Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE

M AY 2 0 1 2

NUMBER (000’S)

COST ($)

RATE (PER CAPITA)

VOLUME (M3)

DISTANCE (KM)

FREQUENCY (%)

AREA (HECTARES)

TIME (MIN:SEC)

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page Reference Introduction 1 Context How much and what types of taxes did an Ontario family pay in 2011? 2 - 3 How much tax did each order of government receive from the average 2 - 3 Ontario family in 2011? How did the City of Toronto spend its 8.8 per cent share of taxes paid 2 - 3 by the average Toronto family in 2011? Overall Summary of Toronto’s Performance Measurement and

Benchmarking Results Internal Comparison of Toronto’s 2010 vs. 2009 results service/activity level indicator trends 4 performance measurement result trends 5 - 6 Comparing Toronto’s 2010 results externally to other Canadian municipalities service/activity level indicators (quartile results) 6 - 7 performance measurement results (quartile results) 7 - 9 Continuous Improvement Initiatives - Actions Toronto’s Service Areas are Taking to Further Improve Operations and Performance Initiatives to improve customer service 10 - 11 Efficiency improvement initiatives 11 - 12 Initiatives to improve effectiveness 12 - 14 Initiatives to improve the quality of life for Torontonians 14 Other Methods of Assessing Toronto’s Progress Toronto’s award-winning initiatives 15 Other indicator reports 15 Toronto in international rankings and reports 15 - 18 Global City Indicators 18 -19 Guide to the Summaries of Toronto’s Performance Measurement Results Toronto’s performance measurement framework for service delivery 20 Comparing Toronto’s results internally over time 20 -21 Comparing Toronto’s results externally to other Canadian municipalities 22 -23 How to interpret summaries of Toronto’s performance measurement 24 -25 results Basis of costing used in this report 26

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED

Section Page Reference Consolidated Summary of Toronto’s Results by Service Area 27 -62

Detailed Results, Charts and Initiatives by Service Area 1. Accounts Payable Services 64 - 68 2. Building Services 69 - 79 3. Bylaw Enforcement Services 80 - 85 4. Children’s Services 86 - 93 5. Cultural Services 94 - 99 6. Emergency Medical Services 100 - 111 7. Fire Services 112 - 122 8. General Revenue Services 123 - 127 9. Governance and Corporate Management 128 - 131 10. Hostel Services 132 - 138 11. Information and Technology Services 139 - 145 12. Investment Management Services 146 - 149 13. Legal Services 150 - 153 14. Library Services 154 - 161 15. Long-Term Care Services 162 - 168 16. Parking Services 169 - 174 17. Parks Services 175 - 184 18. Planning Services 185 - 191 19. Police Services 192 - 206 20. Road Services 207 - 217 21. Social Assistance Services 218 - 228 22. Social Housing Services 229 - 235 23. Solid Waste Management Services 236 - 243 24. Sports and Recreation Services 244 - 257 25. Taxation Services 258 - 264 26. Transit Services 265 - 271 27. Wastewater Services 272 - 280 28. Water Services 281 - 290

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Introduction There are currently two keys reports issued by the City Manager's Office that are used to report on Toronto's progress:

• This annual report on Toronto's Performance Measurement and Benchmarking results based on 2010 results of Toronto and comparative municipalities. It should be noted that the data collection cycle done in collaboration with those other municipalities for 2011 data, has not yet commenced and results will only become available later in the year. • More timely information provided on a quarterly basis through the Management Information Dashboard that provides the most currently available information for Toronto on economic, social and divisional indicators. The most recent report for 2011 Quarter 4 is available at http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-45690.pdf, and includes data on: o key economic indicators such as office and industrial vacancy rates, unemployment rates, bankruptcies, retail sales, exports, home sales, and average home prices o broader social indicators such as food bank usage and mortgages in arrears o revenue sources, such as TTC user fees, building fees and the Land Transfer Tax o monthly or quarterly data for a number of measures and indicators also found in this benchmarking report such as: . development indicators like the number of planning applications and construction values of building permits issued . social indicators such as shelter use, social assistance caseloads, and the size of waiting lists for subsidized childcare and social housing units . recreation program and library use as well as transit ridership . crime rates

Toronto is unique among Canadian municipalities because of its size and role as Ontario's and Canada's economic engine and centre of Ontario's business, culture, entertainment, sporting and provincial and international governance activities. Therefore the most accurate comparison for Toronto is to examine its own year-over-year performance and longer term historical trends. Toronto's 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking report provides service / activity level indicators and performance measurement results in 28 of the City’s service areas and includes up to eleven years of historical data, colour-coded summaries of results, and supporting charts to describe those trends.

Additional information for a number of indicators in this report, broken down by Toronto's 140 individual neighbourhoods, is also available at http://map.toronto.ca/wellbeing/.

This report also provides an external perspective, using colour -coded summaries to rank Toronto’s 2010 results by quartile in comparison to the other 15 municipalities that comprise the Ontario Municipal CAOs' Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI), which now includes the Cities of Calgary and Winnipeg. It builds on the November 2011 report entitled OMBI 2010 Performance Benchmarking Report by focussing on Toronto's results.

All of Toronto’s service areas continue to look for opportunities to improve operations and performance. Many of these improvement efforts completed in 2011 or planned for 2012 are summarized on pages 10 to 14, and can also be found at the end of each service section. 1

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Context

For context on Toronto’s service delivery performance from the perspective of an average Toronto family, it is important to consider:

• how much and what different types of taxes an average Toronto family pays over the course of a year • what order of government these taxes are paid to and in what proportions • how the City of Toronto uses its share of these tax dollars received • how other orders of government use their share of tax dollars

How much and what types of taxes did an Ontario family pay in 2011?

Families pay taxes throughout the year in many different forms. Some taxes such as income tax, Employment Insurance and Canada Pension Plan premiums are deducted directly from gross salaries. Other consumption-based taxes like the HST (Harmonized Sales Tax) are paid at the point of purchase and, in the case of the HST, amounts to 13 per cent of the item's purchase price, while others such as gasoline, liquor and tobacco taxes are embedded in the purchase price and are not always evident. Property tax is based on a percentage of the assessed value of land and buildings, with approximately two thirds of the tax bill used for municipal purposes and the remainder for educational purposes. Property tax is highly visible and is the only form of tax where taxpayers receive a bill they are required to pay - usually through a cheque or pre-authorized bank withdrawal.

Figure 1 on the next page provides a summary, based on the work of the Fraser Institute, of the types and amounts of all forms of taxes paid to all three orders of government by an average Ontario family of two or more. Their 2011 estimates are based on a family income of $95,776 and it is estimated that the average family will pay approximately $40,644 in all forms of taxes to all orders of government.

How much tax did each level of government receive from the average Ontario family?

As illustrated in Figure 2 on the next page, the estimated $40,644 in all forms of taxes paid by the average Ontario family in 2011, is split as follows:

• federal government - $22,037 or 54.2 per cent • provincial government - $15,037 or 37.0 per cent • City of Toronto - $3,570 or 8.8 per cent, which includes the municipal portion of property taxes and the solid waste fee for a medium sized bin

How does the Toronto government spend its 8.8 per cent share of taxes paid by the average Toronto family?

Figure 2 on the next page, also illustrates how the City of Toronto government spends its 8.8 per cent share of all taxes, or $3,570 to deliver the wide the range of municipal services provided to Torontonians that are vital to their daily lives. This report provides performance measurement and benchmarking results for 28 of the major services the City of Toronto provides with its 8.8 per cent share of the total tax dollar, as well as information on key improvement initiatives intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of operations.

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Figure 1 Estimated Total Taxes Paid in 2011 ($40,644) (for an average Ontario family of two or more and a cash income of $95,776) Applicable tax as % Applicable tax as Applicable Tax Taxes paid ($) of total cash income % of total taxes of $95,776 Cash income $95,776 - -

Applicable Taxes Income tax $12,498 30.7% 13.0% Social security, pension, medical & hospital taxes $8,768 21.6% 9.2% Sales taxes $6,734 16.6% 7.0% Profits tax $3,680 9.1% 3.8% Property tax- municipal portion (*Note 1) $3,298 8.1% 3.4% Liquor, tobacco, amusement & other excise taxes $1,971 4.8% 2.1% Automobile, fuel and motor vehicle license taxes $880 2.2% 0.9%

Property tax- education portion (*Note 1) $1,355 3.3% 1.4% Other taxes $851 2.1% 0.9% Import duties $317 0.8% 0.3% Solid Waste Fee for Garbage Bin (*Note 2) $272 0.7% 0.3% Natural resource levies $20 0.0% 0.0%

Total taxes $40,644 100.0% 42.4%

Figure 2 Total Taxes Paid in 2011 by Order of Government ($40,644) (based on an average Ontario family with total income of $95,776)

How Your 2011 Municipal Tax Dollars are Spent in Toronto (Based on a home with an assessed value of approximately $586,691 Provincial and $272 fee for garbage bin (*Note 3) ($15,037), 37.0% Municipal Toronto Municipal Service Amount % of All ($3,570), 8.8% ($) Taxes

Police $845 2.08% Public Transit (TTC) $464 1.14% Debt Charges $375 0.92% Federal Fire $328 0.81% ($22,037), Solid Waste (Garbage & Recycling) $272 0.67% 54.2% Toronto Employment and Social Services $184 0.45% Notes Parks, Forestry and Recreation $253 0.62%

Shelter, Support & Housing Administration $269 0.66% *Note 1: In Ontario, residential property taxes are levied for municipal services as well as education, which is a provincial Transportation (Roads, signals, bridges) $160 0.39% responsibility. The property tax figure in the Fraser Institute report Public Library $157 0.39% of $4,652 was split between the municipal ($3,297) and educational ($1,355) components based on Toronto's 2011 Children's Services (Childcare) $68 0.17% property tax rates. EMS (Ambulance) $61 0.15% Information & Technology $58 0.14% *Note 2: Reflects the annual solid waste management fee in Toronto for a family with a medium sized garbage bin (assumed Community Grants (CPIP) $43 0.11% not to be included in original Fraser Institute Report) Long Term Care $43 0.11% Public Health $41 0.10% *Note 3: The average home in Toronto has an assessed value of $427,177. To conform with the municipal property tax figures used City Council $17 0.04% in Fraser Institute Report, the figures for Toronto's' municipal Municipal Licensing and Standards $20 0.05% services are based on a home assessed at $586,691 City Planning $12 0.03%

Source: The Fraser Institute (June 2011) and City of Toronto Building Services $-10 -0.02% Revenue Services Other $-90 -0.22%

Total Taxes - Toronto municipal services $3,570 8.8%

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Summary of Toronto’s results

The 28 municipal services included in this report each have a colour coded summary of results at the front of their respective sections, and are supported with and referenced to charts and detailed narratives for approximately 170 indicators and measures. A guide to assist in interpreting these colour-coded summaries of results and supporting charts can be found on pages 20 to 26.

A consolidated colour-coded summary of Toronto’s results for each indicator/measure drawn from each of the respective service areas can be found on pages 29 to 62 of this report

Highlights of Toronto's overall results are described below.

Internal Comparison – How have Toronto’s service/activity levels changed between 2010 and 2009?

Of the 42 service/ activity level indicators included this report, Toronto's 2010 service or activity levels were maintained (stable) or increased for 86 per cent of the indicators in relation to 2009, as reflected in Figure 3.

Examples of some of the areas in which Toronto’s 2010 service levels or levels of activity increased, were:

• increased number of police officers • greater investment in childcare • increased investment in cultural activities • increased library hours • provided additional parking spaces • increased the amount of maintained parkland and trails • processed more planning applications and building permits with a healthier development climate

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Internal Comparison – How have Toronto’s performance measurement results changed between 2010 and 2009?

Of the 126 performance measurement results of efficiency, customer service and community impact included in this report, 74 per cent of the measures examined had 2010 results that were either improved or stable relative to 2009, as reflected in Figure 4.

Examples of areas where Toronto’s 2010 performance improved include:

• increased construction activity for both the residential and commercial, industrial and institutional (ICI) sectors, as well as increases in planning applications, both of which continued an upward trend in 2011 • reduced the time required to resolve by-law complaints • increased attendance at cultural events • reduced rates of fires, and injuries and fatalities related to those fires • increased library usage and a lower cost-per-use • continued high rate of resident satisfaction in long term care home and a decreased cost per bed-day • continuing high rates of satisfaction of parks users • reduced cost of processing a planning application • decreased crime rates in all crime categories and improved the clearance rate for violent crimes • improved solid waste diversion rates for both houses and apartments and reduced the complaint rate for solid waste collection • increased the usage of registered sports and recreation programming • increased public transit trips per person, and the utilization rate (trips per vehicle-hour) of transit vehicles • improved the pavement quality of roads • reduced the time to process accounts payable invoices and increased the number of invoices processed per staff member

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

• high rates of meeting legislated timeframes for reviewing and issuing building permits and mandatory inspections that continued despite sustained high volumes • reduced the amount of tax arrears and the cost to maintain a tax account • reduced amounts of wastewater bypassing full treatment before release (does receive partial treatment and amounts to less than 0.4%) • reduced the average annual water use per household

Examples of areas where the internal trends in Toronto’s performance measurement results were unfavourable include:

• increased rates of sewer back-ups and watermain breaks • increases in the size of the waiting list for a subsidized childcare space and a social housing unit • increased EMS response times • increased costs per unit of service in a number of service areas such as increased transit costs per passenger trip and per vehicle hour • a lower rate of return on investments, however this was consistent with a global decline in interest rates • increased costs of parking services per space and also decreased revenues per space

External Comparison - How do Toronto’s 2010 service/activity levels compare to other municipalities?

There are 51 service/activity level indicators included in this report where Toronto’s results can be compared and ranked with other municipalities and placed in quartiles. Toronto’s service/activity levels are higher than the OMBI median for 54 per cent of the indicators as reflected in Figure 5.

Between Toronto’s 2009 and 2010 benchmarking reports, there was little change in Toronto’s quartile ranking for each of the service/activity level indicators in relation to other municipalities. Any changes in Toronto’s quartile ranking for individual indicators will likely only occur over much longer time periods.

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Some of the key factors that influence Toronto’s results for service/activity level indicators in relation to other municipalities include:

• services where Toronto’s size and high population density requires higher service levels, indicative of large densely populated cities, such as higher levels of police staff, more transit vehicle hours and a larger library collection • higher needs and demands in a large city like Toronto for social programs such as childcare, social assistance, social housing and emergency hostels/shelters • fewer facilities or less infrastructure can be required in densely populated municipalities like Toronto because of proximity and ease of access, while other less densely populated municipalities require proportionately more facilities or infrastructure to be within a reasonable travel distance of their residents. Examples include the number of recreation facilities, libraries and kilometres of roads • fewer emergency services vehicle-hours may be required in densely populated municipalities like Toronto because of the close proximity of vehicles and stations to residents, which allows for more timely emergency response. Those municipalities with lower population densities may require proportionately more vehicle hours in order to provide acceptable response times.

External Comparison - How do Toronto’s 2010 performance measurement results compare to other municipalities?

There are 117 measures of efficiency, customer service and community impact in this report where Toronto’s results can be compared and ranked with other municipalities and placed in quartiles.

Toronto’s results are higher than the OMBI median for 49 per cent of the measures as shown in Figure 6. Between Toronto’s 2009 and 2010 benchmarking reports, there was very little change in Toronto’s quartile ranking for each of the performance measures in relation to other municipalities. Changes in Toronto’s quartile ranking for individual measures are more likely to occur over a five year period or longer.

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Areas where Toronto has the top/best result of the OMBI municipalities include:

• highest pavement quality rating for our roads system • highest rate of public transit usage • lowest rate of residential fire-related injuries • lowest rate of youth crime • highest revenue generated per off-street and on-street parking space • highest solid waste diversion rate for houses

There are many other examples where Toronto's performance is better than other OMBI median including:

• low rate of governance and corporate management costs of single-tier municipalities • better rate of leveraging City grants by recipient arts organizations (to access other revenue sources) • higher rate of return on investments and lower costs to manage those investments • high library usage rates • a higher proportion of the city's geographic area is parkland • shorter emergency response times than in many other municipalities • lower cost to administer a social housing unit • lower total and property crime rates • high rate of resident satisfaction in long term care homes and a lower cost per bed-day • low rate of property tax arrears • second highest rate of building/ construction activity behind only Calgary and a lower cost to enforce the building code per $1.000 of construction value • higher rate of new residential housing units created

Toronto’s performance measurement results also fall below the OMBI median in a number of areas. Key factors that influence or contribute to some of these lower rankings include:

• social programs measures that Toronto has little control over, such as longer waiting lists for social housing or subsidized childcare and higher benefit costs for social assistance • measures impacted by Toronto’s high population density and urban form including higher rates of violent crime, more traffic congestion, a higher vehicle collision rate, and higher solid waste disposal costs that arise from not having a local landfill site • results impacted by the advanced age of Toronto's infrastructure, such as the highest rates of watermain breaks and sewer backups, and higher costs for wastewater collection and treatment, and water distribution • areas of higher costs that in some part can be related to higher levels of effectiveness such as the highest costs for paved roads (with the highest pavement quality), or the second highest cost of solid waste diversion (with a very high diversion rate for houses)

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

There are also a number of areas where Toronto's results in relation to other municipalities can be improved such as:

• reducing the time it takes to close bylaw complaint files – continuing efforts since 2009 have been taken to improve these results • increasing participation rates in registered recreation programs – in 2011 a recreation service plan was developed • reducing EMS offload delays at hospitals - the continuing hospital offload delay nurse program has reduced these delays and helped improve EMS response time to life- threatening calls • improving the clearance rate for violent crimes • reducing the time period that clients receive social assistance –through initiatives such as the 60 job fairs held in 2011 that connected 11,700 residents with potential employers • improving solid waste diversion rates in apartments - the green bin program was rolled out to 405 apartment buildings and expanded recycling in apartments with in-unit containers • stabilizing or reducing Toronto's cost-per-unit of service provided in a number of service areas

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Continuous Improvement Initiatives - What Actions are Toronto’s Service Areas Taking to Further Improve Operations and Performance?

