Appendix 8 Performance Measures
256
Performance Measures 2013 Budget
Each year the Province of Alberta collects standard financial information from each municipality. From this information they develop financial indicator graphs for groups of similar municipalities. These charts give rate payers and Council and idea of how Mountain View County compares with its peers. These graphs are discussed as part of the budget process and have been included in the budget package.
In addition, Council has asked that there be a greater emphasis on County performance measures. Included in the 2013 budget are funds to conduct a rate payer survey. One of the objectives of the survey is to obtain feedback regarding the County’s performance.
The other aspect of performance measurement is to develop performance reporting. There has always been performance evaluation and measurement but the challenge becomes how to summarize everything that is being measured, in a meaningful way. Throughout the budget there are a number of charts that give some insight into the overall financial health of the County. Below are a few selected charts which give some insight into the operations of Mountain View County. In the pages that follow are a number of charts which provide some further insight into specific programs that the County runs. As a package hopefully these charts inform rate payers of the County’s overall performance.
In the last three years recurring municipal operating expenses have remained flat after a period of growth. This is partly due to a change in Council and administrative direction and partly due to overall economic conditions.
In the same period where operating expenses have leveled off the amount that is set aside for the renewal of County infrastructure has been increasing.
257
Performance Measures 2013 Budget
Road infrastructure is where the majority of County funds are spent. At the heart of County road maintenance is equipment. In 2005 and 2006 the County moved from doing both road construction and maintenance to focusing County resources on maintenance, and contracting out construction. This can be seen in the drop in overall equipment hours in 2006 and after. 2012 was a year of administrative transition in the County’s Operational Services department and subsequently equipment hours were down. It’s expected the equipment hours will return to normal levels in 2013.
The chart shows Action Requests for Operational Services. Overall there is a downward trend in Action Requests. The spike in requests in 2011 is primarily related to higher than normal snowfall resulting in more requests.
258
DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Corporate Services April 2013
259
CAO SERVICES AND LEGISLATIVE & COMMUNITY SERVICES
260
CAO SERVICES AND LEGISLATIVE & COMMUNITY SERVICES – PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Objectives:
• To provide legislative and legal compliance and implement strategic corporate programs to support Council and Administration in pursuing excellence in municipal management and quality public service • To provide Human Resources services such as advice and guidance to management in the areas of recruitment, staffing, compensation, rewards and organizational development • To provide safe, healthy and supportive environments for staff • To safeguard and improve residents’ quality of life. Individuals, families, community groups and associations, social agencies, industry and visitors to the County benefit from our services and access our programs, grants and spaces on a daily basis
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Staff 6 7 7 8 9 12 12 13 13 13
Inputs:
Expenses for the CAO and Legislative & Community Services Departments have increased through the years 2003 – 2010 and have leveled off in the subsequent year. The chart below show the main areas where cost increased.
2003 2010 Area Staff Total Cost Staff Total Cost Communications 0 $ 70,766.87 1 $ 263,667.51 Economic Development 0 $ 17,946.84 1 $ 57,013.76 Executive Administration 2 $ 153,203.98 2 $ 733,541.50* Human Resources/ Health & Safety 0 $ 9,630.77 2 (1 Consultant) $ 195,904.40 Legislative Services 2 $ 103,001.51 2 $ 259,123.71 Patrol 2 $ 186,677.48 3 $ 416,449.25 Community Services 0 $ - 2 $ 137,186.18
*Includes non-recurring costs of $355,517.84 for Corporate Review and CAO Severance.
261
Outputs:
There has been a large increase in the amount spent on newspaper and magazine related expenses since 2005 as there has been an emphasis on communications.
The number of Council Meetings, which includes Policies and Priorities, has increased dramatically between 2003 and 2010 and have dropped off slightly after 2010.
• This department includes a variety of services. In recent years, the scope of this area has increased significantly. This includes the expansion of Human Resources/ Health & Safety functions with an increased focus on communications, economic development and intergovernmental relations.
Efficiency:
Costs per Council meeting for the department, have increased between 2003 and 2010.
Expenditures increased between 2003 – 2010, with a large increase coming in 2008 when new positions were added.
262
Effectiveness:
• The effectiveness of the CAO and Legislative & Community Services departments is based on its ability to develop long-term corporate objectives and improve the economy while also representing Mountain View County on matters involving the Province of Alberta and other intergovernmental affairs.
263
COMMUNITY GRANTS – PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Overall Measures:
There has been a steady increase to the funds provided for fire services.
