HomeMy WebLinkAboutFND-014-13 Clarftwn REPORT
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: September 23, 2013 Resolution#: -q'71,13 By-law#:
Report#: FND-014-13 File#:
Subject: MUNICIPAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES PROGRAM — 2012
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report FND-014-13 be received for information.
- �
Submitted by: Reviewed by:
Nancy ylor, A,CPA,CA, Franklin Wu,
Director of Chief Administrative Officer
Finance/Treasurer
NT/hjl
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379
REPORT NO.: FND-014-13 PAGE 2
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 The Province dictates the formal requirements for Year 13 (2012) of the Municipal
Performance Measures Program (MPMP).
1.2 The required measures will be filed with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing and are included in Schedule "A".
1.3 The Province has mandated that these measures be published to taxpayers by
September 30, 2013. The information will be posted on the Municipality's website
and will be presented at the Clarington Board of Trade Annual Mayor's event in
September.
1.4 The provincial objectives of the MPMP are to promote local government
transparency and accountability. The information is intended to provide
municipalities with useful data to make informed municipal service level decisions
while optimizing available resources.
1.5 The format of the attached report is a provincial form. For years where no
historical data is provided, that is as a result of changes to the formulas or
calculations determined by the Province which causes the new measures not to be
comparable to those prior to the calculation or methodology change.
2. CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the Municipal Performance Measures Program results for
2012 be received for information.
3. CONCURRENCE — not applicable
CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN —
The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the
following priorities of the Strategic Plan:
Promoting economic development
X Maintaining financial stability
Connecting Clarington
Promoting green initiatives
Investing in infrastructure
Showcasing our community
Not in conformity with Strategic Plan
Staff Contact: Nancy Taylor, B.B.A., C.P.A., C.A., Director of Finance/Treasurer
REPORT NO.: FND-014-13 PAGE 3
Attachment "A" — Municipal Performance Measurement Program
(MPMP) - 2012 Results
List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision:
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Attachment "A"
MUNICIPALITY
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP). 2012 RESULTS
Questions about MPMP results should be addressed to:
Name: NANCY TAYLOR Phone: 905-623-3379 ext 2602
Title: TREASURER/DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
Municipality: MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
Email: nta for @clarington.net
Related documents and links:
Local Government
CONTACT PERSON FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance
1.1 GENERAL GOVERNMENT-EFFICIENCY
2012 2011 2010 2009
1.1 a) Operating costs for governance and
corporate management as a
percentage of total municipal 7.3% 7.2% 8.9% 8.9%
operating costs.
1.1 b) Total costs for governance and
corporate management as a 5.6% 5.5% 6.7%
percentage of total municipal costs.
OBJECTIVE:
Efficient local government.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
2010 -includes municipal election expenses
REFERENCE:
• The formulas for efficiency measures were revised in 2009 to reflect changes in the reporting of expenses
consistent with accrual accounting concepts. New total cost measures were introduced and revised in 2010. Total
costs mean operating costs as defined in MPMP, plus amortization and interest on long term debt, less revenue
received from other municipalities for tangible capital assets.
• Financial Information Return: 91 0206 35 (Operating costs measure)and 91 0206 45 (Total costs measure).
1
MUNICIPALITY
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)• 2012 RESULTS
Fire Services
CONTACT PERSON FOR FIRE SERVICES: Gord Weir, Director of Emergency Services
2.1 FIRE SERVICES—EFFICIENCY
2012 2011 2010 2009
2.1 a) Operating costs for fire services per
$1,000 of assessment. $ 1.13 $ 1.17 $ 1.15 $ 1.16
2.1 b) Total costs for fire services per
$1,000 of assessment. $ 1.20 $ 1.26 $ 1.25
OBJECTIVE:
Efficient fire services.
NOTES &KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
• The formulas for efficiency measures were revised in 2009 to reflect changes in the reporting of expenses
consistent with accrual accounting concepts. New total cost measures were introduced and revised in 2010. Total
costs mean operating costs as defined in MPMP, plus amortization and interest on long term debt, less revenue
received from other municipalities for tangible capital assets.
• Financial Information Return: 91 1103 35 (Operating costs measure)and 91 1103 45 (Total costs measure).