Each of the service area sections in this report includes a listing of some of the initiatives completed in 2011 or planned in 2012 that could further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Toronto’s operations. Highlights of the initiatives described in the various service areas have been grouped into the following themes:

Initiatives to improve customer service

Completed in 2011:

• posted divisional customer service standards on the web, which are available at http://www.toronto.ca/customerservice/ • posted divisional complaint handling protocols on the web, which are available at http://www.toronto.ca/customerservice/divisional_complaint_protocols.htm • launched on-line service requests for 311 complaints handling, and launched a smart phone application to allow customers to submit 311 requests through a third party provider • successfully addressed over 94% of the 80,000 service requests within service standard for Transportation Services, that came through the new 311 service • enhanced the online business license look-up site to allow the public to check if a business is properly licensed • launched the e-business model for business license renewals • launched 24/48 hour on-line service for temporary on-street parking permits • increased and enhanced online services and integration with 311 in Children's Services • processed 16,600 on-line applications for Ontario Works through Web Access to Your Services (WAYS) • improved business practices including development and rollout of streamlined IBMS processes in support of the Development Application Review process and continued to enhance public access to planning process information through Application Status Web pages • specialized processes for the review and issuance of building permits (Fastrack for residential permits and the commercial Xpress service) met legislated timeframes 97 percent and 94 per cent of the time respectively in 2011, even with increased volumes of activity • achieved a 99% response rate for Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for building information and property records • implemented a remote computing system and increased management oversight in district offices for Bylaw Enforcement, which resulted in a 48% improvement in 2011 investigation response times • improved customer service at the TTC through the continued roll-out of e-alerts with a filtering feature that allows customers to select specific subway lines or surface routes that they prefer to follow, internet trip planner and new next-vehicle-arrivals notification (text messaging service for all surface vehicles)

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

• established a Customer Liaison Panel and a series of regular town hall meetings to hear directly from TTC customers • introduced summertime TTC Station Ambassadors at key downtown stations • continued the Area Street Tree Maintenance Program, which resulted in more efficient service and contributed to fewer complaints • implemented Customer Service Tracker to track complaints and other service request calls from clients of the shelter system and members of the community

Planned for 2012:

• Toronto Building eservice delivery through eplan (Building permit plan review electronic mark-up) and implementation planning for a portal/online solution • address customer expectations efficiently in the Library system through increased self service features including online fines payment and expanded access to e-content including commercial ebooks and digitization of unique materials from the library’s collections • consult and collaborate with the development industry and other City Divisions to improve the Development Application Review process • consolidate the issuance of Utility Cut Permits

Efficiency improvement initiatives

Completed in 2011:

• implemented invoice imaging to support a fully electronic payable solution for accounts payable • managed increases in library usage including circulation (2.9%), in-person visits (3.9%), and Information requests (3.5%) through the installation of automated checkout, and the renovation of the Toronto Reference Library, integrating the stand-alone Periodicals and Newspapers into subject departments • conducted numerous Energy Optimization initiatives at various Toronto Water locations to reduce the overall cost of energy and reduce the carbon footprint • created a more efficient model for the daily sampling of water quality (for swimming ) along the Beaches through the use of Lifeguards • implemented a City-Wide Water Loss Reduction and Leak Detection Program • met installation targets for the Water Meter Program with some Wards achieving 100% completion while others exceeded 95% • reduced lost-time hours in Municipal Child Care Services • achieved a 90% reduction in compensable occupational acquired staff illness in daily work at Long-Term Care homes

Planned for 2012:

• awarded in 2011, the contracting out of daytime residential curbside (solid waste) collection in the area west of Yonge (to commence in August 2012), with an estimated annual saving of $11 million

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

• continue to find operational efficiencies in paramedic staffing in EMS (e.g. new paramedic shift schedule and part-time paramedics) • more effective and efficient staff scheduling in Long-Term Care homes • increase the efficiency of fire prevention inspectors by 10 per cent within three years through the use of mobile tablets and One-Step software introduced in 2009/2010. • increase the efficiency of library processes including the management of library materials, through batch processing and standardization for ordering and receiving, using electronic data interchange with more vendors for orders and invoices, and reducing wait time between processes and movement of collection. Also further automate the processing of customer holds for library materials and automate materials handling in branches through self-service check in and automated materials sorters • reduce the number of yards used by the Transportation Division • acquire and implement an integrated cashiering software solution for cash handling operations for property tax, utility, and parking ticket counter operations • implement on-line payments through banking institutions for the City's accounts receivable • installation of automated meter reading technology (i.e. a radio frequency-based fixed area network) that is being done concurrently with the installation of new or replacement water meters

Initiatives to improve effectiveness

Completed in 2011:

• implemented new Quality Assurance Model in Children's Services for conducting Operating Criteria Assessments • partnered (Children's Services) with the Aboriginal community in the development of a Child and Family Centre Model • decreased the impacts on EMS of Hospital Off-Load Delay through interaction with the Dedicated Offload Nurse Program. The average offload time in August 2011 was 47 minutes representing an improvement of 16.2 minutes per call over the average of 63.2 minutes in early 2008. • continued internal workflow process design changes and implementation of improved EMS computer-aided dispatch technology in the dispatch centre to facilitate the deployment of ambulances to improve response time performance • through the Community Referrals by EMS program, improved patient access to alternative health care options by continued implementation of partnership programs with Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care through Tele-Health referrals, and with Community Care Access Centres • expanded services (Long-Term Care) in dementia care, behavioural response care, and mental health by working with other providers and alleviating alternative level of care pressures in hospitals • completed implementation of a significant upgrade to the Fire CAD (Computer-Aided Dispatch) system, which allowed for implementation of a new Business Intelligence tool that will assist in future quality assurance and improvement initiatives • completed the annual “Alarmed for Life” campaign (a community-based proactive smoke alarm education program) with the the number of residences visited in 2011 increasing to 80,141 12

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

• expanded the services of Central Intake, a call centre for emergency shelters that coordinates access to vacant beds in the shelter system for singles and families and provides eviction prevention services • embedded a continuous safety culture, which resulted in a 10% reduction in resident/client falls in Long-Term Care homes • through Toronto Employment and Social Services (TESS) assisted over 30,000 people to obtain employment, supported 25,500 social assistance recipients to attend education/upgrading programs, and sponsored and conducted 60 job fairs that connected 11,700 residents with potential employers • Increased the diversion rates in 2011 for both houses and apartments with the participation rates in diversion programs being 96% for the blue bin program and 87 per cent for the green bin program • started the Community Recreation Business Transformation project to improve the reporting of programs by providing accurate and consistent information, to start through the reviewing of Aquatic, Summer Camp and Skating program categories • the annual inspection by the Ministry of Environment at the City's wastewater and water treatment facilities achieved full compliance ratings • implemented the City’s Lead in Drinking Water Mitigation Strategy, which includes the Corrosion Control Plan, the Priority Lead Service Replacement Program, and the Faucet Filter Program • achieved 74% beneficial use of biosolids at the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant • undertook/developed (City Planning) key Urban Design initiatives including: launching online Urban Design Streetscape Manual (Winner of City Manager's Toronto Public Service Award), conducted the Weston 2021 Design Initiative and organized the biennial 2011 Toronto Urban Design Awards • achieved a pet adoption rate 93% higher than 2010 under the Animal Services "Fall in Love" Campaign • Planned for 2012:

• improve the average level of quality child care services under contract as measured by the City's Operating Criteria such that the percentage of programs that meet or exceed each item grows from 65% to 90% by 2012 • implement the Fire Code Compliance Program for Hospitals/Care Occupancies for approximately 300 facilities • improve Police Services ability to analyze crimes committed using technology (computer-assisted crimes), particularly frauds and identity theft • enhance access to Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) for homeless/vulnerable people, connecting the homeless with ongoing medical support, and linking homeless people to other service providers through the Homeless to ODSP Project Engagement (HOPE). • implement (TESS) the City Services Benefit Card subject to a successful vendor process and develop a City Workforce Development Strategy for consideration by the Economic Development Committee and City Council • expand the Green Bin program to include apartments and condominiums and non- residential locations such as schools, institutions and charities

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

• establish reusable goods drop-off centres to provide residents with one-stop location for reusable goods • invest in a Mechanical and Biological Treatment Facility to enable more effective separation of organics, recycling and residual waste and to extend the life of the Green Lane Landfill site • ongoing implementation of the Basement Flooding Relief Work Plan, which is a multi- pronged (lot level, storm drainage, and, sewer infrastructure improvements) adaptive management approach to reduce the risk of basement flooding under extreme storm events in 32 chronic basement flooding areas across the City

Initiatives to improve the quality of life of Torontonians

Completed in 2011:

• commenced operation of a dedicated team for Graffiti and as a result in 2011 there was a 329% increase in the number of pro-active graffiti investigations conducted • expanded City-wide initiatives in partnership with the Toronto District School Board on shared lands including play structures and sport fields at Gracedale Park and Highfield Park • provided over 5,000 newcomers (including children, youth and adults) with recreation programs and services free of charge, through the Toronto Newcomer Initiative • continued to achieve tree-planting objectives with the planting of over 100,000 trees across the City and developed and began implementation of the Emerald Ash Borer (a destructive insect that kills ash trees) Management Plan • Bluffer's Park Beach in Scarborough was granted a Blue Flag designation, making it Toronto's eighth beach to achieve world class status. The Blue Flag is a highly respected and internationally recognized eco-label for high-quality swimming beaches. • completed 111 neighbourhood projects to enhance, beautify and green Toronto’s streets • continued to roll-out the $1billion, 25,600 unit, coordinated street furniture program with Council approval for an upgraded and more lucrative info-to-go pillar • through City Planning Services, Transportation and urban design participation in the development of the regional transportation plan (Metrolinx) and planning analysis support for numerous transportation and transit projects and environmental assessments • introduced of a 1000-bicycle, 80-station public bicycle system (BIXI) in May, 2011 • opened new Dogs Off-Leash Areas in five Parks

Planned for 2012:

• finalize plans and begin implementation for Bicentennial Commemoration of the War of 1812 • further advance the implementation of waterfront development, including completion of Underpass Park and accelerated construction of the Athletes Village buildings in the West Don Land; construction start of Queen's Quay Revitalization; and completion of construction of George Brown College in East Bayfront

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Other Methods of Assessing Toronto’s Progress

Toronto’s award winning initiatives

In 2011 Toronto's initiatives received numerous awards from external organizations for initiatives such as, Toronto's Walking Strategy, Toronto's innovative efforts to engage the community in water conservation, Toronto's Dinesafe Restaurant Inspection and Disclosure Program and Toronto's new Browser application http://www.toronto.ca/council for improving access to local government through the use of technology.

Further information on Toronto’s award-winning initiatives can be found at http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/toronto/landing?vgnextoid=ef1c439c7395f210VgnVCM1000 003dd60f89RCRD .

Other indicator reports

This report focuses on performance measurement results in specific service areas. It is by no means the only type of reporting conducted by Toronto in this area. Links to other indicator reports issued by the City of Toronto or in association with the City, are noted below:

• Management Information Dashboard (Quarterly) http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-45690.pdf • Wellbeing Toronto (Neighbourhood Indicators) http://map.toronto.ca/wellbeing/ • Economic Indicators: http://www.toronto.ca/business_publications/indicators.htm • Toronto Community Health Profiles: http://www.torontohealthprofiles.ca/ • Children’s Report Card: http://www.toronto.ca/reportcardonchildren • Federation of Canadian Municipalities - http://www.fcm.ca/home/resources/reports.htm • Vital Signs (Toronto Community Foundation)-http://www.tcf.ca/vitalinitiatives/vitalsigns.html

Toronto in international rankings and reports

Toronto is one of the most liveable and competitive cities in the world as demonstrated by various international rankings and reports issued by external organizations. In addition to securing its position on the world stage, Toronto’s rankings confirm that it continues to offer a high quality of life for the 2.7 million residents who live and work here. Highlights of these rankings are provided below and more information is available at www.toronto.ca/progress/world_rankings.htm

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Toronto ranked #2 in Top 10 Smart Cities on the Planet

In its first global ranking of smart cities, Fast Company magazine ranks Toronto second only to Vienna as a top smart city and the highest ranked North American city. Says the magazine, "Smart cities use information and communication technologies to be more intelligent and efficient in the use of resources, resulting in cost and energy savings, improved service delivery and quality of life, and reduced environmental footprint - all supporting innovation and the low-carbon economy."

8th on the Toronto Board of Trade's scorecard on prosperity

Toronto ranked as the eighth most prosperous city in the Toronto Board of Trade's 2012 report among the world’s 24 urban regions across an array of indicators, behind Paris, San Francisco, Calgary, London, Dallas, Seattle and Boston. Toronto excelled in the Labour Attractiveness category, benefiting from a highly diverse population base, strong and consistent population growth, a low homicide rate and an affordable cost of living.

15th in Mercer worldwide Quality of Living survey

The 2011 Mercer Quality of Living survey ranked Toronto 15 out of 50 cities worldwide. In 2010 Toronto was ranked 16th. Canadian cities again dominated the 2011 rankings in the Americas. The annual survey evaluates 221 cities based on various measures relating to quality of living, such as political, social, economic and environmental factors, safety, public services and transportation, and recreation. In a related personal safety survey, Toronto is ranked 17th out of 50.

Toronto steady in 10th place in survey of 75 world finance centres

In the September 2011 Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI) 10 (PDF), Toronto is ranked tenth in the world and the fifth most likely to become more significant as a financial centre in the next few years. The GFCI is updated every six months and provides profiles, ratings and rankings for 75 world financial centres.

Toronto #12 in Global Economic Power Index

The Global Economic Power Index ranks the 25 most economically powerful cities in the world. The index rated cities for economic output, global economic power score, financial centre score and innovation.

Toronto continues to be world's fourth most liveable city

Toronto is ranked fourth for the third time after only Melbourne, Vienna and Vancouver in the Economist Intelligence Unit's August 2011 Livability Ranking Report of 140 world cities. Cities are ranked on political and social stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education and infrastructure.

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Toronto 9th overall: USA and Canada Green City Index

The USA and Canada Green City Index analyzes the environmental sustainability of 27 major metropolitan areas in both countries conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit for Siemens AG. The index scored 27 American and Canadian cities in nine categories: CO2, energy, land use, buildings. transport, water, waste, air and environmental governance.

Toronto is Canada's most sustainable large city

In the 2011 Corporate Knights Sustainable Cities survey. Toronto was ranked Canada's most sustainable large city. The survey studied 28 indicators of sustainability in five categories — ecological integrity, economic security, infrastructure and built environment, governance and empowerment and social well-being. Seventeen Canadian cities were surveyed.

#10 Innovation Cities™ Top 100 Index

Toronto ranked #10 in among the top cities to live, work and play for the innovation economy in the Innovation Cities™ Top 100 Index of global innovation economy, conducted by the Australian consulting innovation analysts, 2thinknow.

Cities of Opportunity: second overall

The fourth annual Cities of Opportunity, a report from Price Waterhouse Coopers and the Partnership for New York City, is a quantitative and qualitative look at 2011's emerging picture of city life in 26 world capitals of finance, commerce and culture in 10 broad categories. Toronto ranked second overall, and second after New York in both finance and intellectual capital and innovation, as well as health, safety and security.

Toronto in the top 10 American Cities of the Future

In its first American Cities of the Future 2011/12 report, fDiIntelligence (a division of the Financial Times) awarded Toronto seven top 10 rankings including city of the future (#4), economic potential (#3), infrastructure (#5) and quality of life. fDiIntelligence provides industry leading insight into globalization that allow organizations such as investment promotion agencies, companies, services providers and academic institutions to make informed decisions about foreign direct investment and associated activities.

One of the top 10 global leaders of financial centres

In the March 2011 Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI 9), Toronto has risen from 12th place to equal 10th with Sydney, Australia and is considered the clear leader in Canada. Toronto remains among the top three global leaders in North America. The GFCI 9 report evaluated the competitiveness of 75 financial centres worldwide using results of online surveys completed by financial services leaders. The survey is updated every six months.

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Second greenest Canadian city in leading the fight against climate change

The World Wildlife Fund Canada's Earth Hour List, compiled in partnership with Corporate Knights, highlights positive actions being taken by municipalities to fight climate change. Toronto is ranked second with a score of 7.2 out of ten.

Five Toronto-based Canadian banks ranked among the top 25 safest banks

The Global Finance Magazine April 2012 edition showed five Toronto-based Canadian banks ranked among the top 25 safest banks in the world. A story in the January 2012 edition of the Global Finance Magazine, indicates Toronto's 320,000 jobs in financial services will increase by 100,000 banking jobs by 2020 and Toronto is on track to become one of the largest global banking centres – overtaking London in the number of banking jobs by 2017 according to Moody's Analytics.