The main component of Community grants is the County’s support of the FCSS program. In 2008 the County made a one time contribution of $350,000 to the Community Learning Campus in Olds. The County has increased its support of community halls.
Through agreements with the Towns the County has increased its contribution to recreation facilities and libraries. Starting in 2007 the County increased contributions over a five year period.
264
CORPORATE SERVICES
265
FINANCE – PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Objectives:
• To accurately record financial transactions and report the results of the transactions to Rate Payers, Council and those responsible for overseeing the financial transaction in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Government Act • To coordinate the preparation of a budget, this establishes the resources available to carry out the programs and initiatives in the coming year • To manage all Operating, Capital and Reserve Funds
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Staff 5 6 7 9 9 12 12 12 12 11 Inputs:
Costs have shown an overall increase with a increase coming in 2006 and after when salaries were reviewed and positions were added. 2010 shows a drop as a few positions were not filled for the entire year.
Outputs:
The number of financial transactions has increased between the years 2003 to 2011. This can be explained by increased “automation” of certain entries and the addition of Tangible Capital Assets transactions.
266
Efficiency:
Cost per capita has been increasing over the last eight years. A federal census was last conducted in 2006, so it would be reasonable to expect this trend to level off in 2011 as the County has experienced population growth.
Costs per full time employee have remained fairly consistent over the period 2003 – 2010 and have gone up through 2012 as the number of staff has decreased. As a long term trend the costs should increase close to the rate of inflation with the potential for the cost structure to be impacted by service level changes or process changes.
The increase in expenditures in the Finance Department in 2004 can be attributed to a service level change, when accounting duties for Mountain View Regional Waste Commission were assumed by the County. Another increase was seen in 2008 when new positions were added to manage the Tangible Capital Asset program and the Grant Reporting. Effectiveness:
According to the Municipal Government Act, all municipalities must annually undergo an audit to test and examine evidence supporting the financial statements. The Finance Department is responsible for coordinating the annual audit. This audit ensures that the financial statements are free of material misstatements. The Audit Committee reviews these results and makes recommendations as necessary, to County Council.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Unqualified Audit Opinion GFOA Distinguished Budget Presentation Award
267
ASSESSMENT – PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Objectives:
• To accurately value the properties within Mountain View County to ensure property values are consistent with Provincial regulations • To ensure that comparable properties have a comparable value
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Staff 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Inputs:
Costs have shown an overall incline with a large increase coming in 2006 when salaries were reviewed for all County staff. 2010 & 2011 shows a drop as the manager’s position was vacant for part of the year.
Consultants are used periodically to supplement available staff time for reviewing properties. 2005 and 2010 - 2012 were years that there was an increased use of consultants. With a new manager in place it’s expected that we will be able to reduce our reliance on consultants.
Outputs: In the six year period from2005 through 2010 the Assessment Department was able to review all new assessment rolls as well as review all existing properties. In 2011 assessment operations were impacted as the manager’s position was vacant for part of the year.
268
Efficiency:
Cost per roll reviewed have remained reasonably consist with a trend towards increasing costs. Generally years where consultants have been used the cost per roll reviewed has decreased as the fixed costs of operating the department are spread over more rolls. Cost per roll increased in 2011 since less rolls were reviewed than typically would be the case.
Expenses have been steadily increasing. The majority of expenses relate to staff costs so they closely follow the cost of labour.
Effectiveness:
The Assessment Departments effectiveness is measured each year by the Provincial government. The Province analyses the roll and will not accept it until it passes their quality checks. These checks ensure consistent assessments across the Province. In addition to the annual checks the Province performs a detailed audit periodically. The County’s last detailed audit was in 2007.
Assessment appeals are a broad measure of effectiveness. Appeals can be filed for a number of different reasons and in some cases could be a reflection of the political and/or economic climate.
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Meets Provincial Standard
269
BUSINESS SERVICES – PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Objectives:
• To provide all reception and corporate information technology services. This encompasses hardware, software, research and development of in-house applications and databases, the Geographic Information System and internal Help Desk support. • To maintain high availability of current services and products while continuing to modernize, consolidate, and expand IT systems and services.
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Staff 2.8 3.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 4.8
Inputs:
Cost have shown an overall increase with a large increase coming in 2006 when salaries were reviewed for all County staff. Business Services provides support to all of the departments for the County, since the organization has grown, it creates pressure on the Business Services department. Significant increases in software licensing costs have impacted expenses.