2.2 & 2.3 CIVILIAN FIRE RELATED INJURIES-EFFECTIVENESS
2012 2011 2010 2009
2.2 Number of residential fire related
civilian injuries per 1,000 persons. 0.023 0.089 0.057 0.046
2.3 Number of residential fire related
civilian injuries averaged over 5 years 0.0561 0.044 0.034 0.046
per 1,000 persons.
OBJECTIVE:
Minimize the number of civilian injuries in residential fires.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
For further details, see Emergency Services Annual Report for 2012
REFERENCE:
• Financial Information Return: 92 1151 07 (2.2) and 92 1152 07 (2.3).
2
MUNICIPALITY
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)• 2012 RESULTS
2.4 &2.5 CIVILIAN FIRE RELATED FATALITIES -EFFECTIVENESS
20121 2011 2010 2009
2.4 Number of residential fire related
civilian fatalities per 1,000 persons. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
2.5 Number of residential fire related
civilian fatalities averaged over 5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
years per 1,000 persons.
OBJECTIVE:
Minimize the number of civilian fatalities in residential fires.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
• Financial Information Return: 92 1155 07 (2.4)and 92 1156'07 (2.5).
2.6 NUMBER OF
2012 2011 2010 2009
2.6 Number of residential structural fires
per 1,000 households. 1.116 1.073 1.229 1.159
OBJECTIVE:
Minimize the number of residential structural fires.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
• Financial Information Return: 92 1160 07.
3
MUNICIPALITY
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)• 2012 RESULTS
Building Permits & Inspection Services
CONTACT PERSON FOR BUILDING PERMITS &
INSPECTION SERVICES: Tony Cannella, Director of
Engineering
4.1 BUILDING PERMITS & INSPECTION SERVICES— EFFICIENCY
2012 2011
4.1 a) Operating costs for building permits
and inspection services per$1,000 of
construction activity (based on $ 4.52 1 $ 3.61
permits issued).
4.1 b) Total costs for building permits and
inspection services per$1,000 of
construction activity(based on $ 4.52 $ 3.61
permits issued).
OBJECTIVE:
Efficient building permits and inspection services.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
Decline in building permits issued in 2012 but costs do not have proportionate decline because service level must
be maintained.
REFERENCE:
• MPMP measures for building permits and inspection services were introduced in 2011.
• Financial Information Return: 91 1301 35 (Operating costs measure)and 91 1301 45 (Total costs measure).
4
MUNICIPALITY
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)• 2012 RESULTS
4.2 REVIEW OF • APPLICATIONS-
20121 2011
4.2 Median number of days to review a complete building permit
application and issue a permit or not issue a permit, and provide all
reasons for refusal:
a) Category 1: Houses
(houses not exceeding 3 storeys/600
square metres). 8 7
Reference: provincial standard is 10
working days.
b) Category 2: Small Buildings
(small commercial/industrial not
exceeding 3 storeys/600 square 3 4
metres).
Reference: provincial standard is 15
working days.
c) Category 3: Large Buildings
(large residential/commercial/
industrial/institutional). 13 8
Reference: provincial standard is 20
working days.
d) Category 4: Complex buildings
(post disaster buildings, including
hospitals, power/water, 18 9
fire/police/EMS, communications).
Reference: provincial standard is 30
working days.
OBJECTIVE:
Complete building permit applications are processed quickly and accurately.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
Well within provincial standard.
REFERENCE:
• MPMP measures for building permits and inspection services were introduced in 2011.
• Financial Information Return: (a)92 1351 07, (b) 92 1352 07, (c) 92 1353 07, (d)92 1354 07.
5'
MUNICIPALITY
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)• 2012 RESULTS
Roads
CONTACT PERSON FOR ROADS: Fred Horvath, Director of Operations and Tony Cannella,
Director of Engineering
PAVED ROADS—
2012 2011 2010
5.1 a) Operating costs for paved (hard top) 1
roads per lane kilometre.' 1 $ 874.16 $ 704.70 $ 923.98
5.1 b) Total costs for paved (hard top) roads
per lane kilometre. $ 3,869.54 $ 3,716.14 $ 3,763.83
OBJECTIVE:
Efficient maintenance of paved roads.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
Operating costs fluctuate year to year between paved (hard top), unpaved (loose top), bridges, culverts and other
maintenance priorities. This can be the result of variable weather conditions that affect maintenance needs.
REFERENCE:
• 'The formulas for efficiency measures for paved roads were revised in 2010 to net out revenue received from
utilities for utility cut repairs.