Toronto placed fourth among the top 25 cities in the world to launch a successful new tech company

According to Startup Genome, a research company that collects data about entrepreneurial ecosystems, in April 2012 Toronto placed fourth among the top 25 cities in the world as an entrepreneurial environment to launch a successful new tech company

Global City Indicators

In November 2005, Toronto staff joined with World Bank officials in an initiative to develop an integrated approach for measuring and monitoring the performance of cities. The objective of this initiative was to develop a standardized set of city indicators that measure and monitor city performance and quality of life at a global level.

This initiative will benefit Toronto by expanding its current benchmarking work beyond Ontario and Canada to include other large international cities.

The indicators cover a total of 22 theme areas. Eight of the themes relate to quality of life indicators such as civic engagement, culture, economy and the environment.

Fourteen of the theme areas relate to city services and are designed to capture the service levels or amount of resources each city devotes to delivery of the service and the outcomes or impacts of that service on the city. Examples of service areas included are fire services, recreation services, police services, social services, solid waste management services, water and wastewater services.

As of March 2012, there were 171 cities in 61 countries represented in the Global City Indicators Facility, which included members from:

• Australia - Melbourne • Brazil – Sao Paulo, Belo Horizonte, and Porto Alegre • Canada – Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver • Chile - Santiago • Columbia – Bogotá and Cali • England – Birmingham 18

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

• Finland - Helsinki • France- Paris • Indonesia - Jakarta • India - Mumbai • Italy- Milan • Iran – Tehran • Israel – Tel Aviv • Jordan - Amman • Netherlands - Rotterdam • Peru - Lima • Portugal – Lisbon • South Africa - Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban • Spain- Madrid and Barcelona • United Arab Emirates - Dubai • USA - King County (Regional Seattle), Portland and Dallas

Toronto is seen as a leader in this initiative, proactively providing measures and indicators to benchmark service delivery and quality of life. The ability to compare and benchmark internationally and to establish and share better practices through the available networks can be invaluable.

Toronto has provided a full data set, to the GCIF but the results of other cities are not available to us as yet. In 2012 the GCIF will be encouraging its city members to agree to have their data publicly reportable, which in the future will allow Toronto to compare its results to these other international cities and include this information in future reports. This will provide a valuable additional source of information to assess how well Toronto is doing from both a service delivery and quality of life perspective.

For further information on Global Cities Indicators Facility, please visit http://www.cityindicators.org/

For additional information on the City of Toronto’s progress please visit our website www.toronto.ca/progress

CONTACT:

Lorne Turner Manager, Performance Management City Manager’s Office Phone: (416) 397-0533 Fax: (416) 392-1827 E-mail: [email protected]

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Guide to Toronto’s Performance Measurement Results Summaries

Toronto’s Performance measurement framework for service delivery

The City of Toronto’s performance measurement framework for service delivery is similar to that used by other OMBI municipalities and includes the following four categories of indicators and measures:

1. Service/Activity Level Indicators - provide an indication of service/activity levels by reflecting the amount of resources approved by City Council or the volumes of service delivered to residents. For the purposes of comparing to other municipalities and to reflect Toronto's population growth over time, results are often expressed on a common basis, such as the number of units of service provided per 100,000 population.

Performance Measures 2. Efficiency - measures the resources used in relation to the number of units of service provided or delivered. Typically this is expressed in terms of cost per unit of service. 3. Customer Service - measures the quality of service delivered relative to service standards or the customer’s needs and expectations 4. Community Impact - measures the outcome, impact or benefit the City program has on the communities they serve in relation to the intended purpose or societal outcomes expected. These often tie to the program or service mission statements.

City staff are responsible for the efficient delivery of services with the highest customer service and/or positive impact on the community as possible, with the financial resources and associated service levels and/or standards approved by Council.

Balancing the optimal combination of efficiency and customer service or community impact is an ongoing challenge. Too much focus on efficiency in isolation may have an adverse impact on customer service or community impact and vice versa.

It is a challenge to separate the portion of community impact measures or outcomes that are related to City programs from the efforts or responsibilities of partners such as other orders of government or the private sector.

Using this performance measurement framework, Toronto’s results are examined from an internal perspective reviewing trends over a period of years and from an external perspective in relation to the results of other Ontario and Canadian municipalities.

Comparing Toronto’s results internally over time

Over 25 million tourists visit Toronto each year and there is an estimated daily influx of 314,000 non-resident vehicles entering the City from surrounding regions during the morning rush hours, in addition to non-residents entering the City via public transit. These factors pose special demands on Toronto’s services. Even Toronto’s largest single-tier municipal comparators within Ontario such as Hamilton and Ottawa have a significant rural component that Toronto does not. 20

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

The most accurate comparison for any municipality is to examine one’s own year-over-year performance and longer-term historical trends and up to eleven years of Toronto’s internal data is included in this report.

Figure 7 – Comparing Toronto's Internal Trends

To aid the comparison and review of Toronto’s 2010 vs. 2009 results, Figure 7 below, describes the conditions under which a colour code and descriptor is assigned to the service/activity level indicator or performance measures included in this report.

Using this colour scheme, colour coded summaries describing Toronto's internal trends, along with a page reference to more detailed charts/graphs and explanations, are provided:

• at the beginning of each of the 28 service area sections • in a consolidated summary of results for all service areas on pages 29 to 62

• Toronto’s service levels, (the Indicator of Service/Activity Levels Indicators - amount of resources devoted to the service) or the volume of activity increased service or delivered to residents has over the time period. This is activity levels increased based on the general assumption for most services that increasing

service levels are the favoured or desired goal. For some services or increased levels of activity may not be a desired societal goal (example

social programs or emergency services) but it reflects increased

consumption of resources required to provide the service

favourable • performance Efficiency, Customer Service or Community Impact Measures– Toronto’s result is improved over the time period or is the best possible result.

• - Toronto’s service/activity levels Service or activity Service/Activity Level Indicators have been over the period. levels are stable maintained or are stable

performance is • Efficiency, Customer Service or Community Impact Measures - stable Toronto’s result has remained stable over the period.

• Toronto’s service levels, (the Indicator of Service/Activity Level Indicators amount of resources devoted to the service), or the volume of activity decreased service or delivered to residents has over the time period. This is activity levels decreased based on the general assumption for most services that increasing

service levels are the favoured or desired goal. For some services

decreased levels of activity may be a desired societal goal (example

social programs or emergency services) but also reflects a decrease in

consumption of resources required to provide the service or

unfavourable • performance Efficiency, Customer Service or Community Impact Measures – Toronto’s result has declined over the time period.

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Comparing Toronto’s results externally to other Ontario municipalities

Despite Toronto's unique characteristics, there is value in comparing performance measurement results to other municipalities to assist in understanding how well Toronto is doing.

Toronto is an active participant in the Ontario Municipal CAOs Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI.) The following 16 municipalities, including Toronto comprise OMBI and serve more than 10.2 million residents. We are pleased that the Cities of Winnipeg (Manitoba) and Calgary (Alberta) have also joined OMBI, and for the first time their results have also been included in this report in several of the service areas. The OMBI members, their municipal abbreviations used in charts of this report, and their 2010 population are noted in the table below.

Municipal abbreviations used in charts Population Single-Tier Municipalities Bar City of Barrie 141,000 Calg City of Calgary (Alberta) 1,071,515 Ham City of Hamilton 528,502 Lon City of London 365,200 Ott City of Ottawa 917,570 Sud City of Greater Sudbury 158,900 T-Bay City of Thunder Bay 109,140 Tor City of Toronto 2,773,000 Wind City of Windsor 219,345 Winn City of Winnipeg (Manitoba) 684,100 Upper Tier Municipalities Dur Regional Municipality of Durham 621,420 Halt Regional Municipality of Halton 492,100 Musk District of Muskoka 63,041 Niag Regional Municipality of Niagara 443,866 Wat Regional Municipality of Waterloo 543,700 York Regional Municipality of York 1,061,983

In order to determine Toronto’s ranking relative to other municipalities, OMBI data has been sorted according to what would be considered as the most desirable result from Toronto’s perspective (the highest service/activity level or best efficiency, customer service or community impact) to the least desirable result. This is to provide context to Toronto’s own results.

It is important to note that the presentation of sorted municipal data in the charts of this report is not intended to make inferences on the relative service levels or performance of other municipalities. It is only intended to provide context to Toronto’s own results. Each of the other 15 municipalities has different factors that influence their results to varying degrees. It would therefore be unfair to interpret or make conclusions about the relative efficiency or effectiveness of their operations without that understanding and without contacting staff in those municipalities. Results of other municipalities are as of November 16, 2011.

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Once the municipal data is sorted, the median result of the data set is identified and Toronto’s result is placed in the appropriate quartile, with a quartile dividing the municipal results into quarters. The first/top quartile represents municipalities falling within the top 25 per cent of the results. The second quartile includes municipalities falling within 26 to 50 per cent of the sample meaning they are still better than, or at the median value. Results in the third or fourth quartile are considered to be below the median. The third quartile includes municipalities located within 51 to 75 per cent of the sample and the fourth/bottom quartile represents municipalities falling within the bottom 76 to 100 per cent of the sample.

The example in Figure 8 illustrates medians and quartiles using a set of nine numbers. In this example, the number 1 would be the most desirable result indicative of the highest service levels or the highest level of efficiency, customer service or beneficial impact on the community. Conversely, the number 9 would be the least desirable result. The number in the middle of the data set (5 in this case) is referred to as the median. The data set is divided into quartiles (quarters). Toronto’s result is placed in the applicable quartile, with each quartile identified by a colour and description, as noted below.

Figure 8

Median Municipal Result

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

First (top) Second quartile Third quartile Fourth (bottom) quartile (26% to 50% of (51% to 75% quartile municipalities including (1% to 25% of of municipalities) (76% to 100% municipalities) median) of municipalities)

(Dark Green) (Light Green) (Yellow) (Red)

The first and second quartiles represent: • Service/activity level indicators – service/activity levels being volumes of resources approved by City Council or the levels of activity provided to residents, that are higher than the median • Efficiency, customer service and community impact measures - results that are better than the median

The third and fourth quartiles represent: • Service level indicators – service/activity levels being volumes of resources approved by Council or the levels of activity provided to residents, that are lower than the median • Efficiency, customer service and community impact measures - results that are below the median

Using this colour scheme, colour coded summaries describing Toronto's internal trends, along with a page reference to more detailed charts/graphs and explanations, are provided:

• at the beginning of each of the 28 service area sections • in a consolidated summary of results for all service areas on pages 29 to 62

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How to interpret Toronto’s performance measurement result summaries

Each of the 28 service areas in this report includes a summary at the beginning of their respective sections, of Toronto’s internal and external performance measurement results.

There is also a consolidated summary by service area on pages 27– 62. Figure 9 below, provides an illustration of these summaries.

Figure 9

Toronto’s 2010 results compared externally to other Toronto’s results are compared internally OMBI municipalities – results are summarized and from 2010 to 2009 to identify trends. Those colour-coded by quartile relative OMBI median: trends are colour-coded and described in

figure 3 st Technical • 1 quartile-better than median- dark green name of • 2nd quartile- better than median– light green measure • 3rd quartile - worse than median– yellow • 4th quartile - worse than median– red

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart Chart & Page

Question of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page reference in 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) format - to be Ref. By Quartile for 20 10 report for answered by Service Level Indicators more detailed results of How many units of Unit of service per Favourable 2 1.1 information indicator or service are delivered? 100,000 population 1.2 measure (Service Level) Increase units of service Higher service levels

provided

Community Impact Measures

How often is this type of Rate of incidence per Favourable 3 1.3

occurrence happening? 100,000 population 1.4

Incidence rate has High rate of incidence Category of

decreased Indicator or

Customer Service Measures /Measure

How long does it take to Average response time Stable 1 1.5

respond to a call for in hours (customer 1.6

service? s ervice) Response time Shorter response time

Efficiency Measures

How much does it cost to Cost per widget Unfavourable 4 1.7

provide a widget? 1.8

Increasing cost per High cost per widget

widget

Overall Results Service Level Perf ormance Service Level Performance Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results) Summary 1 - Increase 2 - Favourable 0 - 1st quartile 1 - 1st quartile 0 - Stable 2 - Stable 1 - 2nd quartile 0 - 2nd quartile comparing 0 - Decrease 0 - Unfavour . 0 - 3 rd quartile 1 - 3rd quartile 0 - 4th quartile 1 - 4th quartile Toronto's 2010

10 0% increase 100 % favourable 75 % above 60 % above performance or stable or stable median median measurement

results (community impact, Summary of change in Summary of change in Toronto's Summary comparing customer Toronto's service / performance measures Toronto's 2010 service service or activity level indicators (community impact, customer level indicators to other efficiency) to between 2009 and 2010 service or efficiency) between municipalities other 2009 and 2010 municipalities

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How to interpret charts of Toronto’s internal results

Figure 10 illustrates how charts on Toronto’s internal short and longer term trends are presented in each service section. Figure 10

Question to be How many units of service are provided in Toronto? answered by result

Colour describes 2010 vs. 2009 trend

Unit of Measure

Year data collected

Toronto result

Technical name of Chart 1.1 (City of Toronto) Number of units provides (Service Level) the measure

How to interpret charts comparing Toronto’s result to other municipalities

Figure 11 illustrates how charts in each service section comparing Toronto’s 2010 results to other municipalities are presented. Figure 11 Question to How much does it cost in Toronto compared to other municipalities? be answered by results

Median Line and Value

Municipality

Unit of Measure

Municipal Result (includes 2009 Technical Chart 2.1 (OMBI 2009) Cost per unit (Efficiency) PSAB changes for Name of the costing measures) Measure

Municipal results sorted from most favourable or desirable result (left) to the least favourable or desirable result (right), in order to determine Toronto’s ranking. Toronto’s result is highlighted with the appropriate colour indicating the quartile in which Toronto's result falls.

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Basis of costing used in this report

Cost-based measures for Toronto included in this report may differ from those used in other Toronto reports. For the purposes of comparability, all OMBI municipalities follow a standard costing methodology that includes the allocation of program support costs such as Human Resources and Information and Technology. This methodology is applied for all costing measures unless another data source has been noted.

To reflect the impact of inflation over long periods of time where appropriate, costs that adjust for changes in Toronto’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) to reflect the impact of inflation are provided.

Effective January 1, 2009, Toronto and all other Ontario municipalities adopted the Public Sector Accounting Board Section 3150 (Tangible Capital Asset) and 1200 (Financial Statement Presentation), of the reporting handbook. This was a major undertaking and represented the largest change ever in municipal accounting. The following amounts were included in Toronto's operating costs for the first time in 2009 and continued in 2010:

• annual change in unfunded liabilities • capital maintenance costs (reported as capital expenditures in prior years), but considered as an operating expenditure with the introduction of Tangible Capital Asset (TCA) accounting. The impacts of TCA can be significant for those services such as roads, water and wastewater that have significant infrastructure.

Because these accounting policy changes only took effect for 2009 reporting, costing measures for 2008 and prior years are not comparable to those of 2009 and 2010. In order to improve the comparability of 2009 and 2010 results to prior years, the impact of these accounting policy changes have been identified and segregated. Figure 12 illustrates how Toronto's results for costing measures are presented, using a stacked bar, in order to make appropriate comparisons to results of prior years.

