
•
48
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Building Services
4.1a Operating Costs for Buildin Permits and Inspection Services
2012 2011
$4.50 $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
Services 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, processing/screening of permit applications and issuing
permits, prosecutions, record keeping and reporting obligations, staff training, other
building permits and inspection services.
In 2012, there was an increase of about 18% in operating costs (numerator) over
2011. However, the total value of construction activity based on permits issued
(denominator) increased by about 47% over 2011. The resulting measure for 2012 is
about 21% lower than 2011.
49
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Bu ilding Services
4.1b Total Costs for Building Permits and Inspection Services
2012 2011
$4.50 $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 in 2012, the
resulting measure is the same with that of the operating costs (4,1a).
50
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Building Services
4.2 Review of Complete Permit Applications
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
To process complete building permit applications quickly 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
• Compliance to Ontario building codes and other applicable laws
• Completeness of application
• 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. All applicable fields and schedules must be completed on 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.
51
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
4.2a Category 1: Houses
2012 2011
Median number of days achieved: Median number of days achieved:
9 days —1 0 days
Detailed Comments
Includes 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.
•
52
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
4.2b Category 2: Small Buildings
2012 2011
Median number of days achieved: Median number of days achieved:
11 days _ 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.
Less time needed to review applications in 2012 mainly due to a reduction in the
complexity of the submissions compared to those received in 2011.
53
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
4.2c Category 3: Large Buildings
2012 2011
Median number of days achieved: Median number of days achieved:
13 days 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 15 working days.
In 2012, more time on average was needed to review applications due in part to
complexity of submissions and overall volume of applications received compared to
those processed in 2011.
54
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
4.2d Category 4: Complex Buildings
2012 2011
Median number of days achieved: Median number of days achieved:
10 days 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.
Less time needed to review applications in 2012 due in part to the complexity of
submissions and volume of applications received compared to 2011. For example:
the City receives many tenant building permit applications from Pickering Town
Centre that is considered to be a complex building as per the Building Code
definition.
55
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road Services
5.1a Operating Costs for Paved Roads
2012 2011
$1,479.03 $1,633.78 •
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.
• 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.
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 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 in 2012 is largely due to the lower material
usage and limited use of contracted services compared to 2011.
The City maintained 723 lane kilometers of paved roads in 2012 compared to 712
lane kilometers in 2011.
56
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road S ervice_s
5.1b Total Costs for Paved Roads
2012 2011
$5,292.98 $5,423.16
Efficiency 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 of 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. No related revenue was received in 2012.
The decrease in the resulting measure from 2011 to 2012 was largely due to the
slight decrease in operating costs and a slight increase in lane kilometers of paved
road.
The City maintained 723 lane kilometers of paved road in 2012 compared to 712 lane
kilometers in 2011.
57
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road Services _ •
5.2a Operating Costs for Un saved Roads _
2012 2011
$6,991.76 $5,348.55
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 of granular materials used, administering dust suppressants,
program support, contracted services, rental of heavy equipment, grading, wash out
fill & repair and shoulder maintenance.
In 2012, material usage increased compared to 2011. Salaries &wages likewise
increased accordingly as more staff time were required for overall road maintenance
work. Weather conditions causing road erosion, wash-outs and frost boils contributed
to this general increase.
The City maintained 213 kilometers of unpaved road in 2012 compared to 214
kilometers in 2011.
58
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road Services
5.2b Total Costs for Unpaved Roads
2012 2011
$7,048.82 $5,403.04
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.
The increase in 2012 from 2011 was reflective of the increase in the operating costs
calculated from the previous measure.
59
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road Services
5.3a Operating Costs for Bridges and Culverts
2012 2011
$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 2012, the City did not incur any operating costs related to the repairs &
maintenance of bridges and culverts as was in 2011.
However, the total surface area of bridges and culverts reported in 2012 increased by
835 square meters or 9% to 9,763 square meters from 8,928 in 2011. This increase
was due to the inclusion of all right-of-way bridges and pedestrian structures which
were not previously reported.
60
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road Services
5.3b Total Costs for Bridges and Culverts
2012 2011
•
$19.56 $21.42
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.
The only cost included in the 2012 calculation is the amortization on capital assets,
which is relatively the same with the cost in 2011. The decrease in the resulting
measure for 2012 compared to 2011 was due to the increase in surface area of
bridges and culverts used as denominator in the calculation.
61
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road Services
5.4a Operating Costs for Winter Maintenance of Roads
2012 2011
$1,1 54.70 $1,840.37
-
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 decrease in the resulting measure in 2012 from 2011 was largely due to the
decrease in material usage and salaries & wages coupled with a slight increase in total
lane kilometres of roads maintained. The measure is directly related to weather
severity and duration (see 5.7 for total winter events).