Outputs:
The demand for IT services in Mountain View County has increased dramatically from 2005 – 2012. In addition to providing support to Mountain View County, IT services also provides support to the Towns of Carstairs and Didsbury. This arrangement is beneficial to the County as it allows for greater IT capacity for the County, and it’s beneficial to the Town’s because it provides experienced IT personnel to respond to their needs.
270
Efficiency:
Business Services provides support to all departments within Mountain View County. As the organization grows, there is a corresponding increase in demands on Business Services.
A large increase in expenditures came in 2006 as new positions were created as a result of the Corporate Review. Another spike in expenses came in 2010 when a Consultant was retained to help with the backlog of IT issues. Overall costs have followed inflation plus growth in the organization. Costs however, have not increased as dramatically as our IT foot print has grown. For example the County’s total number of desktops and laptops has increased 300% from 2005 to Effectiveness: 2012.
Effectiveness of Business Services can be determined by the ability to provide ongoing support to users and engage in new initiatives. Providing support for new initiative work will build up the IT asset base, which will further increase IT resource demands. The newly implemented ticketing system will provide data in future years of Business Services ability to provide ongoing support to users. Generally it could be said that the dramatic expansion of the County’s IT footprint in recent years is pushing IT staff to the limits of their capacity to respond to issues. This is along with increasing user expectations continues to put pressure on how effective this area can be in meeting objectives.
271
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT & PERMITTING SERVICES
272
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT – PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Objectives:
• To ensure all developments meet the requirements of the County’s statutory plans through the day to day application of the County’s Land Use Bylaw and issuance of development permits • To efficiently and effectively manage the land and resources to ensure health and sustainable communities – economically, socially and environmentally • To oversee the creation and management of the County’s Municipal Development Plan (the master planning document required under the Municipal Government Act) • To process re-designation and subdivision applications received; applications are reviewed and processed with regard to provincial legislation, Council approved policies, and by-laws
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Staff 6 6 8 10 9 14 14.5 13.5 16 16
Inputs:
Planning & Development revenues tend to fluctuate significantly based on overall economic conditions and the development climate.
Costs have shown an overall incline with a large increase coming in 2008 as new positions were added to the department. Costs have moderated in recent years as vacant positions have not been filled due to a drop in overall planning & development activities.
273
Outputs:
The number of applications peaked in 2007 and then have steady declined until 2012 when there was a slight increase. The initial decrease in applications received can be explained by the global economic recession. More recent years would also be impacted by changes to the Municipal Development Plan. This chart depicts applications received for the following reasons: building permit, compliance certificate, development permit, re-designation and subdivision. Efficiency:
After a steep increase in the cost per application from 2007 to 2009, the cost per application has leveled off, decreasing slightly from the peak in 2009.
A large increase in expenses can be seen in 2006 because of the salary review and again in 2008 with the addition of new positions to the department. Expenses have now declined due to vacant positions which haven’t been filled.
Effectiveness:
Planning & Development Services received negative feedback with regards to policies in the MDP and the length of time to receive a permit/ subdivision approval in 2008 - 2009. A number of procedural and administrative changes have been made in recent years resulting in generally favorable feedback.
274
PERMITTING – PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Objectives:
• To review surveys of properties • To ensure all buildings constructed in Mountain View County meet the requirements of the Alberta Building Code, Canadian Plumbing Code and Canadian Electrical Code • To issue building, plumbing, gas and electrical permits in accordance with the County’s Quality Management Plan
2009 2010 2011 2012 Staff 1.5 1.5 2 2
Inputs:
Permit application revenue has increased significantly with the introduction of full permitting in 2009.
Building permit revenues tend to fluctuate significantly based on overall economic conditions and the development climate.
275
Outputs:
The number of permit applications has increased significantly with the introduction of full permitting in 2009.
Building permits have taken a dip since the peak in 2007. Activity has started to pick-up in 2011 and 2012.
Efficiency:
The cost per permit spiked during the introduction of full permitting. In any transition it’s sometimes difficult to get an accurate allocation of costs. The spike may not reflect the true costs.
Effectiveness:
• Passing of the Alberta Municipal Affairs audit
• Adherence to timelines of application approval (40 days)
276
OPERATIONAL SERVICES
277
ADMINISTRATION & SUPPORT – PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Objectives:
• To provide the maintenance and construction of roadways, bridges, subdivisions, facilities and utilities within Mountain View County • To ensure the highest level of service is provided in a timely manner, day or night, to ensure the safety of residents and visitors
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Staff 2 2 4 8 8 8 9 12 12 12
Inputs:
Administration & Support Costs increased dramatically in 2006 & 2009 with the addition of new positions in the organization. Expenses have decreased significantly in 2011 & 2012 as this area has gone through an administrative transition with a number of vacant positions.