Figure 12

Top section of stacked Question What is the cost per unit of service? bar quantifies the impact of change in accounting policy. Total of the two stacked bars provides the 2010 result, shown Unit of on top of bar Measure Toronto’s result for applicable year

Includes: 1) 2010 result under former accounting Legend policies so that it is comparable to 2008 and prior years 2) separate figure for to separate the impact of Chart 1.1(City of Toronto) Cost per Unit of Service (Efficiency) CPI adjusted relative accounting policy to base year change

CCoonnssoolliiddaatteedd SSuummmmaarryy ooff TToorroonnttoo’’ss RReessuullttss bbyy SSeerrvviiccee AArreeaa

Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 Accounts Payable Services – Part 1

Accounts Payable Services - Customer Service Measures How long does it take Percentage of Decreased 3 1.1 to pay an accounts Invoices Paid Within 1.2 payable invoice? 30 Days -(Customer Time to pay A/P invoices High number of days Service) has decreased/improved required to process pg. with approximately 71% invoices compared to 66 paid within 30 days others Accounts Payable Services -Efficiency Measures Have discounts Percentage of Early Stable 1.3 offered for early Payment Discounts Not payment of invoices Achieved – Percentage of early Available pg. been obtained? (Efficiency) payment discounts 66 achieved is stable How many invoices Number of Invoices Increased 3 1.4 are processed by Paid per Accounts 1.5 each accounts Payable FTE – Number of invoices Low rate for number of payable staff (Efficiency) processed per staff invoices processed per pg. member? member increased staff member compared 67 to others How many accounts Number of Increased 1 1.6 payable transaction Transaction Lines lines are processed Paid per Accounts Number of lines Higher rate for number of pg. by each accounts Payable FTE – processed per staff lines processed per staff 67 payable staff (Efficiency) member increased member compared to member? others How much does it Accounts Payable Decreased 4 1.7 cost to process an Cost per Invoice Paid accounts payable – (Efficiency) Cost per invoice paid Highest cost per invoice pg. invoice? decreased paid compared to others 67

Building Services – Part 2

Building Services - Service /Activity Level Indicators How many building Number of Building Increased 4 2.1 permits of all types Permits (ICI and 2.2 are issued? Residential) Issued Number of total permits Lower rate of total per 100,000 issued increased permits issued pg. Population – (Activity compared to others 73 Level) (activity level indicator) (activity level indicator)

(impacted by Toronto's fully developed urban form)

29 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 How many large Number of Residential Increased 2.1 residential building Building Permits 2.2 permits are issued? Issued (of Number of residential N/A Construction Value permits >$50,000 issued pg. ≥ $50,000) per increased 73 100,000 Population– (Activity Level) (activity level indicator) How many small Number of Residential Increased 2.1 residential building Building Permits 2.2 permits are issued? Issued (of Number of residential N/A Construction Value permits issued <$50,000 pg. < $50,000) per increased 73 100,000 Population– (Activity Level) (activity level indicator ) How many Number of ICI Increased 3 2.1 institutional, Building Permits 2.2 commercial and Issued per 100,000 Number of ICI permits Low rate of ICI permits industrial (ICI) Population– (Activity issued increased issued compared to pg. building permits are Level) others 73 issued? (activity level indicator) (activity level indicator)

(impacted by fully developed urban form) Building Services - Community Impact Measures What is the Construction Value of Increased 1 2.3 construction value for Total Building Permits 2.4 all types of building Issued per capita – Total value of all Higher rate of total permits issued? (Community Impact) construction types construction value of all pg. increased permit types compared 74 to others What is the Construction Value of Stable 2.3 construction value of Residential Building 2.4 small residential Permits Issued (of Value of small residential N/A building permits Construction Value < construction projects pg. issued? $50,000) per capita – (<$50,000) was stable 74 (Community Impact) What is the Construction Value of Increased 2.3 construction value of Residential Building N/A 2.4 large residential Permits Issued (of Value of large residential building permits Construction Value > construction (>$50,000) pg. 74 issued? $50,000) per capita – increased (Community Impact)

30 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 What is the Construction Value of Increased 2.3 construction value of ICI Building Permits N/A 2.4 institutional, Issued per capita – Value of ICI construction commercial and (Community Impact) increased pg. 74 industrial (ICI) building permits (impacted by 2009 recession) issued? What is the ratio of Percentage of Increased 2 2.5 residential and Construction Value of 2.6 commercial Issued ICI Building Proportion of commercial High proportion of construction activity? Permits of the Total & industrial construction commercial industrial pg. 75 Construction Value of value increased construction value Issued Building compared to others Permits– (Community Impact) How many new New Residential Units Increased 2 2.7 housing units are Created per 100,000 being created? Population – Number of new High rate of new pg. 75 (Community Impact) residential units created residential units created increased compared to others Building Services - Customer Service Measures Are building permit Percentage of Stable 2.8 applications reviewed Building Permit N/A 2.9 within the legislated Applications Stable proportion (82%) timeframe? Reviewed within reviewed within legislated pg. 76 legislated timeframes timeframe – (Customer Service) in 2011 Are Residential % of Residential Stable 2.10 Fastrack building Fastrack Building N/A permit applications Permits Issued Within Stable and high pg. 76 reviewed within the Legislated proportion (97%) legislated timeframe? Timeframes reviewed within legislated (Customer Service) timeframe in 2011

Are Commercial % of Commercial Stable 2.11 Xpress building Xpress Building N/A permit applications Permits Issued Within Stable and high pg. 76 reviewed within the Legislated proportion (94%) legislated timeframe? Timeframes reviewed within legislated (Customer Service) timeframe in 2011

Are mandatory Percentage of Stable 2.12 building inspections Mandatory N/A made within the Inspections made Stable and high pg. 76 legislated timeframe? within legislated proportion (93%) timeframes – inspected within (Customer Service) legislated timeframe in 2011

31 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 Building Services - Efficiency Measures How much does it Building Cost per Decreased 2 2.13 cost on average to $1,000 construction 2.14 enforce the Building value – (Efficiency) Cost per $1,000 of Low cost to enforce Code per $1,000 of construction value Building Code per $1,000 construction value? decreased of construction permit pg. issued compared to 77 others Bylaw Services – Part 3

Bylaw Services – Service / Activity Level Indicators How much is spent Total Specified Bylaw Increased 2 3.1 on bylaw Enforcement Cost per enforcement per Capita - (Service Spending per capita on High rate of spending pg. 82 capita? Level) bylaw enforcement per capita on Bylaw increased Enforcement

(service level indicator) (service level indicator) How many bylaw Number of Increased 2 3.2 enforcement Inspections per Bylaw 3.3 inspections are done Complaint - (Service Rate of inspections Low rate of inspections in relation to the Level) relative to complaints relative to complaints pg. 82 number of increased compared to others complaints? (service level indicator) (service level indicator) Bylaw Services – Community Impact Measures How many bylaw Number of Specified Increased 3 3.4 complaints do Bylaw Complaints per 3.5 residents make? 100,000 Population - Number of complaints High rate of complaints (Community Impact) received increased received compared to pg. 83 others What per cent of Percentage of Stable 2 3.6 residents voluntarily Voluntary Compliance 3.7 comply after a bylaw to Bylaw Infractions - Rate of voluntary High rate of voluntary infraction? (Community Impact) compliance remained compliance compared to pg. 83 stable at very high/good others rates Bylaw Services – Customer Service Measures How long does it take Average Time (Days) Decreased 4 3.8 to resolve a yard to Resolve/Close 3.9 maintenance bylaw Yard Maintenance Time to resolve yard Longest time to resolve complaint? Bylaw Complaints – maintenance complaint yard maintenance pg. 84 (Customer Service) decreased complaint compared to others

32 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 How long does it take Average Time (Days) Decreased 4 3.10 to resolve a property to Resolve/Close standards bylaw Property Standards Time to resolve property Longest time to resolve pg. 84 complaint? Bylaw Complaints – standard complaint property standards (Customer Service) decreased complaint compared to others

Children's Services – Part 4

Children's Services – Service Level Indicators How much is spent or Investment per 1,000 Increased 1 4.1 invested for childcare Children (12 & under - 4.2 per child (aged 12 (Service Level) Investment/gross cost Highest rate/level of and under)? per child increased expenditures on children pg. 88 compared to others (service level indicator)

(service level indicator)

Children's Services – Community Impact Measures How many regulated Regulated Child Care Stable 2 4.3 childcare spaces are Spaces in Municipality 4.4 available? per 1,000 Children Number of regulated High rate of regulated pg. 89 (12 & under) in spaces was stable spaces compared to Municipality – others (Community Impact)

How many subsidized Fee Subsidy Stable 3 4.5 childcare spaces are Child Care 4.6 available? Spaces per 1,000 Number of subsidized Low rate of subsidized pg. 90 LICO Children – spaces was stable spaces compared to Community others Impact)

What percentage of Percentage of Stable 4 4.6 children under 12 Children in the years old are Municipality (12 and Proportion of low income Highest proportion of pg. 90 considered low under) that are LICO children is stable at low income children income children? Children -– approximately 33 per cent compared to others (Community Impact)

33 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 How large is the Size of Waiting List for Increased 4 4.7 waiting list for a a Subsidized Child 4.8 subsidized child care Care Space as a % of Size of wait list for a Larger waiting list for a space? All Subsidized Spaces subsidized space subsidized child care pg. 90 – (Community Impact) increased space compared to others

Children's Services – Efficiency Measures How much does it Annual Child Care Decreased 4 4.9 cost per year, to Service Cost per 4.10 provide an average Normalized Child Decrease in cost per Higher cost per child care space? Care Space – subsidized space subsidized space pg. 91 (Efficiency) compared to others

Cultural Services – Part 5

Cultural Services – Service Level Indicators How much is spent Cost of All Cultural Increased 1 5.1 on all cultural Services per Capita - 5.2 services? (Service Level) Spending on cultural Higher rate of spending services per capita on Cultural Services per pg. 96 increased capita compared to others (service level indicator)

(service level indicator)

How much is spent Cost of Arts Grants Increase 1 5.3 on arts grants? per Capita (Service 5.4 Level) Spending on arts grants Higher rate of spending per capita increased on arts grants per capita pg. 97 compared to others (service level indicator) (service level indicator)

Cultural Services – Community Impact Measures How many people Estimated Attendance Increased 5.5 attend city-funded at City-Funded cultural events? Cultural Events – Attendance at cultural N/A pg. 98 (Community Impact) events increased

34 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 Are recipients of arts Arts Grants issued by Stable 1 5.6 grants able to use municipality as a 5.7 those grants to obtain Percentage of the Arts grants as % of Toronto Arts grants are a other revenues? Gross Revenue of recipients gross revenue lower percentage of pg. 98 Recipients – was stable recipients gross revenue (Community Impact) (less dependent on City compared to others for funding) Emergency Medical Services – Part 6

Emergency Medical Services – Service / Activity Level Indicators How many hours are EMS Actual Weighted Increased 4 6.1 EMS vehicles Vehicle In-Service 6.2 in-service and Hours per 1,000 Increased number of Lower rate of available to respond Population - (Service in-service vehicle hours in-service vehicle hours pg. to emergencies? Level) compared to others 104 (service level indicator) (service level indicator) (2009 was low due to strike) (high population density cities like Toronto, have shorter travel distances and may require fewer vehicle hours) How many EMS vehicle Increased 2 6.3 emergency vehicle responses – 6.5 responses are Emergency per 1,000 Number of emergency High rate of performed by EMS Population - (Activity vehicle responses emergency vehicle pg. Level) increased responses compared to 105 (activity level indicator) others

(2009 was lower due to strike) (activity level indicator) How many non- EMS vehicle Decreased 2 6.3 emergency vehicle responses – Non 6.5 responses are Emergency per 1,000 Number of non- Higher rate of non- Pg performed by EMS? Population - (Activity emergency responses emergency responses 105 Level) decreased compared to other municipalities but less (activity level indicator) than 5% of total responses and is declining

(activity level indicator)

How many total All EMS vehicle Increased 2 6.3 vehicle responses responses per 1,000 6.5 (emergency & non- Population (Activity Number of total vehicle High rate of pg. emergency) are Level) responses increased total EMS vehicle 105 performed by EMS? (activity level indicator) responses compared to others (2009 was lower due to strike) (activity level indicator)

35 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 Emergency Medical Services – Community Impact Measures What percentage of Percentage of Stable 4 6.6 time do ambulances Ambulance Time Lost 6.7 spend at hospitals to Hospital Percentage of lost Higher percentage of lost pg. transferring patients? Turnaround - ambulance time was ambulance time 106 (Community Impact) stable compared to others Emergency Medical Services – Customer Service Measures How long does it take EMS, 90th Percentile Increased 2 6.8 from the time an EMS Crew Notification 6.9 crew is notified, to Response Time to Crew notification Low (short) crew arrive at the Life Threatening Calls response time increased notification response pg. emergency scene? – (Customer Service) time compared to others 107 How long does it take EMS 90th Percentile Increased 2 6.8 from the time the Total (excluding 9-1- pg. EMS communication 1) Response Time to Total EMS response time Total EMS response time 107 centre is notified of Life Threatening Calls increased at median compared to the call, to arrive at - (Customer Service) others the emergency scene? Emergency Medical Services – Efficiency Measures What does it cost for EMS Cost per Patient Increased 2 6.10 EMS to transport a Transported - 6.11 patient? (Efficiency) Cost per patient Low cost per patient pg. transported increased transported compared to 108 others What is the hourly EMS Cost per Actual Increased 4 6.12 cost to have an EMS Weighted Vehicle 6.13 vehicle in-service, Service Hour – Cost per in-service Highest cost per in- pg. available to respond (Efficiency) vehicle hour increased service vehicle hour 109 to emergencies? compared to others Fire Services – Part 7

Fire Services – Service / Activity Level Indicators How many hours are Number of Fire In- Stable 3 7.1 fire vehicles in- Service Vehicle Hours 7.2 service and available (Urban Area) per Vehicle hours in-service Low rate of in-service to respond to Capita – (Service are stable vehicle hours compared pg. emergencies? Level) to others 115 (service level indicator) (service level indicator)

(high population density cities like Toronto, have shorter travel distances and may require fewer vehicle hours)

36 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 How many Number of Unique Increased 1 7.3 emergency incidents Incidents Responded 7.4 does Fire Services to by Fire Services Number of total incidents Higher rate of total respond to each per 1,000 Urban responded to increased incidents responded to pg. year? Population – (Activity compared to others 116 Level) (activity level indicator)

(activity level indicator) How many property Number of Property Decreased 1 7.3 fires, explosions and Fires, Explosions and 7.4 alarms does Fire Alarms per 1,000 Number of fires, Higher rate of fires, Services respond to Urban Population – explosions and alarms explosions and alarms pg. each year? (Activity Level) responded to, decreased responded to compared 116 slightly to others

(activity level indicator) (activity level indicator) How many rescues Number of Rescues Increased 3 7.3 does Fire Services per 1,000 Urban 7.4 respond to each Population – (Activity Increase in number of Low rate of rescues year? Level) rescues responded to compared pg. to others 116 (activity level indicator) (activity level indicator) How many medical Number of Medical Increased 1 7.3 calls does Fire Calls per 1,000 Urban 7.4 Services respond to Population – (Activity Increase in number of Higher rate of medical each year? Level) medical responses responses compared to pg. others 116 (activity level indicator) (activity level indicator) How many public Number of Public Decreased 2 7.3 hazard and other Hazard & Other 7.4 incidents does Fire Incidents per 1,000 Number of hazard & other High rate of hazard & Services respond to Urban Population – incidents responded to is other incidents pg. each year? (Activity Level) decreasing responded to compared 116 to others (activity level indicator) (activity level indicator) Fire Services – Community Impact Measures How many residential Rate of Residential Decreased 1 7.5 fires, with property Structural Fires with 7.6 loss, occur? Losses per 1,000 Rate of residential fires Lower rate of residential Households – decreased fires compared to others pg. (Community Impact) 117

37 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 What is the rate of Residential Fire Decreased 1 7.7 injuries from Related Injuries per 7.8 residential fires? 100,000 Population – Rate of fire related Lowest rate of fire (Community Impact) injuries decreased related injuries pg. compared to others 118

What is the rate of Residential Fire Decreased 2 7.9 fatalities from Related Fatalities per 7.10 residential fires? 100,000 Population – Rate of fire related Low rate of fire related (Community Impact) fatalities increased fatalities compared to pg. others 118

Fire Services – Customer Service Measures How long does it take Actual – 90th Stable 2 7.11 (response time) for Percentile Station 7.12 Fire Services to arrive Notification Response Station notification Station notification at the scene of Time for Fire Services response time was stable response time is at pg. emergency? in Urban Component median compared to 119 of Municipality – others (Customer Service) Fire Services – Efficiency Measures What does it cost per Fire Operating Cost Increased 3 7.13 hour, to have a front- (Urban Areas) per In- 7.14 line fire vehicle Service Vehicle Hour Cost per in-service High cost per in-service available to respond – (Efficiency) vehicle hour increased vehicle hour compared pg. to emergencies? to others 120

General Revenue Services – Part 8

General Revenue Services – Efficiency Measures How long does it take Average Collection Stable 2 8.1 for the municipality to Period for Accounts 8.2 receive payment on Receivable in Days - Number of days to Low number of days to invoices issued? (Efficiency) receive payment on receive payment on pg. invoices issued was invoices issued 125 stable compared to others

How many of the Bad Debt Write-off as Decreased 2 8.3 invoices billed are a Percentage of 8.4 never collected? Revenue Billed - Level of uncollectable Low rate of uncollectable (Efficiency) amounts decreased to amounts compared to pg. 0.02% others 125

38 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 How much does it Cost of the Accounts Decreased 3 8.5 cost to bill and collect Receivable Function 8.6 an accounts per Invoice Issued- Cost per invoice High cost per invoice receivable invoice? (Efficiency) decreased compared to others pg. 126 How much does it Cost of the Accounts Decreased 1 8.7 cost to bill and collect Receivable Function $1,000 of billings? per $1,000 of billings Cost per $1,000 of billings Lower cost per $1,000 of pg. (Efficiency) decreased billings compared to 126 others

Governance and Corporate Management - Part 9

Efficiency Measures How large is the Governance and Increase 2 9.1 governance and Corporate 9.2 corporate Management Costs Costs of governance and Low cost of governance management as a % of Total corporate management and corporate pg. structure? Operating Costs – increased management of single- 130 (Efficiency) tier municipalities

(increased expenditures on real estate assets) Hostel Services – Part 10

Hostel Services – Service Level Indicators How many Average Nightly Decreased 1 10.1 emergency shelter Number Emergency 10.2 beds are there? Shelter Beds Fewer shelter beds in Highest rate/number of Available per 100,000 2010 shelter beds compared pg. Population – (Service to others 134 Level) (service level indicator) (service level indicator)

Hostel Services – Community Impact Measures What is the average Average Length of Stable 4 10.3 length of stay for Stay per Admission to 10.4 singles and families Emergency Shelters average length of stay is Longer length of average in emergency for Singles & Families stable stay singles and families pg. shelters? – (Community Impact) compared to others 135

(related to more transitional beds, which have longer stays) What is the average Average Length of Stable 10.3 length of stay for Stay per Admission to singles in emergency Emergency Shelters average length of stay for N/A pg. shelters? for Singles - singles was stable 135 (Community Impact)

39 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 What is the average Average Length of Increased 10.3 length of stay for Stay per Admission to N/A families in emergency Emergency Shelters average length of stay for pg. shelters? for Families - families increased 135 (Community Impact) Hostel Services – Customer Service Measures What is the Average Nightly Bed Stable 1 10.5 emergency shelter Occupancy Rate of 10.6 bed occupancy rate? Emergency Shelters – Occupancy rate of shelter Higher occupancy rate of (Customer Service) beds was stable shelter beds compared pg. to others 136 Hostel Services – Efficiency Measures What does it cost per Gross Hostels Cost Increased 4 10.7 night to provide a per Emergency 10.8 shelter bed? Shelter Bed Night - gross cost per shelter High gross cost per (Efficiency) bed night increased shelter bed night pg. compared to others 137