The City maintained 936 lane kilometres of total road types in 2012 compared to 926 in
2011.
62
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road Services
5.4b Total Costs for Winter Maintenance of Roads
• 2012 2011
$1,154.70 $1,840.37
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 2012, there was no interest and amortization costs for equipment related to winter
maintenance of roadways, as was in 2011. Therefore, the resulting measure is the
same with the calculated result showing on the operating costs for winter maintenance
of roads (see 5.4a).
63
•
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road Services
5.5 Adequac of Roads
2012 2011
87.1% 86.9%
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. The City is working on introducing degradation curves (within an updated Road
Needs Study) to the road network adequacy formulae to better represent road
adequacy.
In 2012, 630 out of 723 kilometers (87.1%) of paved lane was rated to be in good to
very good condition as compared to 618 out of 711 kilometers (86.9%) in 2011.
64
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road Services
5.6 Adequacy of Bridges and Culverts
2012 2011
54.1% 74.5%
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 wing
walls are excluded.
In 2012, a total of 33 bridges and culverts were rated as good to very good out of 61
(54.1%) compared to 38 out of 51 (74.5%) in 2011. The adequacy rating is provided
from the City's 2012 Structure Appraisal Report.
The bridge and culvert inventory was revised to 61 in 2012 from 51 in 2011 after
clarification from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing that right-of-way and
pedestrian bridges should be included in the total count.
The decrease in the resulting measure from 2011 to 2012 was largely due to the more
detailed bridge inspection and reporting in 2012 and the appropriate adjustment in the
bridge and culvert inventory (denominator) which reduced the resulting measure
considerably.
65
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Road Services
5.7 Winter Event Response
2012 2011 •
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 2012, as
was in prior years, the City did not experience a winter event where staff was not able to
meet or exceed road maintenance standards.
The City defines an event as 2-3 cm of snowfall or ice-covered roads caused by freezing
rains. Once the crews are mobilized, they work (within regulations) until the snow event
is controlled. This duration is variable depending on weather severity.
The City responded to 28 winter storm events in 2012 compared to 26 in 2011. All
responses met or exceeded the municipal standard winter control maintenance levels.
Although the City responded to more snow events in 2012, their overall durations were
shorter and required less materials and staff resources.
66
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Storm Water Management
8.1a Operating Costs for Urban Storm Water Management
2012 2011
$1,166.19 $1,870.60
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:
• Geography of the City
• Extent and age of the drainage system
• 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 decrease in the resulting measure in 2012 from 2011 was largely due to the
decrease in material usage, salaries & wages and contracted services. Maintenance
programs related to urban storm water were initiated later in the year but were not
completed in 2012. However, this contributed greatly to the decrease in contracted
services allotment. Also, a slight increase in the total kilometer of urban drainage
network (denominator) due to newly developed areas contributed to the lower
calculated measure.
The City maintained 301 kilometer of urban drainage system in 2012 as compared to
298 in 2011.
67
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Storm Water Maria.ement -
8.1b Total Cost for Urban Storm Water Management
2012 2011
$7,992.36 $8,598.61
Effectiveness 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
The total cost for urban storm water management 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 2012, interest and amortization costs on related assets slightly increased from 2011
but the decrease in the resulting measure was largely due to the decrease in operating
costs (see 8.1a).
68
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Storm Water Management
8.2a Operating Costs for Rural Storm Water Management_
2012 2011 _______
$3,787.85 $2,877.27
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 storm water is conveyed primarily along the
side of roadways normally with open ditches located in areas defined on 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 activities, rentals,
interfunctional adjustments and program support over a total kilometers of drainage
system.
The increase in the resulting measure in 2012 was largely due to the increase in
materials usage, salaries &wages and contracted services. Programs such as
roadside ditching were a priority in 2012 and contributed to this increase.
The City maintained 351 kilometers of rural storm water drainage network in 2012. The
same distance maintained in prior years.
69
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Storm Water Management
8.2b Total Costs for Rural Storm Water Management
2012 2011
$3,847.99 $2,939.39
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 the cost spent in maintaining a rural drainage system on a per kilometer
basis.
The difference in the resulting measure was from the increase in operating costs as
calculated in the previous measure (8.2a).
70
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation
11.1a Operating Cost for Parks per Person
2012 2011
$47.59 $45.40
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.
The increase in the resulting measure from 2011 to 2012 was due to the increase in wages
and material costs required to maintain all parks.
71
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation
11.1b Total Cost for Parks per Person
2012 2011
$56.86 $54.96
Efficiency Measure
Total costs for maintaining the parks per person.