Outputs:
• See the following Performance Measure Sheets This area supports the field staff. The Chip Seal outputs and effectiveness of this o area is largely reflected in the Gravel Maintenance o outputs and effectiveness of the Re-Gravel o maintenance programs. o Snow Removal
Year Major Projects 2003 - Replacement of Bridge Structure on the Rosebud Creek (BF 1806) 2004 - Replacement of Bridge File 6797 on the Bearberry Creek - Replacement of Bridge File 9588 on the Dogpound Creek 2005 - Range Road 52 (Water Valley Road). Road upgrade and bridge replacement - Paving Range Road 2.0 2006 - Range Road 52 (Water Valley Road). Road upgrade and bridge replacement - Repairs on Bridge File 81241 on Shell Gas Plant Road 1.2 KM west of Hwy 22 2007 - Luft Pit Crossing Erosion Control - Work began on the Sundre Shop 2008 - Base work of Red Lodge Road - Paving of Administration Building
278
- Paving of Range Road 2.0 2009 - First of a three year cycle to catch up on deferred chip sealing 2010 - Red Lodge Road Paving 2011 - TWP 334 Re-construction 2012 - Big Prairie Bridge Re-Construct
- Burnt Timber Road Re-Surfacing - Completion of TWP 334 Re-Construction
Efficiency:
Administration and Support expenses increased dramatically in 2005 with the addition of new positions and the salary review was conducted that year as well. More positions were added in 2009 and positions that were previously budgeted for were filled. In 2011 & 2012 there were a number of vacant positions.
Effectiveness:
The total number of Action Requests has generally been decreasing since 2008 with the exception of 2011. In 2011, there was more snow than typical and a corresponding spike in snow removal Action Requests.
279
EQUIPMENT – PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Overall Measures:
Equipment rates are set so that the cost per hour will match the revenue generated per hour under the normal number of hours of operation. In 2012 with lower than normal operating hours, costs were above the revenue charged to projects. This left a residual under recovered costs on the equipment of just under $1 million.
Hours dropped after 2005 as the County moved to contracting out road construction work. Hours dropped in 2012 during a year of transition. It’s expected that hours will return to “normal” levels in 2013.
This ratio shows the number of labour hours charged to the equipment vs. the number of hours the equipment is charged to projects. A certain amount of time is needed to ensure regular maintenance is performed.
280
Specific Equipment:
This chart shows the number of equipment hours for grader and tandem trucks. With 15 trucks in the fleet hours for optimal utilization of the fleet the hours should be over 18,000/year and with 8 graders the hours should be over 10,000/year.
This chart shows the number of equipment hours for water trucks, loaders and excavators.
This chart shows the number of equipment hours for oil distributors. Oil distributor hours have dropped off significantly since 2008.
This chart shows the number of equipment hours for chip spreaders. In 2009 there was no internal re-chipping activity. Since then activity has picked-up. To reach program targets, hours will likely need to surpass 250 hours per year.
281
GRAVEL MAINTENANCE – PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Objectives:
• To maintain a drivable gravel road infrastructure of Mountain View County • To provide a durable gravel surface that optimizes the overall lifecycle cost
Inputs:
The cost of the blading program has fluctuated. The costs are primarily driven by the number of grader hours in a given year.
Outputs:
Grader hours in the last two years have been below the typical number of hours. As an overall trend there have been less labour hours and less equipment hours, besides grader time, charged to road blading. This is the result of Foremen having the primary responsibility for road inspections and work planning.
Efficiency:
The total Cost of the Gravel Maintenance program per Equipment Hour has remained relatively consistent. The shift in costs in 2009 is the result of the capital cost of equipment becoming part of the equipment rate. This change was one of the impacts of the introduction of tangible capital asset accounting.
282
The large fluctuations are caused by different approaches to road blading which have resulted in different cost structures.
Effectiveness:
This chart seems to indicate there is a high negative correlation between the number of grader hours and action requests.
The effectiveness of gravel road grading is dependent on a number of things, including the amount of moisture present in the road base, the current weather conditions and the speed of the traffic using the road.
283
SNOW REMOVAL – PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Objectives:
• To provide road safety while protecting the environment • To minimize economic loss to the community • To prevent or reduce accidents and injury
Inputs:
County crews are on duty from mid October to mid April to provide snow plowing services. As a priority, County crews focus snow removal efforts on the County Collector Network (CCN). Once the CCN is cleared, crews clear secondary roads across the County. The large increase in costs between 2007 and 2009 can largely be attributed to an increase in service levels. Outputs:
Equipment hours generally follow snow fall amounts.