(related to greater % of city operated beds) Information & Technology Services – Part 11

Information & Technology Services – Service/Activity Level Indicators What is the Operating and Capital Decreased 2 11.1 cost/investment in Cost in Information 11.2 information and and Technology Cost/investment in I&T High rate of investment technology services Services as a services decreased in I&T services pg. in relation to the Percentage of compared to others 141 services supported? Municipal Operating (service level indicator) and Capital (service level indicator) Expenditures (service level indicator) How much is spent Operating and Capital Stable 3 11.3 on information and Costs for Information 11.4 technology services and Technology I&T cost per municipal Low rate of I&T for each staff member Services per Staff staff member supported investment per municipal pg. supported? Supported with Active was stable staff member supported, 142 I&T Account (service compared to others level indicator) (service level indicator) (service level indicator)

Information & Technology Services – Community Impact Measures How frequently is the Number of Visits to Decreased 3 11.511 City's website visited? Municipal Website per .6 Capita Website visits decreased Low rate of website visits compared to pg. others 143

40 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 Investment Management Services – Part 12

Investment Management Services – Efficiency Measures What rate of return Gross Fixed Income Decreased 2 12.1 are Toronto's Yield on Book Value – 12.2 investments earning? (Efficiency) Decrease in rate of return High rate of return on on investments investments compared pg. to others 148 (decline in global interest rates)

How much does it Management Stable 1 12.31 cost to manage the Expense Ratio– 2.4 city's investments? (Efficiency) Cost to manage Lower cost to manage investments is stable investments compared pg. to others 148

Legal Services – Part 13

Legal Services – Service Level Indicators How much legal work Legal Services Cost Decreased 1 13.1 is required to support per 1,000 Dollars municipal services? Municipal Capital and Internal legal Higher amount of legal pg. Operating expenditures decreased work compared to other 152 Expenditures - in proportion to operating OMBI municipalities in (Service Level) and capital expenditures proportion to operating and capital expenditures

(service level indicator) (service level indicator)

Legal Services – Efficiency Measures How much does it Legal Costs per In- Increased 4 13.2 cost per hour for house Lawyer Hour - internal lawyers, (Efficiency) Cost per hour for internal Higher cost per hour for pg. including overhead (in-house) legal services internal (in-house)legal 152 costs? increased services compared to others

(more complex work may be done by internal lawyers in Toronto that more expensive external lawyers would be doing in other municipalities

41 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 Library Services – Part 14

Library Services – Service Level Indicators How many hours of Annual Number of Increased 2 14.1 service do library Library Service Hours 14.2 branches provide? per Capita – (Service Number of library hours Slightly higher rate of pg. Level) increased library hours compared 156 to others (service level indicator) (service level indicator) What is the size of Number of Library Decreased 1 14.3 library holdings/ Holdings per Capita - Highest rate of library 14.4 collection? (Service Level) Size of library holdings holdings compared to decreased others pg. 157 (service level indicator) (service level indicator) Library Services – Community Impact Measures How often do Annual Library Uses Increased 2 14.5 residents use the per Capita (Electronic 14.6 library system? & Non-Electronic) – Total library uses High rate of library use (Community Impact increased compared to others pg. 158 How often do Non- Electronic Uses Increased 1 14.5 residents use non- per Capita– 14.6 electronic library (Community Impact) Non-electronic uses Higher rate of non- services such as increased electronic library use pg. borrowing a book or compared to others 158 visiting a branch? How often do Electronic Library Increased 2 14.5 residents use Uses per Capita – 14.6 electronic library (Community Impact) Electronic library use High rate of electronic services such as increased library use compared to pg. accessing a database others 158 or using a computer workstation? Library Services – Customer Service Measures How often are items Average Number of Increased 1 14.7 borrowed from the Times in Year 14.8 circulating collection? Circulating Items are Turnover rate of Higher turnover rate of Borrowed /Turnover – circulating materials circulating materials pg. (Customer Service) increased compared to others 159

Library Services – Efficiency Measures What does it cost for Library Cost per Use - Decreased 3 14.9 each library use? (Efficiency) 14.10 Cost per library use Slightly higher cost per pg. decreased library use compared to 160 others

42 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 Long-Term-Care Services – Part 15

Long-Term Care Services – Service Level Indicators How many Number of Municipal Stable 15.1 municipally operated LTC Beds– (Service long-term care beds Level) Unchanged number of - pg. are there? long- term care beds 164

(service level indicator)

Long-Term Care Services – Community Impact Measures What proportion of all Municipally Operated Stable 3 15.2 long-term care beds LTC Beds as does the City percentage of all LTC Toronto’s municipal share Toronto’s municipal pg. operate? Beds in the of all long-term care beds share of all long-term 164 Municipality – has remained stable care beds is low (Community Impact) compared to others

What is the supply of Percentage of LTC Stable 3 15.3 long-term care beds Community Need 15.4 relative to the elderly Satisfied (beds as a Number of long-term care Lower percentage of population? % of population >75 beds unchanged relative long-term care beds pg. years of age) - to elderly population relative to elderly 165 (Community Impact) population compared to others

Long-Term Care Services – Customer Service Measures How satisfied are LTC Resident Very High 2 15.5 long-term care home Satisfaction -– 15.6 residents? (Customer Service) Results have remained High rate of resident very high, at a 96% satisfaction compared to pg. satisfaction rating others 166

Long-Term Care Services – Efficiency Measures How much does it LTC Facility Cost Decreased 2 15.7 cost per day to (CMI Adjusted) per 15.8 provide a long-term LTC Facility Bed Day Cost per bed day Low cost per bed day care bed? (Ministry decreased compared to others pg. Submissions) 167 (Efficiency)

43 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 Parking Services – Part 16

Parking Services – Service Level Indicators How many parking Number of Paid Increased 2 16.1 spaces are Parking Spaces (all 16.2 managed? types) Managed per Number of parking High rate of parking 100,000 Population – spaces- all types spaces – all types pg. (Service Level) increased compared to others 172

(service level indicator ) (service level indicator ) How many on-street Number of On-Street Increased 2 16.1 parking spaces are Paid Parking Spaces 16.2 managed? Managed per 100,000 Number of on-street High rate of on-street Population- (Service parking spaces increased parking spaces pg. Level) compared to others 172 (service level indicator ) (service level indicator ) How many off-street Number of Off-Street Increased 2 16.1 parking spaces are Paid Parking Spaces 16.2 managed? Managed per 100,000 Number of off-street Number of off-street Population- (Service parking spaces Increased parking spaces at pg. Level) median compared to 172 (service level indicator ) others

(service level indicator ) Parking Services – Efficiency Measures What does it cost to Parking Services Cost Increased 4 16.3 manage a parking per Paid Parking 16.4 space? Space (all types) Cost to manage a parking Highest cost to manage Managed – space (all a parking space (all pg. (Efficiency) types)increased types) compared to 173 others

What does it cost to Parking Services Cost Increased 1 16.3 manage an on-street per On-Street Paid 16.4 parking space? Parking Space Cost to manage an on- Lower cost to manage Managed – street parking space an-on street parking pg. (Efficiency) increased space compared to 173 others What does it cost to Parking Services Cost Decreased 4 16.3 manage an off-street per Off-Street Paid 16.4 parking space? Parking Space Cost to manage an off- Highest cost to manage Managed – street parking space an off-street parking pg. (Efficiency) decreased space compared to 173 others

44 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 How much parking Gross Parking Fee Decreased 1 16.5 fee revenue is Revenue per Paid 16.6 generated from all Parking Space (all Parking fees per parking Highest rate of parking parking spaces? types) Managed– space (all types) fees per parking space pg. (Efficiency) decreased (all types) compared to 173 others

How much parking Gross Parking Fee Increased 1 16.5 fee revenue is Revenue per Paid 16.6 generated from on- On-Street Parking Parking fees per on-street Highest rate of parking street parking Space Managed– parking space increased fees per on-street pg. spaces? (Efficiency) parking space compared 173 to others

How much parking Gross Parking Fee Decreased 1 16.5 fee revenue is Revenue per Paid 16.6 generated from off- Off-Street Parking Parking fees per off-street Highest rate of parking street parking Space Managed– parking space decreased fees per off-street pg. spaces? (Efficiency) parking space compared 173 to others

Parks Services – Part 17

Parks Services – Service Level Indicators How much Hectares of Increase 4 17.1 maintained parkland Maintained Parkland 17.2 does Toronto have? in Municipality per Small increase in amount Lowest rate of hectares 100,000 Population – of maintained parkland of maintained parkland pg. (Service Level) in relation to population, 179 (service level indicator) compared to others

(service level indicator)

(urban form leads to result) How much natural Hectares of Natural Stable 4 17.1 parkland does Parkland in 17.2 Toronto have? Municipality per Amount of natural Lowest rate of hectares 100,000 Population– parkland was unchanged of natural parkland in pg. (Service Level) relation to population, 179 (service level indicator) compared to others

(service level indicator)

(urban form leads to result)

45 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 How much total Hectares of all Stable 4 17.1 parkland of all types (Maintained and 17.2 does Toronto have? Natural) Parkland per Total amount of all Lowest rate of hectares 100,000 Population– parkland was stable of all parkland in relation pg. (Service Level) to population, compared 179 (service level indicator) to others

(service level indicator)

(urban form leads to result) What is the length of Km of Maintained Increased 4 17.4 Toronto's recreational Recreational Trails trail system? per 1,000 Persons – Amount of trails Lowest rate of kilometres pg. (Service Level) increased of,trails in relation to 180 population compared to (service level indicator) others

(service level indicator)

(urban form leads to result)

Parks Services – Community Impact Measures

What proportion of Maintained Parkland Stable 1 17.3 the municipality's in Municipality as a area is maintained Percentage of Total Maintained parkland as Highest percentage of pg. parkland? Area of Municipality- proportion of city area is maintained parkland in 180 (Community Impact) stable relation to area compared to others

What proportion of Natural Parkland in Stable 1 17.3 the municipality's Municipality as a area is natural Percentage of Total Natural parkland as Higher percentage of pg. parkland? Area of Municipality- proportion of city area is natural parkland in 180 (Community Impact) stable relation to area compared to others

What proportion of All Parkland in Stable 1 17.3 the municipality's Municipality as a area is parkland (all Percentage of Total Total parkland as Higher percentage of all pg. types)? Area of Municipality- proportion of city area is parkland in relation to 180 (Community Impact) stable area compared to others

46 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 How frequently do Percentage of Toronto Stable 17.5 Toronto residents use Survey Respondents N/A parks? Using Toronto Parks Level of park usage was pg. and Frequency of stable in 2011 181 Use- (Community Impact)

Parks Services – Customer Service Measures How satisfied are Percentage of Toronto Stable 17.6 Toronto parks' users? Survey Respondents Satisfied With Use of High level of satisfaction N/A pg. Parks - (Customer with parks was 181 Service) maintained in 2011

Parks Services – Efficiency Measures What does it cost to Cost of Parks per Increase 4 17.7 operate a hectare of Hectare - Maintained 17.8 parkland? and Natural Parkland Cost of parks per hectare Highest cost of parks per – (Efficiency) increased hectare compared to pg. others 182 (excludes impact of change in accounting policy)

Planning Services – Part 18

Planning Services – Service / Activity Level Indicators How much is spent Cost of Planning Stable 2 18.1 on planning services? Services per Capita 18.2 (Service Level Cost of planning per Slightly higher rate of pg. indicator) capita was stable planning cost per capita/ 187 compared to others (service level indicator) (service level indicator) How many Number of Increased 3 18.3 development Development 18.4 applications are Applications Received Number of development Low rate of development received? per 100,000 applications received applications received pg. Population - (Activity increased compared to others 188 Level indicator) (activity level indicator) (activity level indicator)

47 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 How many Number of Non- Decreased 18.5 community meetings Statutory Civic N/A are planning staff Engagement Number of meetings pg. attending? Community Meetings attended decreased 189 Attended by City (activity level indicator) Planning Staff – (Activity Level) (fewer community consultation meetings during municipal election period) Planning Services – Efficiency Measures How much does it Development Decreased 3 18.6 cost in Toronto to Planning Applications 18.7 process a Cost per Cost per application High cost per application development Development processed decreased compared to others pg. application? Application Received 189 – (Efficiency) (scale, scope and complexity of applications is a factor) Police Services – Part 19

Police Services – Service Level Indicators / Number of Police Staff How many police Number of Police Increased 1 19.1 officers are there? Officers per 100,000 19.2 Population - (Service Number of Police Officers Higher rate of Police Level) increased Officers compared to pg. others 196 (service level indicator) (service level indicator) How many civilians Number of Civilians Stable 1 19.1 and other staff are and Other Staff per 19.2 there in Police 100,000 Population - Number of civilian staff Highest rate of civilians Services? (Service Level) increased slightly and other staff compared pg. to others 196 (service level indicator) (service Level indicator) How many total staff Number of Total Stable 1 19.1 (police officers and Police Staff (Officers 19.2 civilians) are there? and Civilians) per Number of total police Higher rate of total police 100,000 Population - staff remained stable staffing compared to pg. (Service Level) others 196 (service level indicator) (service level indicator) Police Services – Community Impact Measures / Crime Rates What is the total Reported Number of Decreased 2 19.3 crime rate? Total (Non-Traffic) 19.4 Criminal Code Total crime rate down by Low total crime rate Incidents per 100,000 -6.9% in 2010 compared to others pg. Population - 197 (Community Impact)

48 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 How has the total Annual Percentage 2 19.5 crime rate changed in Change in Rate of Toronto, compared to Total (Non-Traffic) See above Large rate of 2010 pg. other municipalities? Criminal Code decrease in total crimes 197 Incidents - compared to others (Community Impact) How is the severity of Total Crime Severity Decreased 3 19.6 Toronto's total crime Index-(Community 19.7 changing? Impact) Severity of total crime High level of severity for decreased total crime compared to pg. others 198

What is the violent Reported Number of Decreased 4 19.8 crime rate? Violent – Criminal 19.9 Code Incidents per Violent crime rate down Higher rate of 100,000 Population - by -4.5% in 2010 violent crime compared pg. (Community Impact) to others 199

How has the violent Annual Percentage 2 19.10 crime rate changed in Change in Rate of Toronto compared to Violent Crime- See above Large rate of 2010 pg. other municipalities? (Community Impact) decrease in 199 violent crime compared to others

What is the violent Violent Crime Severity Decreased 4 19.11 crime severity index? Index-(Community 19.12 Impact) Severity of violent crime Higher level of severity decreased for violent crime pg. compared to others 200 What is the property Reported Number of Decreased 2 19.13 crime rate? Property – Criminal 19.14 Code Incidents per Property crime rate down Low rate of property 100,000 Population - by -7.5% in 2010 crime compared to pg. (Community Impact) others 201

How has the property Annual Percentage 2 19.15 crime rate changed in Change in Rate of Toronto compared to Property Crime - See above Large rate of 2010 pg. other municipalities? (Community Impact) decrease in property 201 crime compared to others

49 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 What is the youth Number of Youths Decreased 1 19.16 crime rate? Cleared by Charge or 19.17 Cleared Otherwise, Youth crime decreased Lowest rate of per 100,000 Youth by -8.7% in 2010 youth crime compared pg. Population - to others 202 (Community Impact) How has the youth Annual Percentage 3 19.18 crime rate changed in Change in Rate of Toronto compared to Youths Cleared by See above Small rate of 2010 pg. other municipalities? Charge or Cleared decrease in youth crime 202 Otherwise per compared to others 100,000 Youth Population - (Community Impact) Police Services – Customer Service Measures - Clearance Rates What percentage of Clearance Rate - Stable 4 19.19 the total crimes Total (Non-Traffic) 19.20 committed are Criminal Code Clearance rate for total Lower clearance rate for solved/cleared? Incidents – (Customer crime was stable total crime compared to pg. Service) others 203

What percentage of Clearance Rate - Increased 4 19.21 the violent crimes Violent Crime – 19.22 committed are (Customer Service) Clearance rate for violent Lower clearance rate for solved/cleared? crime increased violent crime compared pg. to others 203

Police Services – Efficiency Measures What is the workload Number of Criminal Decreased 4 19.23 of Criminal Code Code Incidents (Non- 19.24 incidents for each Traffic) per Police Number of Criminal Code police officer? Officer – (Efficiency) incidents/ workload per Lower rate of Criminal pg. officer decreased Code incidents 204 /workload per officer compared to others

50 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 Road Services – Part 20

Road Services – Service Level Indicators How long is Toronto's Number of Lane KM Stable 4 20.1 road network? per 1,000 Population 20.2 – (Service Level) lane km of roads was Lowest rate of lane km of unchanged roads relative to pg. population compared to 210 (service level indicator) others

(service level indicator)

(related to high population density) Road Services – Community Impact Measures How many vehicle Vehicle Collision Rate Increase 4 20.3 collisions occur? per Million Vehicle km 20.4 or per Lane km – Collision rate increased Higher collision rate (Community Impact) compared to others pg. 211 How congested are Road Congestion on Increased 4 20.5 major roads? Major Roads (Vehicle km Traveled per Lane Road congestion Higher rate of pg. km) – (Community increased congestion on Toronto’s 211 Impact) roads compared to others Are roads being Percentage of Winter Maximum 1 20.9 maintained to Event Responses 20.10 standard in the Meeting New Best possible result- Best possible result- winter? Municipal Winter 100% of winter event 100% of winter event pg. Level of Service – responses met standard responses met standard 213 (Community Impact) Road Services – Customer Service Measures What is the pavement Percentage of Paved Increased 1 20.6 condition of the Lane Kms. With 20.7 roads? Pavement Condition Percentage of pavement Highest percentage of Rated Good/Very rated good to very good pavement rated good to pg. Good – (Customer increased very good compared to 212 Service) others