• The total cost measure was also revised in 2010.Total costs mean operating costs as defined in MPMP, plus
amortization and interest on long term debt, less revenue received from other municipalities for tangible capital
assets.
• Financial Information Return: 91 2111 35 (Operating costs measure)and 91 2111 45 (Total costs measure).
UNPAVED ROADS—
2012 2011 2010 2009
5.2 a) Operating costs for unpaved (loose
top)roads per lane kilometre. $ 2,066.10 $ 2,348.32 $ 1,859.41 $ 2,513.32
5.2 b) Total costs for unpaved (loose top)
roads per lane kilometre. $ 16,600.29 $ 15,980.19 $ 15,717.83
OBJECTIVE:
Efficient maintenance of unpaved roads.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
• The formulas for efficiency measures were revised in 2009 to reflect changes in the reporting of expenses
consistent with accrual accounting concepts. New total cost measures were introduced and revised in 2010. Total
costs mean operating costs as defined in MPMP, plus amortization and interest on long term debt, less revenue
received from other municipalities for tangible capital assets.
• Financial Information Return: 91 2110 35 (Operating costs measure)and 91 2110 45 (Total costs measure).
6
MUNICIPALITY
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)• 2012 RESULTS
5.3 BRIDGES AND CULVERTS-EFFICIENCY
2012 2011 2010 2009
5.3 a) Operating costs for bridges and
culverts per square metre of surface $ 12.74 $ 8.04 $ 4.82 $ 8.16
area.
5.3 b) Total costs for bridges and culverts
per square metre of surface area. $ 46.17 $ 39.74 $ 38.40
OBJECTIVE:
Efficient maintenance of bridges and culverts.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
• The formulas for efficiency measures were revised in 2009 to reflect changes in the reporting of expenses
consistent with accrual accounting concepts. New total cost measures were introduced and revised in 2010. Total
costs mean operating costs as defined in MPMP, plus amortization and interest on long term debt, less revenue
received from other municipalities for tangible capital assets.
• Financial Information Return: 91 2130 35 (Operating costs measure)and 91 2130 45 (Total costs measure).
5.4 WINTER MAINTENANCE OF ROADS—
2012 2011 2010 2009
5.4 a) Operating costs for winter
maintenance of roadways per lane $ 980.28 $ 1,423.78 $ 845.99 $ 1,110.41
kilometre maintained in winter.
5.4 b) Total costs for winter maintenance of
roadways per lane kilometre $ 1,217.71 $ 1,652.93 $ 1,096.96
maintained in winter.
OBJECTIVE:
Efficient winter maintenance of roads.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
For further details, see Operations department winter budget report for 2012
REFERENCE:
• The formulas for efficiency measures were revised in 2009 to reflect changes in the reporting of expenses
consistent with accrual accounting concepts. New total cost measures were introduced and revised in 2010. Total
costs mean operating costs as defined in MPMP, plus amortization and interest on long term debt, less revenue
received from other municipalities for tangible capital assets.
• Financial Information Return: 91 2205 35 (Operating costs measure) and 91 2205 45 (Total costs measure).
7
MUNICIPALITY
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)• 2012 RESULTS
ADEQUACY OF ROADS—
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
5.5 Percentage of paved lane kilometres
where the condition is rated as good 57% 57% 59% 58% 68%
to very good.'
OBJECTIVE:
Pavement condition meets municipal objectives.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
• 'Pavement condition is rated using a Pavement Condition Index (PCI)such as the Index used by the Ontario
Good Roads Association (OGRA)or the Ministry of Transportation's Roads Inventory Management System (RIMS).
• Financial Information Return: 92 2152 07.
ADEQUACY OF -
2 01 2 2011 2010 2009
5.6 Percentage of bridges and culverts
where the condition is rated as good 75% 75% 79% 79%
to very good.'
OBJECTIVE:
Safe bridges and culverts.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
• The effectiveness measure for bridges and culverts was introduced in 2009.
• 'A bridge or culvert is rated as being in good to very good condition if distress to the primary components is
minimal, requiring only maintenance. Primary components are the main load carrying components of the structure,
including the deck, beams, girders, abutments,foundations, etc.
• Financial Information Return: 92 2165 07.