Efficiency:
The cost per centimeter can vary significantly from year to year. Years of low snow fall like 2006 and 2007 result in a high cost per centimeter due to the fixed costs related to having snow removal capacity available.
284
This graph charts the “above average” snowfall years against the “above budget” years and vice versa. Ideally there would be a strong correlation between snowfall and the amount spent, as there was in the years prior to 2006. In 2012 there was a $645,000 increase to the snow removal budget which means the years after 2011 need to be viewed slightly differently than those prior to 2011.
Effectiveness:
Action requests have increased in 2011 as 2011 had an unusually high snowfall. Action requests dropped off significantly in 2012.
Snow removal effectiveness is best demonstrated through the number of complaints received through the action request system.
285
CHIP SEAL – PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Objectives:
• To maintain the Council designated chip seal roads • To provide a safe, consistent, dust free surface for the citizens, visitors and stakeholders of Mountain View County • To provide a durable surface that optimizes the overall lifecycle costs
Inputs:
Total Expenses on the Chip Seal program have increased dramatically between 2003 and 2010. The predominant reason for the large increase in 2009 and 2010 is because of Council decision to initiate a deferred chip seal project. The objective of this project is to “catch up” on all chip sealing over a 3 year period. 2011 was the completion of this project.
Patching expenses increased in 2007 because of Council’s direction to focus on chip seal and road patching programs.” The focus on re-chipping roads in 2009 – 2011 would be at least partially responsible for reduced patching costs in 2010 – 2011. In 2012 some of the patching was contracted out resulting in higher
costs. Outputs:
Mountain View County completed its largest Chip Seal program in 2010. This was due in part, to more time spent on planning and organization of internal staff prior to the start of the project and supplementing internal crews with a contractor. 2012 saw 89 km completed of a planned 143 km program.
286
Efficiency:
The Cost / KM increased dramatically in 2009 because the Chip Seal program was completed solely by contracted forces.
2010 Chip Seal Cost / KM Contractor vs Internal $35,000 $30,000 In 2010 contractors were used to catch up on deferred chip sealing. This gave $25,000 the County a good bench mark $20,000 which can be used to measure the $15,000 $10,000 efficiency of the internal program. $5,000 $0 2010 Contractor Cost / KM 2010 Internal Cost / KM
Effectiveness:
In 2009 – 2010 there was a significant drop in action requests related to chip seal roads. This trend partially reversed in 2012.
2008 Road Ratings 60.00% The road ratings were done as part of the 50.00% Tangible Capital Asset requirement 40.00% in 2008. They have not been
30.00% updated since.
20.00%
10.00%
0.00% GOOD FAIR POOR 2008 Road Ratings
287
The effectiveness of chip seal can be determined by its life span. According to the National Cooperative Highway Research Program the average life span of a chip sealed surface in Canada is 5.33 years. The average age of all chip sealed surfaces in Mountain View County is 5 years. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp_syn_342.pdf
288
RE-GRAVEL – PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Objectives:
• To provide and improve the road infrastructure of Mountain View County • To re-gravel the surface of gravel roads every 3 years
Inputs:
There is a direct correlation between the amount of kilometers re-graveled and the total tonnes of gravel used and the total cost of the re- gravel program. Costs for the re- gravel program peaked in 2008, and in that year, there were the most kilometers re-graveled in the 8 year period.
The amount of gravel placed on each road varies from road to road. However, Mountain View County has, overall, been using less gravel to complete the re-gravel program.
Mountain View County and Camrose County use the most tonnes of gravel to complete the re-gravel program, however, they are the 2 Counties with the most kilometers of re- gravel completed.
289
Outputs:
Graveled roadways require re-gravelling on average, once every three years. This is a generally accepted practice that most municipalities and Alberta Transportation support. Mountain View County re- gravels, on average, 537 kms / year.
Mountain View County and Camrose County re-gravel the most kilometers per year. Both of these Counties strive to re-gravel the road network every 3 years.
Efficiency:
The amount of gravel placed / km has decreased overall since 2006. It is a generally accepted practice that
approximately 200 tonnes / km are placed on a roadway, however, this varies on the amount of traffic received on a particular road.
290
In 2004 and 2009 more of the hauling was done internally rather than with the use of contracted hauling companies.
Effectiveness:
Action requests for gravel increased dramatically between 2009 and 2010. In 2010, the action requests for gravel primarily came in September and were primarily in Quadrant 1.