What is the condition % of Bridges and 2 20.8 of bridges and Culverts with Stable culverts? Condition Rated as At median for percentage pg. Good to Very Good – % of bridges rated in of bridges & culverts 212 (Customer Service) good to very good rated good to very good condition remained stable compared to others at 70.3%

51 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 Road Services – Efficiency Measures How much does it Operating Costs for Decreased 4 20.11 cost to plough, sand Winter Maintenance 20.12 and salt roads in the of Roadways per Cost of winter Higher cost of winter winter? Lane KM Maintained maintenance decreased maintenance compared pg. in Winter – to others 214 (Efficiency) How much does it Operating Costs for Increased 4 20.13 cost to maintain the Paved Roads (Hard 20.14 20.15 road surface? Top) per Lane KM – Cost of paved road Highest cost of paved (Efficiency) maintenance increased road maintenance of pg. (excluding utility cuts and single-tier municipalities 215 acct. policy changes) Social Assistance Services – Part 21

Social Assistance Services – Service / Activity Level Indicators How many individuals or Monthly Social Increased Highest rate of Social 21.1 families receive social Assistance Case Assistance 21.2 assistance? Load per 100,000 Social Assistance case case load compared to Households load increased others pg. (service/ activity 221 level) (service/activity level (service/activity level indicator) indicator)

related to worsening global large urban centres such as and local economic conditions Toronto usually have the highest concentration of people living in poverty Social Assistance Services – Community Impact Measures What is the average Average Time on Stable 4 21.3 length of time that Social Assistance 21.4 people receive social (Months) Average time period on Highest length of time on assistance? Social Assistance was Social Assistance pg. stable compared to others 222

What proportion of cases Percentage of Decreased 4 21.5 receive social Social Assistance 21.6 assistance for less than Cases on % of cases less than Lowest % of cases one year? Assistance less than 12 months decreased receiving social pg. one year assistance less than 12 222 months compared to others

52 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 What proportion of Percentage of Increased 4 21.7 participants in social Participants in 21.8 assistance programs Social Assistance Proportion of cases with Lowest % of cases with also have employment Programs with employment income employment income pg. income? Employment Income increased compared to others 223 (but decrease compared to pre-recession level)

Social Assistance Services – Customer Service Measures How long does it take to Social Assistance Decreased 1 21.9 inform a client that they Response Time to 21.10 are eligible for social Client Eligibility Response time has Response time is assistance? (Days) shortened/was faster shorter/faster compared pg. to others 224

Social Assistance Services – Efficiency Measures What is the monthly Monthly Social Increased 3 21.11 administrative cost to Assistance 21.12 support a social Administration Cost Administration cost per Higher administration pg. assistance case? per Case case increased cost per case compared 225 to others

What is the average Monthly Social Stable 4 21.13 monthly benefit cost per Assistance Benefit 21.14 social assistance case? Cost per Case Benefits cost per case Highest benefits cost per pg. was stable case compared to others 226

(higher housing costs in Toronto is the key factor)

Social Housing Services – Part 22

Social Housing Services – Service / Activity Level Indicators How many social Number of Social Stable 1 22.1 housing units are? Housing Units per 22.2 1,000 Households - Number of Social Highest rate of Social pg. (Service Level) Housing units was stable Housing Units compared to others 231 (service level indicator)

(service level indicator)

53 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 Social Housing Services – Community Impact Measures How much of a wait is Percentage of Decreased 4 22.3 there for a social Social Housing 22.4 housing unit? Waiting List Placed Percentage of waiting list Lower percentage of pg. Annually -(Service placed decreased waiting list placed Level) compared to others 232 (demand for units exeeds supply)

Social Housing Services – Efficiency Measures What is the Social Housing Increased 1 22.5 administration cost of Administration 22.7 social housing? Costs per Social Administrative cost per Lower administration Housing Unit- unit increased cost per unit compared pg. (Efficiency) to others 233

What is the annual cost Social Housing Increased 2 22.5 of direct funding Subsidy Costs per 22.6 (subsidy) paid to social Social Housing Unit Subsidy cost per unit Low subsidy cost per housing providers? - (Efficiency) increased unit compared to others pg. 233 (one time funding from senior orders of government)

Solid Waste Management Services – Part 23

Solid Waste Management Services – Community Impact Measures How much solid waste Percentage of Solid Increased 2 23.1 is recycled/diverted Waste Diverted - 23.2 away from landfill Residential Overall diversion rate Overall diversion rate at sites? (Community Impact) increased median compared to pg. others 238

(impacted by significance of apartments in Toronto)

How much waste from Percentage of Waste Increased 1 23.1 houses is recycled/ Diverted – Single Unit 23.3 diverted away from homes/houses Diversion rate for single Highest diversion rate landfill sites? (Curbside) – unit houses/homes for houses compared to pg. (Community Impact) (curbside) increased others 238

How much waste from Percentage of Waste Increased 3 23.1 apartments is Diverted – Multi- 23.4 recycled/ diverted Residential – Multi-residential diversion Low multi-residential away from landfill (Community Impact) rate increased diversion rate compared pg. sites? to others 238

54 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 Solid Waste Management Services – Customer Service Measures How many garbage Number of Solid Decreased 3 23.5 collection complaints Waste Complaints per 23.6 are received? 1,000 Households Rate of complaints Slightly higher (Customer Service) decreased rate of complaints pg. compared to others 239

Solid Waste Management Services – Efficiency Measures How much does it Operating Costs for Increased 3 23.7 cost to collect a tonne Residential Garbage 23.8 of garbage? Collection per Tonne Cost of waste collection Slightly higher cost of –(Efficiency) for all housing types solid waste collection pg. increased for all housing types 240 compared to others

How much does it Operating Costs for Stable 4 23.9 cost to dispose of a Solid Waste Disposal 23.10 tonne of garbage? (All Streams) per Cost of solid waste Higher cost of solid pg. 241 Tonne – (Efficiency) disposal was stable waste disposal compared to others

How much does it Net Operating Costs Decreased 4 23.11 cost to recycle a tonne for Residential Solid 23.12 of solid waste? Waste Diversion per Net cost of solid waste Higher cost of solid pg. Tonne – (Efficiency) diversion decreased waste diversion 242 compared to others

(related to high diversion rate for houses & green bin program) Sports and Recreation Services – Part 24

Sports and Recreation Services – Service Level Indicators How many indoor Number of Stable 2 24.1 pools are available? Operational Indoor 24.2 Pool Locations (with Number of indoor pool High rate of indoor pool municipal influence) locations was stable locations compared to pg. per 100,000 others 249 Population (Service (service level indicator) Level) (service level indicator)

55 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 How many indoor ice Number of Decreased 4 24.3 pads (rinks) are Operational Indoor 24.4 available? Ice Pads (with Number of indoor ice Lowest rate of indoor ice Municipal Influence) rinks/pads decreased rinks/pads compared to pg. per 100,000 others 250 Population (Service (service level indicator) Level) (service level indicator)

(population density is a factor) How many large Number of Large Increased 3 24.5 sports and recreation Operational Sports 24.6 community centres and Recreation Number of large sports Low rate of large sports are available? Community Centres & recreation community & recreation community pg. (with Municipal centres increased centres compared to 251 Influence) per others 100,000 Population (service level indicator) (Service Level) (service level indicator)

(population density is a factor) How many small Number of Small Increased 3 24.5 sports and recreation Operational Sports 24.6 community centres and Recreation Number of small sports Low rate of small sports are available? Community Centres & recreation community & recreation community pg. (with Municipal centres increased centres compared to 251 Influence) per others 100,000 Population (service level indicator) (Service Level) (service level indicator)

(population density is a factor) How old are the sports Percentage of Sports 3 24.7 and recreation and Recreation community centres? Centres (with Low proportion of sports pg. Municipal Influence), N/A & recreation centres less 252 under 25 years of age than 25 years old (Service Level) compared to others

(service level indicator) How old are the Percentage of Indoor 4 24.8 indoor pools? Pool Locations (with Municipal Influence), N/A Lower proportion of pg. under 25 years of age indoor pools less than 25 252 (Service Level) years old compared to others

(service level indicator)

56 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 How old are the Percentage of Indoor 4 24.9 indoor ice pads/rinks? Ice Pads (with Municipal Influence), N/A Lowest proportion of pg. under 25 years of age indoor ice pads less than 252 (Service Level) 25 years old compared to others

(service level indicator) How much registered Overall Participant Increased 3 24.10 sports and recreation Capacity for Directly 24.11 programming is Provided Registered Registered programming Low rate of registered offered? Programs (Service offered increased over programming offered pg. Level) 2009 (year of strike) compared to others 253

(service level indicator) (service level indicator) Sports and Recreation Services – Community Impact Measures How much registered Number of Participant Increased 3 24.10 sports and recreation Visits per Capita – 24.11 programming is being Directly Provided Amount of registered Low rate of registered used? Registered Programs programming used programming used per pg. (Community Impact) increased over 2009 capita compared to 253 (year of strike) others

What percentage of Annual Number of Increased 2 24.14 residents register for Unique Users for 24.15 at least one sports and Directly Provided Percentage of Low percentage of recreation program? Registered Programs population using population using pg. as a Percentage of registered programs registered programs 255 Population increased over 2009 compared to others (Community Impact) (year of strike)

How frequently do Percentage of Toronto Stable 24.16 Toronto residents use Survey Respondents N/A City of Toronto Using Toronto Stable but high level of pg. Community Centres? Community Centres Community Centre 256 (Community Impact) usage in 2011 Sports and Recreation Services – Customer Service Measures What percentage of Utilization Rate of Increased 2 24.12 the capacity of Available Capacity for 24.13 registered programs is Directly Provided Percentage of capacity High rate of capacity being used? Registered Programs used for registered used for registered pg. (Customer Service) programs increased sports & recreation 254 programs compared to others

57 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 How satisfied are Percentage of Stable 24.17 users of City of Toronto Survey N/A Toronto Community Respondents High level of satisfaction pg. Centres? Satisfied With Use of with community centres 256 Community Centres in 2011 (Customer Service)

Taxation Services – Part 25

Taxation Services – Customer Service Measures What percentage of Percentage of Decreased 4 25.1 taxpayers take Accounts (All 25.2 advantage of pre- Classes) enrolled in Enrolment in pre- Lowest rate of accounts authorized payment a Pre-Authorized authorized payment enrolled in pre-authorized pg. plans? Payment Plan - plans decreased payment plan compared 260 (Customer Service) to others

(high number of payment dates in Toronto is a factor)

Taxation Services – Efficiency Measures How successful is the Current Year’s Tax Decreased 2 25.3 City in collecting Arrears as a 25.4 property taxes billed in Percentage of Current year’s tax Percentage of current the current year? Current Year Levy – arrears decreased year’s tax arrears at pg. (Efficiency) median compared to 261 others

How successful is the Percentage of Prior Decreased 1 25.3 City in collecting Year’s Tax Arrears as 25.4 property taxes a Percentage of Prior year’s tax arrears Lower percentage of outstanding from prior Current Year Levy – decreased prior year’s tax arrears pg. years? (Efficiency) compared to others 261

What does it cost to Cost to Maintain Decreased 4 25.5 administer a tax Taxation Accounts 25.6 account? per Account Serviced Cost per account Highest cost per tax – (Efficiency) maintained decreased account maintained pg. compared to others 262

(higher service levels/programs is a factor)

58 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 Transit Services – Part 26

Transit Services – Service Level Indicators How many vehicle Transit In-Service Stable 1 26.1 hours of transit service (Revenue) Vehicle 26.2 are provided? Service Hours per vehicle hours of transit Highest rate of transit pg. 267 Capita (Service provided has remained vehicle hours per capita Level) stable compared to others

(service level indicator) (service level indicator)

Transit Services – Community Impact Measures How many transit Number of Increased 1 26.3 passenger trips are Conventional Transit 26.4 taken by an average Trips per Capita in Transit usage has Highest rate of transit person in a year? Service Area increased usage by residents pg. (Community Impact) compared to others 268

Transit Services – Efficiency Measures What does it cost to Transit Cost per In- Increased 4 26.5 operate a transit Service Vehicle 26.6 vehicle for an hour? Service Hour Cost per in-service Higher cost per in-service (Efficiency) vehicle hour increased vehicle hour compared to pg. others 269

(impacted by multi-modal fleet)

How well are transit Passenger Trips per Increased 1 26.8 vehicles used to move In-Service Vehicle 26.9 people? Hour (Efficiency) Number of transit trips Higher rate of trips per in- per in-service vehicle service vehicle hour pg. hour (utilization) compared to others 270 increased

What does it cost to Operating Costs for Increased 1 26.7 provide one passenger Conventional Transit 26.9 trip? per Regular Service Cost to provide a Lower cost to provide a Passenger Trip passenger trip increased passenger trip compared pg. (Efficiency) to others 270

59 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Wastewater Services – Service / Activity Level Indicators How much wastewater Megalitres of Decreased 3 27.1 is treated each year? Wastewater Treated 27.2 per 100,000 Volume of wastewater Low rate/volume of Population – (Activity treated has decreased wastewater treated pg. Level) (activity level indicator) compared to others 274

(activity level indicator) How old is the Average Age of Stable 4 27.8 wastewater pipe Wastewater Pipe - system? (Service Level) Average age of Wastewater pipe is oldest pg. wastewater pipe is of OMBI municipalities 277 stable at 60 years (service level indicator) (service level indicator)

Wastewater Services – Community Impact Measures How much wastewater Percentage of Decreased 3 27.3 bypasses full treatment Wastewater 27.4 each year? estimated to have Volume of wastewater High rate/volumes of Bypassed Treatment bypassing treatment wastewater bypassing pg. – (Community decreased treatment compared to 275 Impact) others

(still well below 1% however) Wastewater Services – Customer Service Measures How many wastewater Annual Number of Increased 4 27.5 mains (sewers) Wastewater Main 27.6 backup? Backups per 100 Rate of wastewater/ Highest rate of kilometre of sewer backups wastewater/ sewer pg. Wastewater Main increased backups compared to 276 (Customer Service) others Wastewater Services – Efficiency Measures What does it cost to Operating Cost of Increased 4 27.7 collect wastewater? Wastewater 27.8 Collection per Cost of wastewater Higher cost of kilometre of Pipe – collection increased wastewater collection pg. (Efficiency) compared to others 277

What does it cost to Operating Cost of Stable 4 27.9 treat wastewater and Wastewater 27.10

dispose of the residual Treatment/Disposal Cost of wastewater Higher cost of pg. material? per Megalitre treatment & disposal wastewater treatment & 278 Treated – was stable disposal compared to (Efficiency) others

60 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Water Services – Service/Activity Level Indicators How much drinking Megalitres of Water Decreased 2 28.1 water is treated each Treated per 100,000 28.2 year? Population – Volume of water treated Rate/volume of water (activity Level) decreased treated at median pg. (activity level indicator) compared to others 284

(activity level indicator)

How old are the water Average Age of Stable 4 28.8 distribution pipes? Water Pipe - (Service Level) Average age of water Oldest average age of pg. pipe is stable at 57 years pipes compared to others 287 (service level indicator) (service level indicator)

Water Services – Community Impact Measures How much drinking Residential Water Decrease 3 28.3 water does the average Use (Megalitres) per 28.4 household use? Household – Amount of water used Slightly higher rate of (Community Impact) per household water used per pg. decreased household compared to 285 others

Water Services – Customer Service/Quality Measures Is the quality of drinking % of Water Quality Favourable 4 28.5 water in compliance Tests in Compliance 28.6 with provincial with Provincial Percentage of tests in Lower rate of compliance standards? Drinking Water compliance has than other muncipalities pg. Standards - remained high at 99.80% but still very high at 286 (Customer in 2010 99.80% Service/Quality) Were there any boil Number of Favourable 1 water advisories? Household Days with Boil Water No boil water advisories No boil water advisories Advisories – (Customer Service/Quality)

How many watermain Number of Water Increased 4 28.7 breaks are there? Main Breaks per 28.8 100 KM of Water Number of watermain Highest rate of water Distribution Pipe – breaks increased main breaks compared to pg. (Customer Service) others 287

61 Consolidated Summary of Toronto's Results by Service Area 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 Water Services – Efficiency Measures What does it cost in to Operating Cost for Stable 4 28.9 distribute drinking the Distribution of 28.10 water? Drinking Water per Cost of water Higher cost of water KM of Water distribution was stable distribution compared to pg. Distribution Pipe – others 288 (Efficiency) What does it cost to Operating Cost for Decreased 1 28.11 treat drinking water? the Treatment of 28.12 Drinking Water per Cost of water treatment Lower cost of water Megalitre of decreased treatment compared to pg. Drinking Water others 289 Treated – (Efficiency) Service/ Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Activity Level Measures Indicators Measures Indicators (Results) (Resources) (Results) (Resources)

22 - Increased 59 - Favourable 15 - 1st quartile 29- 1st quartile 14 - Stable 34 - Stable 13- 2nd quartile 28 - 2nd quartile 6 - decreased 33 - Unfavour. 11 - 3rd quartile 21- 3rd quartile 12 - 4th quartile 39- 4th quartile

86% stable or 74% favourable 54% above 49% above increased or stable median median

DDeettaaiilleedd RReessuullttss aanndd CChhaarrttss bbyy SSeerrvviiccee AArreeaa

AAccccoouunnttss PPaayyaabbllee SSeerrvviicceess

The goal of accounts payable services is to ensure the efficient and effective management of payments to suppliers who do business with the City of Toronto. Specific objectives include:

ensuring invoices are accurate and properly authorized for payment processing of invoices on a timely basis taking advantage of available early payment discounts where appropriate maintaining relationships with suppliers providing customer service to internal divisions and vendors corporate oversight of payable activity across the organization accounts payable compliance

64 Accounts Payable

2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Customer Service Measures How long does it take to Percentage of Invoices Decreased 3 1.1 pay an accounts payable Paid Within 30 Days - 1.2 invoice? (Customer Service) Time to pay A/P invoices High number of days has decreased/improved required to process pg. with approximately 71% invoices compared to 66 paid within 30 days others

Efficiency Measures Have discounts offered Percentage of Early Stable 1.3 for early payment of Payment Discounts Not invoices been obtained? Achieved – (Efficiency) Percentage of early Available pg. payment discounts 66 achieved is stable How many invoices are Number of Invoices Increased 3 1.4 processed by each Paid per Accounts 1.5 accounts payable staff Payable FTE – Number of invoices Low rate for number of member? (Efficiency) processed per staff invoices processed per pg. member increased staff member compared 67 to others

How many accounts Number of Transaction Increased 1 1.6 payable transaction lines Lines Paid per Accounts are processed by each Payable FTE – Number of lines Higher rate for number pg. accounts payable staff (Efficiency) processed per staff of lines processed per 67 member? member increased staff member compared to others

How much does it cost to Accounts Payable Cost Decreased 4 1.7 process an accounts per Invoice Paid – payable invoice? (Efficiency) Cost per invoice paid Highest cost per invoice pg. decreased paid compared to others 67

Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results)

4- Favourable 1 - 1st quartile n/a 1- Stable n/a 0 - 2nd quartile 0 -Unfavour. 2- 3rd quartile 1 - 4th quartile

100% favourable 25% - above or stable median

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of 15 municipalities.