8
MUNICIPALITY
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)• 2012 RESULTS
RESPONSES-5.7 WINTER EVENT
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
5.7 Percentage of winter events where
the response met or exceeded locally
determined municipal service levels 107 100% 100% 100% 100%
for road maintenance.
OBJECTIVE:
Response to winter storm events meets locally determined service levels for winter road maintenance.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
• Financial Information Return: 92 2251 07.
9
MUNICIPALITY
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)• 2012 RESULTS
Parks and Recreation
CONTACT PERSON FOR PARKS AND RECREATION: Joseph Caruana, Director of Community
Services and Fred Horvath, Director of Operations
PARKS
2012 2011 2010 2009
11.1 a) Operating costs for parks per person.
$ 28.96 $ 23.79 $ 21.46 $ 23.34
11.1 b) Total costs for parks per person.
$ 36.97 $ 31.40 $ 27.37
OBJECTIVE:
Efficient operation of parks.
NOTES &KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
Population has been adjusted downward from 2011 due to release of census data. This has had the effect of
increasing this measure.
REFERENCE:
• The formulas for efficiency measures were revised in 2009 to reflect changes in the reporting of expenses
consistent with accrual accounting concepts. New total cost measures were introduced and revised in 2010. Total
costs mean operating costs as defined in MPMP, plus amortization and interest on long term debt, less revenue
received from other municipalities for tangible capital assets.
• Financial Information Return: 91 7103 35 (Operating costs measure)and 91 7103 45 (Total costs measure).
11.2 RECREATION PROGRAMS—EFFICIENCY
2012 2011 2010 2009
11.2 a) Operating costs for recreation
programs per person. $ 25.95 $ 23.17 $ 26.72 $ 26.52
11.2 b) Total costs for recreation programs
per person. $ 25.95 $ 23.17 $ 26.72
OBJECTIVE:
Efficient operation of recreation programs.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
The Community Services department reviews and assesses each program offered to maximize class sizes based
on popularity and trends. For further details, see Community Services department annual report for 2012.
Population has been adjusted downward from 2011 due to release of census data. This has had the effect of
increasing this measure.
REFERENCE:
• The formulas for efficiency measures were revised in 2009 to reflect changes in the reporting of expenses
consistent with accrual accounting concepts. New total cost measures were introduced and revised in 2010. Total
costs mean operating costs as defined in MPMP, plus amortization and interest on long term debt, less revenue
received from other municipalities for tangible capital assets.
• Financial Information Return: 91 7203 35 (Operating costs measure)and 91 7203 45 (Total costs measure).
10
MUNICIPALITY
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)• 2012 RESULTS
RECREATION
2012 2011 2010 2009
11.3 a) Operating costs for recreation
facilities per person. $ 118.29 $ 116.23 $ 98.57 $ 91.44
11.3 b) Total costs for recreation facilities per
person. $ 151.45 $ 149.45 $ 133.99
OBJECTIVE:
Efficient operation of recreation facilities.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
The Community Services department continues to implement upgrades that address improved accessibility for
patrons, pubic access defibrillator program including training and program support, energy conservation, proactive
maintenance of assets, health and safety measures. Population has been adjusted downward from 2011 due to
release of census data. This has had the effect of increasing this measure.
REFERENCE:
• The formulas for efficiency measures were revised in 2009 to reflect changes in the reporting of expenses
consistent with accrual accounting concepts. New total cost measures were introduced and revised in 2010. Total
costs mean operating costs as defined in MPMP, plus amortization and interest on long term debt, less revenue
received from other municipalities for tangible capital assets.
• Financial Information Return: 91 7306 35 (Operating costs measure)and 91 7306 45 (Total costs measure).
RECREATION - • • •
EFFICIENCY
2012 2011 2010 2009
11.4 a) Operating costs for recreation
programs and recreation facilities per $ 144.23 $ 139.40 $ 125.29 $ 117.96
person (Subtotal).
11.4 b) Total costs for recreation programs
and recreation facilities per person $ 177.39 $ 172.62 $ 160.71
(Subtotal),
OBJECTIVE:
Efficient operation of recreation programs and facilities.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
Population has been adjusted downward from 2011 due to release of census data. This has had the effect of
increasing this measure.
REFERENCE:
• The formulas for efficiency measures were revised in 2009 to reflect changes in the reporting of expenses
consistent with accrual accounting concepts. New total cost measures were introduced and revised in 2010. Total
costs mean operating costs as defined in MPMP, plus amortization and interest on long term debt, less revenue
received from other municipalities for tangible capital assets.