Re-gravel effectiveness is best demonstrated through the number of complaints received through the action request system. An infrequent, irregular gravel placement program will increase maintenance demand on gravel roads and increase customer dissatisfaction.
291 Generated for: MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
292 Financial Indicator Graphs Introduction
The financial indicator graphs are intended to serve as a tool that may assist council and administration with operational decisions. The comparative measures may be useful in assessing past performance and for budget planning. Each municipality is compared to a group of similar size urban municipalities, or to rural municipalities with similar tax base. The comparison group is shown on the last slide. New for 2012 is the ability to create customized reports using additional tools in milenet. Custom graphs can be created comparing your municipality to other Alberta municipalities. Furthermore, you can create specific graphs for measures you are interested in. Financial Advisory Services is available to assist you in interpreting the information contained in the graphs. Please be aware that advisors will not have access to any of the custom graphs you create, but would still be able to assist with the underlying formulas and data used to create all graphs. It should be noted that that the financial indicator graphs are point-in-time documents. The system is updated daily as new information is added to the municipal financial database. As such graphs will reflect the current data set and the results will be subject to change as the database is updated and verified. However, most information from the previous reporting year will have been posted by the fall of the subsequent year. Other points to note are: - The range for most of the graphs is 2006 to 2011. - Equalized assessment is shown for the period 2007 to 2012. - Caution should be used when interpreting results as each municipality has unique characteristics affecting how it compares to the group. Also, circumstances may have changed since the December 31, 2011 reporting date.
293 Financial Indicator Graphs Introduction
Financial Indicator Graphs include: o Equalized Tax Rates - Municipal/Residential/Non-Residential o Equalized Assessment Per Kilometer of Road o Non-Residential Equalized Assessment as % of Total o Tax Collection Rate o Debt Debt Service as % of the Limits o Long Term Debt Per Capita o Major Revenue Sources Per Capita o Major Revenue Sources As % of Total Revenue (only 2011) o Broad Function Expenses Per Capita (only 2011) o Per Capita Expenses by Major Type: - Salaries, Wages Benefits - Contracted General Services - Materials, Goods, Supplies Utilities - Bank Charges Interest - Amortization o Net Book Value As % of Capital Costs o Accumulated Surplus Categories, As % (only 2011) o Accumulated Surplus Categories, Per Capita (only 2011) o Ratio of Current Assets to Current Liabilities
294 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Equalized Tax Rates: Net Municipal MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Median Range 20
2006 6.6% 7.1% 2007 6.4% 6.7% 15 2008 5.8% 6.2% 2009 5.9% 6.2% 2010 5.8% 6.5% 2011 5.8% 6.5%
10
6.6 6.4 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.8
5
0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: Municipal Equalized Tax Rate is calculated based on total equalized assessment and net municipal property tax.
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 1 295 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Equalized Tax Rates: Residential MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Median Range
10
2006 8.6% 8.0% 8.6 2007 7.2% 6.9% 2008 5.6% 5.6% 8 2009 4.9% 5.0% 7.2 2010 5.0% 5.4% 2011 5.0% 5.2%
6 5.6
4.9 5.0 5.0
4
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: Residential Equalized Tax Rate is calculated based on gross residential property taxes and residential equalized assessment.
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 2 296 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Equalized Tax Rates: Non-Residential MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Median Range
25
2006 13.5% 12.9% 2007 12.9% 11.7% 20 2008 12.5% 11.8% 2009 12.6% 11.4% 2010 12.6% 11.6% 2011 12.7% 11.5% 15 13.5 12.9 12.5 12.6 12.6 12.7
10
5
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: Non-Residential Equalized Tax Rate is calculated based on gross non-residential property taxes and non-residential equalized assessment
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 3 297 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Total Equalized Assessment Per KM of Roads MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Median Range 10,000,000
2006 751,728 971,481 2007 808,902 1,107,827 2008 1,004,720 1,352,083 2009 1,212,604 1,756,395 2010 1,375,198 1,943,599 2011 1,389,249 1,887,417 5,000,000
1,212,604 1,375,198 1,389,249 1,004,720 751,728 808,902
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 4 298 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Non-Residential Assessment as % of Total Equalized Assessment MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
100 Median Range
2006 50.4% 78.0% 80 2007 52.4% 77.0% 2008 51.4% 77.3% 2009 47.1% 71.3% 2010 45.3% 70.7% 2011 44.7% 71.9%
60
52.4 50.4 51.4 47.1 45.3 44.7
40
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 5 299 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Tax Collection Rates MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Median Range 100
2006 98.0% 98.9%
99 2007 98.3% 99.0% 2008 98.1% 99.1% 2009 98.2% 98.5% 98.3 98.2 98.3 98.1 98.2 2010 98.3% 98.4% 98.0 98 2011 98.2% 98.6%
97
96
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: This indicator reflects the percentage of taxes and grants in place of taxes which are collected by the municipality in the year in which they are levied.