65 Accounts Payable

2010Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How long does it take to pay an accounts payable invoice in One objective of the accounts Toronto? payable (A/P) function is the 100% timely processing of vendor 80% invoices, while ensuring that 60% invoices are accurate and the 40% specified goods or services are 20% received and authorized for 0% payment. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 > 60 days 12% 11% 11% 12% 15% 10% Chart 1.1 summarizes the >30 & <= 60days 29% 26% 22% 21% 20% 19% proportion of A/P invoices paid <= 30 days 59% 63% 67% 67% 65% 71% within 30 days of the invoice date, between 31 and 60 days, Chart 1.1 (City of Toronto) Percentage of A/P Invoices Paid Within Specified and over 60 days. Results in Time Period (Customer Service) 2010 were improved with 71% of invoices paid within 30 days. How long does it take to pay an accounts payable invoice in Toronto compared to other municipalities? Initiatives implemented in recent

100% years to reduce the payment

80% cycle time include: publication of clear billing 60% requirements for vendors to

40% reduce the incidence of

20% incorrect or incomplete invoicing 0% Wat Calg T-Bay Lond Musk Ott Ham Niag Tor Wind Halt Durh Bar York Sud an option for vendors to

>60 days 3% 5% 4% 5% 6% 8% 9% 8% 10% 8% 8% 6% 10% 9% 13% receive payment from the

>30 & <=60 days 13% 11% 14% 12% 15% 16% 16% 18% 19% 21% 22% 29% 27% 36% 42% City by direct deposit <=30 days 85% 85% 83% 79% 79% 76% 75% 75% 71% 71% 70% 65% 63% 55% 45% allowing vendors to submit Chart 1.2 (OMBI 2010) Percentage of A/P Invoices Paid Within Specified Time their invoices electronically Period (Customer Service) a vendor early payment discount program Have discounts offered for early payment of invoices been obtained in Tornto? Chart 1.2 compares Toronto's 100% 2,500,000 2010 result to other Ontario municipalities for the time 80% 2,000,000 required to pay invoices. Toronto 60% 1,500,000 ranks ninth of fifteen (third quartile) in terms of having the 40% 1,000,000 highest percentage of invoices

20% 500,000 paid within 30 days.

0% 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Toronto's ranking relates to the

% obtained fact that a lower proportion of 29.8% 76.9% 82.1% 82.9% 91.0% 82.6% 80.4% $value obtained 399,000 507,121 763,057 975,463 2,063,837 1,341,415 1,276,540 Toronto's invoices are paid using the more efficient 3-way match Chart 1.3 (City of Toronto) Percentage and $Value of Available Early process (the automated Payment Discounts Obtained (Efficiency) matching of the purchase order, receipt of goods and vendor invoice) than other municipalities

Some vendors offer an early payment discounts and Chart 1.3 displays the percentage (bars) and dollar value (line) of available early payment discounts obtained in Toronto. Results in 2010 were stable relative to 2009. (Note 2008 was an unusual year because of a large one time discount from one vendor).

Accounts Payable Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How many invoices are processed by each of Toronto accounts In 2010, Toronto's A/P staff payable staff member? processed almost 560,000 12,000 invoices, with over 2.0 million 9,000 transaction lines. Chart 1.4 provides Toronto's total number 6,000 and rate of A/P invoices paid per 3,000 A/P staff member, and in 2010 0 each staff member on average 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 processed +8% more invoices Total # of invoices 507,095 504,694 505,051 497,630 516,736 559,586 and +15% more transaction # invoices per A/P staff 10,789 10,738 10,746 10,588 10,546 11,420 lines. Greater usage of the 3- Chart 1.4 (City of Toronto) Number of Invoices Processed per A/P Staff Member way match process in 2010 (Efficiency) contributed to this improvement.

How many invoices are processed by each Toronto accounts Chart 1.5 compares Toronto's payable staff member compared to other municipalities? 2010 result to other 25,000 municipalities for the number of 20,000 Median 12,641 A/P invoices processed per staff

15,000 member. Toronto ranks tenth of fifteen (third quartile) in terms of 10,000 having the highest number of 5,000 A/P invoices processed per staff

0 member. York Wat Ham Halt T-Bay Sud Niag Lond Calg Tor Bar Ott Durh Wind Musk #invoices 23,307 18,414 14,892 14,836 14,465 13,726 13,338 12,641 11,490 11,420 11,067 10,078 9,795 8,845 8,249 Chart 1.5 (OMBI 2010) Number of Invoices Processed per A/P Staff Member If the number of transaction lines (Efficiency) processed per A/P staff member is considered (Chart 1.6), How many transaction lines are processed by each Toronto Toronto ranks third of fifteen (first accounts payable staff member compared to other quartile) in terms of the highest municipalities? number of lines processed 50,000 Chart 1.7 compares Toronto’s 40,000 Median 24,715 2010 cost (including indirect 30,000 costs) per A/P invoice paid, to 20,000 other municipalities. Toronto 10,000 ranks fifteen of fifteen (fourth quartile) in terms of having the 0 Wat Niag Tor York Halt Bar T-Bay Ham Musk Durh Calg Sud Lond Ott Wind lowest cost per invoice paid # lines 45,107 41,842 41,493 39,483 30,714 29,248 28,293 24,715 23,678 23,492 22,806 19,928 18,492 17,887 14,605 Chart 1.6 (OMBI 2010) Number of Transaction Lines Processed per A/P Staff Toronto's higher costs are likely Member (Efficiency) the result of having a more centralized accounts payable How much does it cost Toronto to process an accounts payable process (less of the A/P process invoice compared to other municipalities? is done in operating divisions) $12 than in other municipalities, $10 The combination of Charts 1.5 $8 and 1.6 also shows Toronto Median $5.29 $6 invoices paid have more transactions lines, which could $4 possibly be an indication of $2 greater complexity. $0 York Wat Niag Lond Durh T-Bay Sud Ham Halt Bar Wind Calg Musk Ott Tor

$cost $3.95 $3.97 $4.19 $4.45 $4.50 $4.68 $4.93 $5.29 $6.18 $6.40 $7.25 $7.37 $7.61 $8.45 $10.24 Toronto's 2010 cost of $10.24, per invoice was -3.7% lower Chart 1.7 (OMBI 2010) Accounts Payable Cost per Invoice Paid (Efficiency) than the 2009 result. 67 Accounts Payable Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

2011 Achievements or 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following initiatives are intended to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Toronto's Accounts Payable Services:

2011 Initiatives Completed/Achievements

implemented invoice imaging to support a fully electronic payable solution for accounts payable, which contributed to improved results in 2011 with 89 percent of invoices paid within 60 days and 74 percent paid within 30 days updated the PCard (Purchasing) Software Application update including the addition of a Purchase Order module developed and implemented Accounting Services Customer Service Levels reviewed the "As Is" and "To Be" Business Architecture for the Accounts Payable Transformation Project

2012 Initiatives Planned

improve the electronic retention of invoices through scanned images of 2 Way Match authorized invoices improve the efficiency of submissions (through interfaces) of Petty Cash requisitions by City Divisions explore a potential vendor portal for electronic invoice submission implement dynamic discounting (for early payment ) with the integration of electronic invoice submission review the PCard administration process to streamline and improve efficiency

Factors Influencing Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality found in the charts included in this report are influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

organizational form - centralized vs. de-centralized invoice approval process, as well as the number of different office locations credit card purchases - some invoices are system generated (credit cards), which reduces the number of invoices to process payment policy – the timeline for paying invoices may vary according to different local policies

68 BBuuiillddiinngg SSeerrvviicceess

Toronto Building

Building Building Permission and Inspection Information

Building Preliminary Complaint Project Review Resolution

Zoning Permit Inspections and Certificate Enforcement

Review Plans and Issue Permits

Building Records and Information

Sign Tax Billing and Collection

Building services ensure buildings and structures are constructed, renovated or demolished in a manner that ensures the buildings are safe. This involves reviewing building permit applications, issuing building permits and conducting inspections in accordance with the Ontario Building Code, the City of Toronto's zoning bylaws and other legislation.

69 Building Services

2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service /Activity Level Indicators How many building Number of Building Increased 4 2.1 permits of all types are Permits (ICI and 2.2 issued? Residential) Issued per Number of total permits Lower rate of total 100,000 Population – issued increased permits issued pg. (Activity Level) compared to others 73 (activity level indicator) (activity level indicator)

(impacted by Toronto's fully developed urban form) How many large Number of Residential Increased 2.1 residential building Building Permits Issued 2.2 permits are issued? (of Construction Value Number of residential N/A ≥ $50,000) per permits >$50,000 issued pg. 100,000 Population– increased 73 (Activity Level) (activity level indicator)

How many small Number of Residential Increased 2.1 residential building Building Permits Issued 2.2 permits are issued? (of Construction Value Number of residential N/A < $50,000) per 100,000 permits issued <$50,000 pg. Population– (Activity increased 73 Level) (activity level indicator ) How many institutional, Number of ICI Building Increased 3 2.1 commercial and industrial Permits Issued per 2.2 (ICI) building permits are 100,000 Population– Number of ICI permits Low rate of ICI permits issued? (Activity Level) issued increased issued compared to pg. others 73 (activity level indicator) (activity level indicator)

(impacted by fully developed urban form) Community Impact Measures What is the construction Construction Value of Increased 1 2.3 value for all types of Total Building Permits 2.4 building permits issued? Issued per capita – Total value of all Higher rate of total (Community Impact) construction types construction value of all pg. increased permit types compared 74 to others

What is the construction Construction Value of Stable 2.3 value of small residential Residential Building 2.4 building permits issued? Permits Issued (of Value of small N/A Construction Value < residential construction pg. $50,000) per capita – projects (<$50,000) was 74 (Community Impact) stable

70 Building Services

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 What is the construction Construction Value of Increased 2.3 value of large residential Residential Building N/A 2.4 building permits issued? Permits Issued (of Value of large residential Construction Value > construction (>$50,000) pg. $50,000) per capita – increased 74 (Community Impact) What is the construction Construction Value of Increased 2.3 value of institutional, ICI Building Permits N/A 2.4 commercial and industrial Issued per capita – Value of ICI construction (ICI) building permits (Community Impact) increased pg. issued? 74 (impacted by 2009 recession) What is the ratio of Percentage of Increased 2 2.5 residential and Construction Value of 2.6 commercial construction Issued ICI Building Proportion of High proportion of activity? Permits of the Total commercial & industrial commercial industrial pg. Construction Value of construction value construction value 75 Issued Building increased compared to others Permits– (Community Impact) How many new housing New Residential Units Increased 2 2.7 units are being created? Created per 100,000 Population – Number of new High rate of new pg. (Community Impact) residential units created residential units created 75 increased compared to others

Customer Service Measures Are building permit Percentage of Building Stable 2.8 applications reviewed Permit Applications N/A 2.9 within the legislated Reviewed within Stable proportion (82%) timeframe? legislated timeframes – reviewed within pg. (Customer Service) legislated timeframe 76 in 2011 Are Residential Fastrack % of Residential Stable 2.10 building permit Fastrack Building N/A applications reviewed Permits Issued Within Stable and high pg. within the legislated Legislated Timeframes proportion (97%) 76 timeframe? (Customer Service) reviewed within legislated timeframe in 2011

Are Commercial Xpress % of Commercial Stable 2.11 building permit Xpress Building Permits N/A applications reviewed Issued Within Stable and high pg. within the legislated Legislated Timeframes proportion (94%) 76 timeframe? (Customer Service) reviewed within legislated timeframe in 2011

71 Building Services

2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Are mandatory building Percentage of Stable 2.12 inspections made within Mandatory Inspections N/A the legislated timeframe? made within legislated Stable and high pg. timeframes – (Customer proportion (93%) 76 Service) inspected within legislated timeframe in 2011

Efficiency Measures How much does it cost Building Cost per Decreased 2 2.13 on average to enforce $1,000 of construction 2.14 the Building Code per value – (Efficiency) Cost per $1,000 of Low cost to enforce $1,000 of construction construction value Building Code per value? decreased $1,000 of construction pg. permit issued compared 77 to others

Service/ Performance Service/ Performance Overall Results Activity Level Measures Activity Level Measures Indicators (Results) Indicators (Results) (Resources) (Resources)

4 - Increased 6 - Favourable 0 - 1st quartile 1 - 1st quartile 0 - Stable 5 - Stable 0 - 2nd quartile 3- 2nd quartile 0 - Decreased 0 - Unfavour. 1 - 3rd quartile 0 - 3rd quartile 1 - 4th quartile 0 - 4th quartile

100% stable or 100% favourable 0% above 100% above increased or stable median median

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of nine municipalities.

72 Building Services

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How many building permits are issued in Toronto? 700 One method to review building 600 service or activity levels is to 500 examine the number of building 400 permits issued. Chart 2.1 provides Toronto's data, expressed on a per 300 100,000 population for the total 200 permits issued and the three 100 components that comprise that 0 total. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total # Permits/100,000 pop'n 431.6 451.2 643.4 662.2 445.2 560.1 In 2010, Toronto experienced # ICI Permits Issued 144.5 192.7 360.9 367.9 144.0 182.4 increases in the number of permits # Res. Permits<$50K 75.0 71.9 225.9 227.8 184.6 211.2 for the institutional, commercial and # Res. Permits >$50K 212.1 186.6 56.6 66.5 116.6 166.5 industrial (ICI) sector as well as for Chart 2.1 (City of Toronto) Number of Building Permits Issued (by Type) per both smaller (<$50,000) and larger 100,000 Population (Activity Level) (>$50,000) residential permits.

These 2010 increases were How does Toronto’s number of building permits issued compare principally due to the lower than to other municipalities? usual development cycle 2,500 experienced in the 2009 recession

period. Residential building permits, Median ICI permits 208 2,000 in particular, have seen large

Median Total permits 1,054 increases from prior years.

1,500 Chart 2.2 compares Toronto's 2010

result to other municipalities for the

1,000 rate of total permits and ICI permits

issued per 100,000 population.

500

In terms of the highest number of

building permits issued, Toronto 0 Calg Sud Ham T-Bay Bar Lond Wind Ott Tor ranks:

Total # Permits 1,948 1,451 1,160 1,148 1,054 1,011 827 802 560 eighth of nine (fourth quartile) # of ICI permits 393 230 160 310 402 208 170 163 182 for all building permit types Chart 2.2 (OMBI 2010) Total Number of Building Permits and ICI Permits Issued per sixth of nine (third quartile) in 100,000 Population (Activity Level) for the rate of ICI building permits issued.

The number of building permits issued in a year can be influenced by the level of economic activity in a municipality, the availability of vacant greenfields and serviced lands for development, and municipal policy for what type of construction requires a permit or the requirement for multiple phased permits.

The limited availability of undeveloped land is a factor in Toronto's ranking. The majority of Toronto's activity derives from redevelopment of existing properties. Toronto's higher population density is also a contributing factor, in that there may be fewer permits but those projects tend to be of a larger size than those of other municipalities.