Objective
Provide efficient operations of parks.
Detailed Comments
Total cost calculation sums up the total operating cost, 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. The increase in the resulting measure from 2011 to 2012 was largely due
to the increase in operating costs (11.1a).
•
72
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation
11.2a Operating Costs for Recreation Programs per Person
2012 _ 2011
$51.01 $47.97
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.
Recreation programs are continuously reviewed and changed depending on public demand.
Seasonality of activities also affects the type and frequency of program offerings.
In 2012, there was an increase in the overall operating cost for recreation programs from 2011
which was consistent with the increase in total participant hours for recreation programs in the
year. Although total population in 2012 increased slightly from 2011, the resulting measure was
still an increase of $3.04 per person from 2011.
73
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation
11.2b Total Costs for Recreation Programs per Person
2012 2011
$51.01 $47.97
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 2012, like in prior years, 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.
74
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation
11.3a Operating Costs for Recreation Facilities per Person
2012 2011
$85.86 $85.96
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.
The total operating cost in 2012 increased by about 1.7% from 2011 but the population
(denominator) likewise increased by almost the same percentage over the same period. This
resulted to almost the same calculation for both years.
75
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
•
Parks and Recreation
11.3b Total Costs for Recreation Facilities per Person
2012 2011
-
$100.37 $100.02
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 2012, a slight increase in the amortization expense resulted to a small increase in the
calculation of this measure compared to 2011.
•
76
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation
11.4a Operating Costs for Recreation Programs and Recreation Facilities per Person
(Subtotal)
2012 2011
$136.88 $133.93
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
1
Included in this measure is the cost of salaries/wages/benefits and all other direct costs related
to the operation of recreational programs and facilities. This is the sum of the measures as
calculated in 11.2a and 11.3a above.
77
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation
11.4b Total Costs for Recreation Programs and Recreation Facilities per Person
(Subtotal)
2012 2011
$151.38 $147.99
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 the interest on long term
debt and amortization per person related to the operation of recreation programs and
maintenance of facilities less revenue from other municipalities for tangible capital assets
related to programs and facilities. This is the sum of items 11.2b and 11.3b above.
78
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation
11.5 Total Kilometres of Trails per 1,000 Persons
2012 2011
0.170 km 0.173 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 2012 and 2011. The decrease in the
calculated measure in 2012 was a result of the higher population over 2011.
79
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation
11.6 Hectares of Open Space and Hectares of Open Space per 1,000 Persons
2012 2011
2.329 ha -- - 2.371 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.
The City maintained 219 hectares of municipally owned open space in 2012 and 2011. The
decrease in the calculated figure was the result of a higher population count in 2012 compared
to 2011 (denominator).
•
•
80
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Parks and Recreation
11.7 Total Participant Hours for Recreation Programs
2012 2011
21,493 hrs 21,609 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 2012, there was an overall increase in participant hours from 2011. Most of these were from
permitted programs specifically from the use of pools, arenas and sports fields. However, due
to the increase in population for 2012, the resulting measure decreased by 116 hrs per 1,000
persons from 2011.
81
City of Pickering
Year 2012 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)
2012 2011
437.121 sqm 442.066 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 2012, the City maintained 41,099 square meters of municipally owned indoor recreation
facilities as compared to 40,831 square meters in 2011. The reopening of Don Beer arena ice
rink one after over a year of reconstruction has added additional surface area for indoor
recreation usage in 2012.
The decrease in the calculated measure for 2012 from 2011 was a result of the higher
population count used (denominator) in the calculation.
•
82
City of Pickering
Year 2012 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) _ T
2012 2011
_ 282.796 sqm 287.872 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 City owns and maintains 26,589 square metres of outdoor space. The decrease in the
2012 measure was a result the higher population used in the calculation (denominator)
compared to 2011.
83
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Library Services
12.1a Operating Costs for Library Services per Person
2012 2011
$57.83 $57.66
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 in 2012. The cost for all five locations
is included in the calculation of this measure, which includes salaries, wages, benefits,
materials, rent and all other operating costs divided by total population.
There was an increase in total salaries and wages in 2012 from 2011 but the increase was
slightly offset by the reduction in the cost of purchased materials and higher population count
(denominator) used in the calculation.
84
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Library Services
12.1b Total Costs for Library Services per Person
2012 2011
-- -- $63.97 -_— - $66.73
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 measure decreased in 2012 from 2011 due to the lower amortization on related
capital assets. The increase in the population count (denominator) used in the calculation also
contributed to the lower total cost for library services per person in 2012.
•
85
•
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Library Services .