• Financial Information Return: 91 7320 35 (Operating costs measure)and 91 7320 45 (Total costs measure).
11
MUNICIPALITY
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)• 2012 RESULTS
11.5 TRAILS—EFFECTIVENESS
20121 2011 2010 2009 2008
11.5 Total kilometres of trails. 211 20 20 201 19
11.5 Total kilometres of trails per 1,000
persons. 0.24 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.22
OBJECTIVE:
Trails provide recreation.opportunities.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
• Financial Information Return: 92 7152 05 and 92 7152 07.
OPEN SPACE— EFFECTIVENESS
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
11.6 Hectares of open space (municipally
owned). 547 639 547 379 379
11.6 Hectares of open space per 1,000
persons (municipally owned). 6.2 7.1 6.2 4.4 4.4
OBJECTIVE:
Open space is adequate for population.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
• Financial Information Return: 92 7155 05 and 92 7155 07.
12
MUNICIPALITY
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)• 2012 RESULTS
HOURS 11.7 PARTICIPANT •R RECREATION PROGRAMS
EFFECTIVENESS
2012 2011 2010 20091 2008
11.7 Total participant hours for recreation �
programs per 1,000 persons. 9,184.0 8,824.4 8,806.1 8,962.1 9,138.3
I
OBJECTIVE:
Recreation programs serve needs of residents.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
Usage of the four aquatic facilities combined had seen an overall increase of 9%,a resurgence in fitness
membership sales of 20%, public skating attendance of 29%, daycamp registrations increase of 13%. For further
details, see Community Services department annual report for 2012.
REFERENCE:
• Financial Information Return: 92 7255 07.
INDOOR RECREATION FACILITY SPACEL
- 2012 2011 2010 2009
2008
11.8 Square metres of indoor recreation
facilities (municipally owned). 32,221 32,221 32,128 32,128 32,128
11.8 Square metres of indoor recreation
facilities per 1,000 persons 363.4 358.4 365.5 370.8 374.0
(municipally owned). i
OBJECTIVE:
Indoor recreation facility space is adequate for population.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
Population has been adjusted downward from 2011 due to release of census data. This has had the effect of
increasing this measure.
REFERENCE:
• Financial Information Return: 92 7356 05 and 92 7356 07.
13
MUNICIPALITY
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)• 2012 RESULTS
OUTDOOR RECREATION
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
11.9 Square metres of outdoor recreation
facility space (municipally owned). 2,421 2,421 2,421 2,421 3,179
11.9 Square metres of outdoor recreation
facility space per 1,000 persons 27.3 26.9 27.5 27.9 37.0
(municipally owned).
OBJECTIVE:
Outdoor recreation facility space is adequate for population.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
• Financial Information Return: 92 7359 05 and 92 7359 07.
14
MUNICIPALITY
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)• 2012 RESULTS
Libraries
CONTACT PERSON FOR LIBRARIES: Edith Hopkins, Chief Executive Officer
COSTS 12.1 LIBRARY •
20121 2011 2010 2009
12.1 a) Operating costs for library services
per person. $ 32.66 j $ 32.85 $ 28.14 $ 29.08
12.1 b) Total costs for library services per
person. $ 41.73 j $ 41.73 $ 38.36
OBJECTIVE:
Efficient library services.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
• The formulas for efficiency measures were revised in 2009 to reflect changes in the reporting of expenses
consistent with accrual accounting concepts. New total cost measures were introduced and revised in 2010. Total
costs mean operating costs as defined in MPMP, plus amortization and interest on long term debt, less revenue
received from other municipalities for tangible capital assets.
. Financial Information Return: 91 7405 35 (Operating costs measure)and 91 7405 45 (Total costs measure).
COSTS 12.2 LIBRARY
2012 2011 2010 2009
12.2 a) Operating costs for library services
per use.' 1.68 $ 1.67 $ 1.41 $ 1.63
12.2 b) Total costs for library services per i Fs
use. j $ 2.15 $ 2.12 $ 1.93
OBJECTIVE:
Efficient library services.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
• The formulas for efficiency measures were revised in 2009 to reflect changes in the reporting of expenses
consistent with accrual accounting concepts. New total cost measures were introduced and revised in 2010. Total
costs mean operating costs as defined in MPMP, plus amortization and interest on long term debt, less revenue
received from other municipalities for tangible capital assets.