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 6 300 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Percent of Debt Limit Used MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY 100 Median Range
80
2006 8.8% 4.6% 2007 6.6% 6.3% 2008 5.3% 9.3% 60 2009 6.0% 6.9% 2010 20.1% 13.5% 2011 19.0% 12.1% 40
20.1 19.0 20
8.8 6.6 5.3 6.0
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: This graph shows, in percentage terms, the municipality's debt as a percentage of the regulated limit. This is compared to the median for the group of similar municipalities.
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 7 301 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Percent of Debt Service Limit Used MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Median Range 80
2006 4.3% 4.3% 2007 3.3% 7.3% 60 2008 2.7% 11.9% 2009 3.2% 11.5% 2010 10.9% 10.9%
40 2011 10.8% 10.8%
20 10.9 10.8
4.3 3.3 2.7 3.2 0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: This graph shows, in percentage terms, the municipality's current debt servicing requirement relative to the regulated limit. This is compared to the median for the group of similar municipalities.
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 8 302 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Long Term Municipal Debt Per Capita MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Median Range 6,000
2006 240 129 2007 227 231 2008 221 371 4,000 2009 215 263 2010 720 720 2011 687 767
2,000
720 687
240 227 221 215 0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 9 303 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Revenue Sources Per Capita: Net Municipal Property Taxes MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Median Range
15,000
2006 1,231 1,850 2007 1,428 2,101 2008 1,630 2,409 2009 1,884 2,514 10,000 2010 1,860 2,526 2011 1,871 2,627
5,000
1,630 1,884 1,860 1,871 1,231 1,428
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 10 304 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Revenue Sources Per Capita: Total Grants MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
6,000 Median Range
2006 281 462 2007 566 622 4,000 2008 884 813 2009 538 863 2010 815 805 2011 254 823
2,000
884 815 566 538 281 254
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 11 305 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Revenue Sources Per Capita: Sales and User Charges MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Median Range 1,500
2006 134 129 2007 132 132 2008 159 159 1,000 2009 96 153 2010 76 179 2011 69 185
500
134 132 159 96 76 69
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 12 306 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Major Revenue Sources As % of Total Revenue, 2011
MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Group Median Group Maximum 80 79 74
61 60
40 39
20 19 14 10 5 3 0 Net Municipal Property Tax Total Grants Sales and User Charges
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 13 307 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Major Expenditures Per Capita by Broad Function, 2011
MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Group Median 15,000 Group Maximum 13,737
10,000
5,352 5,000
3,374
2,406 2,017 2,244 1,743 1,898 1,493
415 415 601 102 183 34 249 125 165 0 General Government Protective Services Transportation Environment Recreation Total
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 14 308 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Major Expenditures Per Capita by Type: Salaries, Wages and Benefits MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY 6,000 Median Range
2006 597 565 2007 614 622 4,000 2008 677 708 2009 729 775 2010 739 775 2011 690 781
2,000
729 739 597 614 677 690
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 15 309 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Major Expenditures Per Capita by Type: Contracted and General Services MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Median Range 3,000
2006 411 990 2007 630 1,124 2008 1,025 888 2,000 2009 501 571 2010 384 535 2011 359 538
1,025 1,000
630 501 411 384 359
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 16 310 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Major Expenditures Per Capita by Type: Materials, Goods, Supplies and Utilities MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Median
3,000 Range
2006 363 350 2007 408 377 2008 448 437 2,000 2009 308 365 2010 195 328 2011 145 379
1,000
408 448 363 308 195 145
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 17 311 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Major Expenditures Per Capita by Type: Interest and Banking MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Median Range