12.2a Operating Costs for Library Services per Use
2012 2011
$1.69 _ $1.72
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 in 2012. The total operating costs for all five
locations and the total library uses was used in the calculation of this measure.
In 2012, there was a slight increase in operating costs compared to 2011. But this was offset
by an increase in total library uses (denominator) resulting to a slightly lower calculated
operating cost for library service per use.
86
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Library Services
12.2b Total Costs for Library Services per Use
2012 2011
$1.87 $1.99
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 in 2012 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 calculated
measure for 2012 was due to a lower amortization costs on library materials compared to
2011.
•
87
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Library Services
12.3 Library Uses per Person
2012 2011
34.141 33.563
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. 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.
A higher total library usage per person in 2012 compared to 2011 was the result of an actual
increase in both electronic and non-electronic total library usage (numerator).
Total usage was up by about 3.6% from 3,100,002 in 2011 to 3,209,970 in 2012.
•
88
• City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Library Services
12.4 Electronic Library Uses as a Percentage of Total Library Uses
2012 2011
35.8% 36.2%
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 2012 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 users of wireless connection and number
of electronic visits to the library website.
In 2012, the actual number of electronic library uses increased from 2011. However,
as a percentage of total library usage for the year, electronic usage decreased from 36.2% in
2011 to 35.8% in 2012. This was due to a higher non electronic usage in the year.
Q
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
•
Library Services
12.5 Non Electronic Library Uses as a Percentage of Total Library Uses
2012 2011
64.2% 63.8%
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 in 2012. Uses include
program attendance, in-library materials use, number of standard reference transactions,
number of reader's advisor transactions and number of in-person visits to the library.
From among the categories under non electronic library uses mentioned above, the increase in
the resulting measure for 2012 was primarily due to an increase in both the number of in-
person visits made to the library and the use of in-library materials compared to 2011.
90
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Land Use Planning
13.1 Percentage of New Residential Units Located Within Settlement Areas
2012 2011
100.0% 99.6%
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 2012, there were 286 new dwelling units within the City as compared to 566 in 2011.
All of the 286 new units in 2012 were located within the designated settlement areas
whereas only 564 out of 566 in 2011 were located within the settlement areas.
91
City of Pickering
g
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Land Use Planning
13.2 Preservation of Agricultural Lands
2012 2011
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 both 2012 and 2011. No area was re-designated to other uses in the reporting
year.
92
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Land Use Planning
13.3 Preservation of Agricultural Lands Relative to 2000
2012 2011
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, a total 42 hectares was re-designated since then. No agricultural land
was re-designated in the reporting year 2012.
93
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Land Use Planning
13.4 Hectares of Agricultural Land which was Re-designated for Other Uses During
the Reporting Year
2012 2011
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 2012.
94
City of Pickering
Year 2012 Performance Measurement Report
Land Use Planning _
13.5 Hectares of Agricultural Lands which was Re-designated for Other Uses Since
2000
2012 2011
42 ha 42 ha
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.
95
ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT#tit j 13
CITY OF PICKERING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
COMPARISON OF 2012 & 2011 MEASURES
Performance Measures 2012 2011
General Government-Efficiency
-Operating cost for governance and corporate management 6.60% 7.70%
as%of total municipal operating costs
-Total cost for governance and corporate management
as%of total municipal costs 5.60% 6.60%
Protection Services-Efficiency&Effectiveness of Fire Services
-Operating cost for fire services per$1,000 of assessment 5.; 1.36 $ 1.35
-Total cost for fire services per$1,000 of assessment $ 1.43 $ 1.42
-Number of residential fire related civilian injuries per 1,000 persons 0.021 0,032
-Residential fire related civilian injuries-5 year average per 1,000 persons 0.011 0.022
-Residential fire related civilian fatalities per 1,000 persons $ - $ -
-Residential fire related civilian fatalities-5 year average per 1,000 persons $ - 0.011
-Number of residential structural fires per 1,000 households 0.864 0.365