• 1 The calculation of electronic library uses was updated in 2009 to include the number of people using the public
library wireless connection. In 2011 three additional categories of reference transactions were added to the
definition of library uses. This may affect the comparability of 2011 results with earlier years.
• Financial Information Return: 91 7406 35 (Operating costs measure)and 91 7406 45 (Total costs measure).
15
MUNICIPALITY
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)• 2012 RESULTS
12.3 LIBRARY USES— EFFECTIVENESS
20121 2011; 2010 2009
12.3 Library uses per person.' 19.391 19.64 19.92 17.82
OBJECTIVE:
Increased use of library services.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
• 'The calculation of electronic library uses was updated in 2009 to include the number of people using the public
library wireless connection. In 2011 three additional categories of reference transactions were added to the
definition of library uses. This may affect the comparability of 2011 results with earlier years.
• Financial Information Return: 92 7460 07.
Line numbers for prior years:
• The FIR reference for the measure, library uses per person, did not change in 2009.
ELECTRONIC
2012 2011 2010 2009
12.4 Electronic library uses as a
percentage of total library uses.' 36%I 34% 30%1 25%
OBJECTIVE:
Better information on library usage.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
• 'The calculation of electronic library uses was updated in 2009 to include the number of people using the public
library wireless connection. In 2011 three additional categories of reference transactions were added to the
definition of library uses. This may affect the comparability of 2011 results with earlier years.
• Financial Information Return: 92 7463 07.
16
MUNICIPALITY
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)• 2012 RESULTS
NON ELECTRONIC
2012 2011 2010 2009
12,5 Non-electronic library uses as a
percentage of total library uses.' 64% 66% 70% 75%
OBJECTIVE:
Better information on library usage.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
• 'The calculation of electronic library uses was updated in 2009 to include the number of people using the public
library wireless connection. In 2011 three additional categories of reference transactions were added to the
definition of library uses. This may affect the comparability of 2011 results with earlier years.
• Financial Information Return: 92 7462 07.
17
MUNICIPALITY
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)• 2012 RESULTS
Land Use Planning
CONTACT PERSON FOR LAND USE PLANNING: David Crome, Director of Planning
LOCATION OF • -MENT—EFFECTIVENESS
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
13.1 Percentage of new residential units
located within settlement areas. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
OBJECTIVE:
New residential development is occurring within settlement areas.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
• Financial Information Return: 92 8170 07.
13.2 PRESERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND DURING REPORTING YEAR
EFFECTIVENESS
2012 20111 20101 2009 2008
13.2 Percentage of land designated for 1 j
agricultural purposes which was not
re-designated for other uses during
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
the reporting year.
OBJECTIVE:
Preservation of agricultural land.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
• Financial Information Return: 92 8163 07.
18
MUNICIPALITY
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)• 2012 RESULTS
PRESERVATION OF RELATIVE TO 2000
EFFECTIVENESS
2012 2011 20101 20091 2008
13.3 Percentage of land designated for
agricultural purposes which was not
re-designated for other uses relative 88% 88% 88% 83% 83%
to the base year of 2000.
OBJECTIVE:
Preservation of agricultural land.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
• Financial Information Return: 92 8164 07.
13.4 CHANGE IN NUMBER OF AGRICULTURAL HECTARES DURING REPORTING
EFFECTIVENESS
2012 20111 2010 2009 2008
13.4 Number of hectares of land originally
designated for agricultural purposes
which was re-designated for other 0 0 0 611 61
uses during the reporting year.
OBJECTIVE:
Preservation of agricultural land.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
. Financial Information Return: 92 8165 07.
19
MUNICIPALITY
Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)• 2012 RESULTS
13.5 CHANGE IN NUMBER OF AGRICULTURAL HECTARES SINCE 000
EFFECTIVENESS
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
13.5 Number of hectares of land originally
designated for agricultural purposes
which was re-designated for other 3,922 3,922 3,922 3,9221 3,922
uses since January 1, 2000.
OBJECTIVE:
Preservation of agricultural land.
NOTES & KEY FACTORS FOR UNDERSTANDING RESULTS:
REFERENCE:
• Financial Information Return: 92 8166 07.
20