2006 18 11 200 2007 15 15 2008 14 16 2009 14 18 2010 22 21 2011 33 33
100
33 22 18 15 14 14
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 18 312 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Major Expenditures Per Capita by Type: Amortization of Tangible Capital Assets MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Median 6,000 Range
2009 857 821 2010 918 918 4,000 2011 944 944
2,000
857 918 944
0
2009 2010 2011
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 19 313 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Net Book Value as % of Total Capital Property Costs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Median Range 100
2009 35.5% 54.2% 2010 35.2% 55.0% 2011 33.6% 49.4%
50
35.5 35.2 33.6
0
2009 2010 2011
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 20 314 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Accumulated Surplus Categories as % of Total, 2011
MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Group Median Group Maximum 100 100
87 87
80
60
40
31 27
20 13 11
0 2 0 Unrestricted Restricted Equity in TCA
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 21 315 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Accumulated Surplus Per Capita, 2011
MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Group Median Group Maximum 84,305
80,000 77,897
60,000
40,000
24,994
20,000 18,824 12,456 9,539 10,826 5,500 1,591 2,720 40 299 0 Unrestricted Restricted Equity in TCA Total
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 22 316 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Ratio of Current Assets to Liabilities Assets 6.42 Liabilities 40,000,000 Ratio 36,164,875
30,000,000 27,580,335 4.16
21,936,919 20,841,885 20,170,479 3.31 20,000,000 3.24 3.02 15,619,018 2.47
10,000,000 8,873,087 8,683,844 6,674,879 6,301,539 4,813,410 4,292,958
0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Note: The current ratio calculation measures ability to meet short-term obligations with existing liquid assets. "Current Assets" are those which are liquid in nature (cash or an asset which can be easily converted to cash). Inventory is excluded from the calculation. "Current Liabilities" are generally obligations coming due within the next fiscal year. The ratio is shown in the centre of the column. A ratio greater than one indicates the degree to which current assets exceed current liabilities; a ratio smaller
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 23 317 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Total Equalized Assessment (in Millions)
GRANDE PRAIRIE NO. 1, COUNTY OF 6,144 LACOMBE COUNTY 6,114 CLEARWATER COUNTY 5,939 LEDUC COUNTY 5,522 RED DEER COUNTY 5,405 CYPRESS COUNTY 4,937 STURGEON COUNTY 4,612 SPECIAL AREAS BOARD 4,274 BONNYVILLE NO. 87, M.D. OF 4,112 MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY 4,003 NEWELL, COUNTY OF 3,887 WHEATLAND COUNTY 3,833 LAC LA BICHE COUNTY 3,448 BRAZEAU COUNTY 2,933 OPPORTUNITY NO. 17, M.D. OF 2,608 PONOKA COUNTY 2,437 WETASKIWIN NO. 10, COUNTY OF 2,425 WOODLANDS COUNTY 2,282 MACKENZIE COUNTY 2,215 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 24 318 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Group Population
GRANDE PRAIRIE NO. 1, COUNTY OF 17,989 LACOMBE COUNTY 10,507 CLEARWATER COUNTY 11,826 LEDUC COUNTY 13,260 RED DEER COUNTY 19,108 CYPRESS COUNTY 6,729 STURGEON COUNTY 19,165 SPECIAL AREAS BOARD 4,729 BONNYVILLE NO. 87, M.D. OF 9,047 MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY 12,570 NEWELL, COUNTY OF 7,101 WHEATLAND COUNTY 8,164 LAC LA BICHE COUNTY 9,123 BRAZEAU COUNTY 7,040 OPPORTUNITY NO. 17, M.D. OF 3,259 PONOKA COUNTY 8,640 WETASKIWIN NO. 10, COUNTY OF 10,535 WOODLANDS COUNTY 4,158 MACKENZIE COUNTY 10,002 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 25 319 Financial Indicator Graphs MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
Equalized Assessment Per KM of Roads
GRANDE PRAIRIE NO. 1, COUNTY OF 1,815,584 LACOMBE COUNTY 2,803,281 CLEARWATER COUNTY 2,705,544 LEDUC COUNTY 2,486,784 RED DEER COUNTY 1,735,463 CYPRESS COUNTY 1,887,417 STURGEON COUNTY 2,598,205 SPECIAL AREAS BOARD 721,453 BONNYVILLE NO. 87, M.D. OF 1,571,963 MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY 1,389,249 NEWELL, COUNTY OF 2,283,844 WHEATLAND COUNTY 1,405,387 LAC LA BICHE COUNTY 3,020,533 BRAZEAU COUNTY 2,808,416 OPPORTUNITY NO. 17, M.D. OF 9,769,306 PONOKA COUNTY 1,261,154 WETASKIWIN NO. 10, COUNTY OF 1,199,522 WOODLANDS COUNTY 3,114,865 MACKENZIE COUNTY 1,221,981 0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000
Created on: April 16, 2013 05:15 Page 26 320