Building Services-Efficiency&Effectiveness
-Operating cost for building permits and inspection services $ 4.50 $ 5.69
-Total cost for building permits and inspection services $ 4.50 $ 5.69
-Median number of days to process a complete building permit application
-Category 1: Houses 9 days 10 days
-Category 2: Small buildings 11 days 13 days
-Category 3: Large buildings 13 days 10 days
-Category 4: Complex buildings 10 days 12 days
Transportation Services-Efficiency of Roadways
-Operating cost for paved roads per lane kilometer $ 1,479.03 $ 1,633.75
•
-Total cost for paved roads per lane kilometer $ 5,292.98 $ 5,423.16
-Operating cost for unpaved roads per lane kilometer $ 6,991.76• $ 5,348.55
-Total cost for unpaved roads per lane kilometer $ 7,048.82 $ 5,403.04
Operating cost for bridges&culverts per sq m of surface area $ - $ -
-Total cost for bridges&culverts per sq m of surface area $ 19.56 $ 21.42
-Operating cost for winter control maintenance of roads per lane kilometer $ 1,154.70 $ 1,840.37
-Total cost for winter control maintenance of roads per lane kilometer $ 1,154.70 * $ 1,810.37
Tranportation Services-Effectiveness of Roadways
-Percentage of paved lane kilometer rated as good to very good 87.10% 86.90%
-Percentage of bridges&culverts rated as good to very good 54.10% 74.50%
-Percentage of winter event response that met or exceeded set standards 100.00% 100.00%
Environmental Services-Efficiency of Storm Water System
-Operating cost for urban storm water management(collection,treatment
and disposal)per kilometer of drainage system(URBAN) $ 1,166.19 $ 1,870.60
-Total cost for urban storm water management(collection,treatment
and disposal)per kilometer of drainage system(URBAN) $ 7,992.36 $ 8,598.61
-Operating cost for rural storm water management(collection, treatment
and disposal)per kilometer of drainage system (RURAL) $ 3,787.85 $ 2,877.27
-Total cost for rural storm water management(collection,treatment
and disposal)per kilometer of drainage system(RURAL) $ 3,847.99 $ 2,939.39
Parks&Recreation-Efficiency of Parks Operation
-Operating cost for parks per person $ 47.59 $ 45.40
-Total cost for parks per person $ 58.86 $ 54.95
Recreation Programs-Efficiency in the Operation of Recreation Programs
-Operating cost for recreation progams per person $ 51.01 $ 47.97
-Total cost for recreation progams per person $ 51.01 $ 47.97
96
CITY OF PICKERING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
COMPARISON OF 2012 & 2011 MEASURES
Performance Measures 2012 2011
Recreation Facilities-Efficiency in the Operation of Recreation Facilities
-Operating cost for recreation facility per person $ 85.86 $ 85.96
-Total cost for recreation facility per person $ 100.37 $ 100.02
Parks,Recreation Programs&Recreation Facilities-Operations of Parks,
Recreation Programs and Recreation Facilities Efficiency
-Operating cost for recreation programs and recreation facilities
per person(subtotal) $ 136.88 $ 133.93
-Total cost for recreation programs and recreation facilities
per person(subtotal) $ 151.38 $ 147.99
Trails -Provide recreational opportunities
-Total kilometers of trails and total kilometers of trails per 1,000 person 0.170 km 0.173 km
Parks&Recreation-Adequate Open Space for the population
-Hectares of Open Space per 1,000 person 2.329 ha 2.371 ha
Participant Hours for Recreation Programs-How Effective the City
is in servicing the needs of residents for Recreation Programs
-Total participant hours for recreation programs per 1,000 person 21,493 hs 21,609 hrs
Recreation Facility Space-Recreation facility space is adequate for
population(municipally owned)
-Square metres of indoor recreation facility space per 1,000 person 437.121 sq.m. 442.066 sq.m.
-Square metres of outdoor recreation facility space per 1,000 person 282.796 sq.m. 287.872 sq.m.
Library Services-Efficiency
-Operating cost for library service per person $ 57.83 $ 57.66
-Total cost for library service per person $ 63.97 $ 66.73
-Operating cost for library service per use 3 1.69 $ 1.72
-Total cost for library service per use 1.87 $ 1.99
Library Services Library Services Effectiveness
- Library uses per person 34.141 33.563
- Percentage of Electronic Library uses 35.80% 36.20%
- Percentage of Non-Electronic Library uses 64.20% 63.80%
Planning and Development-Effectiveness of Land Use Planning
- Percentage of new residential units located in settlement areas 100.00% 99.60%
- Percentage of lands designated for agricultural purposes which was not
re-designated for other uses during the reporting year 100.00% 100.00%
- Percentage of land designated for argicultural purposes which was not
re-designated for other uses relative to the base year of 2000. 99.50% 99.50%
- Number of hectares of land originally designated for agricultural purposes
which was re-designated for other uses during the reporting year 0 0
- Number of hectares of land originally designated for agricultural purposes
which was re-designated for other uses since January 1,2000. 42 ha 42 ha
•
97
ATTACHMENT#_a__TO REPORT# (-'i 0-I3
City of Pickering
Year 2012 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 pickerinq.ca as of September 30, 2013 or available at the Corporate
Services Department, 2nd Floor, Pickering Civic Complex.
98