73 Building Services

2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

What is the value of building construction in Toronto? 2,500 The construction value of building permits is an important 2,000 indicator of economic activity in a municipality 1,500

1,000 Chart 2.3 provides Toronto's data, on a per capita basis, of the total 500 construction value of building activity in Toronto as well as the 0 three components that comprise 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 that total. $ Total Permits per capita $1,770 $1,336 $1,472 $2,241 $1,883 $2,417

$ ICI Permits Issued per capita $586 $674 $990 $1,578 $1,143 $1,516 Toronto's 2010 construction $ Res. Permits<$50K per capita $7 $7 $22 $21 $23 $23 activity amounted to $6.7 billion, $ Res. Permits >$50K per capita $1,176 $655 $460 $641 $717 $878 which was an increase of $1.5 Chart 2.3 (City of Toronto) Construction Value of Building Permits Issued per Capita billion over 2009 levels. Both the (Community Impact) residential and ICI sectors experienced increases in 2010 How do Toronto’s construction values compare to other due to a healthier development municipalities? climate. $3,000 Chart 2.4 compares Toronto’s $2,500 2010 construction value of all Median $1,939 building permits issued per $2,000 capita to other municipalities.

$1,500 In terms of the highest construction value per capita, $1,000 Toronto ranks second of nine (first quartile).

$500

$0 Calg Tor Ott Ham Lon Sud Bar T-Bay $ total permits $2,786 $2,417 $2,091 $2,056 $1,939 $1,798 $1,740 $1,386

Chart 2.4 (OMBI 2010) Construction Value of Building Permits Issued per Capita (Community Impact)

The construction value of building permits in municipalities is influenced by the level of economic activity in a municipality and the availability of vacant greenfields and serviced lands for development. As noted earlier, Toronto's limited availability of undeveloped land is a contributing factor in Toronto's ranking, because most of the activity derives from redevelopment of existing properties at higher densities and of a higher average value per permit.

74 Building Services

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

What is the ratio of residential and commercial construction In addition to the absolute dollar values in Toronto? value of construction, it is 100% important to consider the ratio between the value of residential 80% construction (where people live) 60% and ICI construction (where 40% people work). 20% Chart 2.5 provides Toronto's 0% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 percentage split between $ ICI Permits Issued per capita 33.1% 50.4% 67.3% 70.4% 60.7% 62.7% residential and ICI construction $ Res. Permits< values. In 2010, the ICI share of $50K per capita 0.4% 0.5% 1.5% 0.9% 1.2% 0.9% total construction value rose to $ Res. Permits > $50K per capita 66.4% 49.0% 31.3% 28.6% 38.1% 34.9% 62.7 per cent.

Chart 2.5 (City of Toronto) Commercial / Residential Split of Total Chart 2.6 compares Toronto to Construction Value (Community Impact) other municipalities for the 2010 component split of total What is the ratio of residential and commercial construction construction values, sorted from values in Toronto compared to other municipalities? the highest to lowest percentage 100% of ICI construction. Toronto 80% ranks third of nine (second quartile) in terms of having the 60% highest ICI component 40% percentage.

20% The construction of new housing 0% to attract and accommodate new Wind T-Bay Tor Sud Bar Ott Ham Lond Calg %ICI permits and existing residents is also a 80.2% 69.5% 62.7% 58.3% 49.9% 49.0% 48.5% 44.5% 38.2% Toronto’s % other permits 0.3% 0.0% 1.6% 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 4.4% goal of municipalities.

%res permits<$50,000 2.9% 4.0% 0.9% 6.6% 1.3% 1.5% 1.6% 2.2% 4.1% 2010 result of 601 new units per

% res permits>$50,000 16.6% 26.5% 36.3% 34.9% 48.2% 49.2% 49.4% 53.4% 53.3% 100,000 population increased by

Chart 2.6 (OMBI 2010) Commercial/ Residential Split of Total Construction 40 per cent over the 2009 result Value (Community Impact) primarily as a result of new condominiums. Figure 2.7 How many new housing units are being created in Toronto, compares Toronto's 2010 results compared to other municipalities? to other municipalities for the 800 5,000 number residential units created Median 435 new units per 100,000 population, plotted 4,000 600 as bars relative to the left axis. Population density is also plotted 3,000 as a line relative to the right axis. 400

2,000 km sq. per pop'n # of new units units new of # - In terms of having the highest 200 rate of new housing created, 1,000 Density Toronto ranks third of nine 0 0 (second quartile). The amount of Ott Calg Tor Lond Ham Bar Sud T-Bay Wind greenfields in a municipality # Units Created 748 675 601 525 435 385 281 238 109 impacts residential development. Pop'n density 328 1,264 4,373 863 469 1,400 44 332 1,493 Although Toronto has minimal Chart 2.7 (OMBI 2010) New Residential Units Created per 100,000 undeveloped lands, residential Population (Community Impact) and Population Density units are being created through redevelopment of properties into high density condominium projects 75 Building Services

2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

What was the median number of days building permit applications Legislated timeframes for review of were reviewed in Toronto in 2011 relative to the legislated timeframe? completed application for 40 compliance with the Building 30 20 Code, and issuance of permits (if 10 0 they meet code) are noted in Chart Category 1: Houses 10 Category 2: Small Category 3: Large Category 4: Complex Days Buildings 15 Days Buildings 20 Days Buildings 30 Days 2.8, which also includes Toronto's 2011 results for the median time to Median number of days to Issue Permit 10 10 13 30 Legislated Time Frames 10 15 20 30 review applications relative to Chart 2.8 (City of Toronto) 2011 results for Median Number of Days Building these legislated time frames Permits are Processed Relative to the Legislated Timeframes Chart 2.9 shows Toronto's results Are building permit applications in Toronto reviewed within the over time for the percentage of legislated timeframe? applications reviewed within these 100% 75% standards and indicate results in

50% 2011 were on par with the 25% improvement experienced since 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2010. Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Target % of building permits issued within 78% 77% 80% 81% 82% 82% 85% Chart 2.10 shows Toronto's results legislated timeframes for meeting these standards for Chart 2.9 (City of Toronto) % of Building Permits Processed Within Legislated building permit review and Timeframes (Customer Service) issuance under the Residential Fastrack service. This service, for Residential Fastrack Are building permit applications in Toronto, certain types of home renovation reviewed within the legislated timeframe? 100% projects, allows customers to 75% submit completed applications 50% 25% over the counter at district offices. 0% It has a goal of issuing a permit 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Actual Actual Actuals Actual Actual Actual Target while customers wait, but in certain % conducted within circumstances, it may take up to 5 legislated timeframes 98% 99% 98% 98% 97% 97% 95% business days to complete the Chart 2.10 (City of Toronto) % of Residential Fastrack Building Permits Issued review. Results show Toronto Within Legislated Timeframes (Customer Service) continuing to exceed target for 2011. Commercial Xpress Are building permit applications in Toronto, reviewed within the legislated timeframe? 100% Chart 2.11 shows Toronto's results 75% for meeting these standards for 50% 25% building permit review and

0% issuance under the Commercial 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Actual Actual Actuals Actual Actual Actual Target Xpress service, an enhanced % conducted within Building Permit service for certain legislated timeframes 92% 94% 96% 96% 95% 94% 95% types of projects with a goal of Chart 2.11 (City of Toronto) % of Commercial Xpress Building Permits Issued reviewing eligible applications Within Legislated Timeframes (Customer Service) within 10 working days. Results Are mandatory building inspections in Toronto made within the show Toronto continued to exceed legislated timeframe? target for 2011. 100% 75% Chart 2.12 reflects results for 50% 25% mandatory inspections required for 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 projects to proceed, which are to Actual Actual Actuals Actual Actual Actual Target be completed within two days of % conducted within legislated timeframes 90% 90% 94% 94% 93% 93% 95% receiving the inspection request. Results in 2011 were on par with Chart 2.12 (City of Toronto) % of Mandatory Inspections Conducted Within Legislated Timeframes (Customer Service) 2010

76 Building Services

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How much does it cost on average to enforce the Building Code in Toronto per $1,000 of construction value? The activities included in building services costs include: $10 $8 processing permit applications $6 undertaking reviews to $4 determine intention to comply with the Building Code and $2 applicable law (i.e. zoning $0 bylaw, Heritage Act, etc.) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 issuing permits $cost per $1,000 value $12.25 $11.62 $7.77 $8.40 $7.51 inspecting at key stages of Costs are as reported under the Building Code Statute Law Amendment Act completed construction Chart 2.13 (City of Toronto) Cost of Enforcing the Building Code per $1,000 of issuing orders and Construction Value (Efficiency) prosecution where compliance is not obtained How does the building cost per $1,000 of construction value administration and support in Toronto compare to other municipalities? $20 Chart 2.13 reflects Toronto’s cost $18 to enforce the Building Code per $16 $1,000 of construction value, $14 and showed a decrease in 2010. $12 $10 Median $ 8.23 This decrease related to the $8 significant increase of 28% in $6 construction values (see Chart $4 2.3), which exceeded the $2 increase in operating costs. $0 Lond Ham Tor Bar T-Bay Sud Ott Wind $cost/$1,000 value $6.43 $6.54 $7.51 $8.09 $8.37 $9.31 $9.55 $13.58 Cost are as reported under the Building Code Statute Law Amendment Act

Chart 2.14 (OMBI 2010) Cost of Enforcing the Building Code per $1,000 of Construction Value (Efficiency)

Chart 2.14 compares Toronto’s 2010 results to other municipalities for the cost to enforce the Building Code per $1,000 of Construction Value. Toronto ranks third of eight (second quartile) in terms of having the lowest cost.

The large size and technical complexity of developments and many building permits in Toronto can require additional review and inspection work, which cam be a contributing factor in these costs. .

77 Building Services

2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

2011 Achievements and 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following initiatives have or are expected to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Building Services in Toronto:

2011 Initiatives Completed/Achievements maintained the rate of processing applications and requests, the rate of responding to inspection requests, and responses to complaint investigation requests within the legislated time frames, despite sustained high volumes and carry-over projects achieved 99% response rate for Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for building information and property records implemented the Sign By-law and Third Party Sign Tax and new Zoning Certificate Program completed a technical review to identify possible alternative roof surfaces for Industrial buildings required to have a green roof and recommended potential amendments to the Green Roof Bylaw for consideration by City Council. Amendments to Green Roof By-law (TMC Chp. 492 ) were approved by City Council at its meeting in November, 2011 conducted a comprehensive review of amendments to the Building Code and Council recommended changes regarding resource conservation and mid-rise wood frame construction completed various improvements to Electronic Customer Service achieved a 58% remediation rate through the Marijuana Grow Operations Inspection program with 527 reports received over the life of the program

2012 Initiatives Planned Toronto Building eservice delivery o eplan (Building permit plan review electronic mark-up) o portal/online solution implementation planning TEY reorganization implementation PanAm games, athletes village Response and implementation of improvements to fee collection following the Auditor General's recommendations once approved by Council AODA divisional planning and readiness to be compliant with Corporate implementation of AODA regulations Transit Expansion Program; Building Permitting and Cross Municipal Coordination: o Eglinton Crosstown Project o Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension; six stations to be built along the extension o Sheppard West - on Parc Downsview Park lands, adjacent to the Barrie GO Transit Line o Finch West - at the corner of Keele Street and Finch Avenue o York University - near the common of York University o Steeles West - at North West Gate and Steeles Avenue, east of Jane Street o Highway 407 - adjacent to Highway 407 and Jane Street o Vaughan Corporate Centre - near Highway 7 west of Jane Street Implement legislative changes: o new Energy code provisions o new Complete Application code provisions o new Final Inspection requirements o new Building Code technical provisions 2012/2013

Factors Influencing Results of Municipalities

Building Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

The results of each municipality found in the charts included in this report are influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

permit requirements: municipal policy for what type of construction requires a permit and the phasing of permits (one for the foundation, one for plumbing, one for the structure, etc.) complexity: size and technical complexity of permit applications and construction work requiring varying amounts of review/inspection times, e.g. costs associated with reviewing and inspecting tract housing (new suburbs) tend to be lower than costs associated with infill projects, custom homes, renovations and larger buildings established service standards: some municipalities have opted to deliver enhanced services such as targeting a higher turn-around time for reviews and thus issuance of certain categories of permits geographic size: can lead to more travel time and fewer inspections per day resulting in higher costs per permit

79 BByyllaaww EEnnffoorrcceemmeenntt SSeerrvviicceess

Municipal Licensing and Standards

Business Licensing, Property Animal Care & Enforcement & Enforcement Enforcement Permitting

Business Licensing, Property Standards Cat and Dog Permitting & and Maintenance Licensing & Enforcement Enforcement Enforcement

Right-of-Way Animal By-Law Permitting & Other Enforcement Enforcement and Enforcement Mobile Response

Parks By-Law Veterinary Care Enforcement

Boxes shaded reflect the activities covered Animal Sheltering in this report Waste Enforcement and Adoption

Bylaw enforcement services in the City of Toronto are provided by various City divisions.

The Municipal Licensing and Standards division’s Investigation Services unit enforces provisions of the Municipal Code to ensure:

mobile and stationary business license holders and permit recipients operate in accordance with the regulations governing those permits and licenses public and private properties are maintained at standards that preserve neighbourhoods and increase the quality of life specific hazards and safety issues addressed by the Municipal Code are dealt with in a timely manner pets are licensed and those that have been lost are properly cared for and reunited with their owners or adopted by new families the public is educated about responsible pet ownership to ensure public safety

Enforcement involves the inspection of public and private property and municipally licensed businesses to ensure compliance with City bylaws and regulations in order to maintain a high level of public safety, consumer protection, neighbourhood integrity and cleanliness.

Municipal Licensing and Standards also operates four Animal Centres responsible for the sheltering of lost, stray or abandoned animals, dealing with wild animals and providing adoption and spay/neutering services.

80 Bylaw Enforcement Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service / Activity Level Indicators How much is spent on Total Specified Bylaw Increased 2 3.1 bylaw enforcement per Enforcement Cost per capita? Capita - (Service Level) Spending per capita on High rate of spending pg. bylaw enforcement per capita on Bylaw 82 increased Enforcement compared to others (service level indicator) (service level indicator) How many bylaw Number of Inspections Increased 2 3.2 enforcement inspections per Bylaw Complaint - 3.3 are done in relation to the (Service Level) Rate of inspections Low rate of inspections number of complaints? relative to complaints relative to complaints pg. increased compared to others 82

(service level indicator) (service level indicator) Community Impact Measures How many bylaw Number of Specified Increased 3 3.4 complaints do residents Bylaw Complaints per 3.5 make? 100,000 Population - Number of complaints High rate of complaints (Community Impact) received increased received compared to pg. others 83 What per cent of Percentage of Voluntary Stable 2 3.6 residents voluntarily Compliance to Bylaw 3.7 comply after a bylaw Infractions - Rate of voluntary High rate of voluntary infraction? (Community Impact) compliance remained compliance compared to pg. stable at very high/good others 83 rates Customer Service Measures How long does it take to Average Time (Days) to Decreased 4 3.8 resolve a yard Resolve/Close Yard 3.9 maintenance bylaw Maintenance Bylaw Time to resolve yard Longest time to resolve complaint? Complaints – (Customer maintenance complaint yard maintenance pg. Service) decreased complaint compared to 84 others How long does it take to Average Time (Days) to Decreased 4 3.10 resolve a property Resolve/Close Property standards bylaw Standards Bylaw Time to resolve property Longest time to resolve pg. complaint? Complaints – (Customer standard complaint property standards 84 Service) decreased complaint compared to others Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results)

2 - Increased 2 - Favourable 0 - 1st quartile 0 - 1st quartile 0 - Stable 1 - Stable 1 - 2nd quartile 1 - 2nd quartile 0 - Decreased. 1 - Unfavour. 1 - 3rd quartile 1 - 3rd quartile 0 - 4th quartile 2 - 4th quartile

100% stable or 50% favourable 50% above 25% above increased or stable median median For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of eight municipalities

81 Bylaw Enforcement Services

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How does Toronto’s cost of bylaw enforcement compare to other municipalities? To improve comparability with $16.00 other municipalities on bylaw $14.00 Median $9.92 enforcement, all charts in this $12.00 section $10.00 include - yard maintenance, $8.00 property standards, zoning $6.00 enforcement, noise control, $4.00 and animal control $2.00 exclude- waste $0.00 enforcement, parks Ham Bar Tor Wind Lon T-Bay Ott Sud enforcement fences, graffiti, $cost/capita $13.38 $11.06 $10.88 $10.77 $9.07 $7.38 $6.56 $5.12 abandoned appliances,

Toronto's previous 2010 and 2009 results of $12.94 and 12.02 per capita were revised from vending, sign enforcement, the OMBI joint report to reflect a more accuract split of bylaw and licensing costs vital services, adequate heat, boulevard marketing, Chart 3.1(OMBI 2010) Cost of Bylaw Enforcement per Capita (Service Level) and rooming house

licensing How many bylaw enforcement inspections are done in Toronto in relation to the number of complaints? Toronto's 2010 cost of Bylaw

Enforcement of $10.87 per 3.0 capita increased by +3.3% over

2.5 2009, as there were lower

2.0 service levels in 2009 during the

six week strike. 1.5

1.0 Chart 3.1 compares Toronto’s

2010 cost per capita of bylaw 0.5 enforcement to other Ontario

0.0 municipalities. Toronto ranks 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 third of eight (second quartile) in Inspections/ complaint 2.55 2.40 2.47 2.08 1.99 2.10 terms of having the highest cost

Chart 3.2 (City of Toronto) Average Number of Bylaw Inspections per Complaint per capita, which provides an (Service Level) indication of service levels.

How does Toronto’s rate of bylaw inspections relative to Chart 3.2 displays the average complaints compare to other municipalities? number of bylaw inspections made by Toronto staff, per 4.0 complaint received from 3.5 residents. In 2009, inspections Median 2.14 3.0 were limited during the six week 2.5 strike period, which accounts for 2.0 the drop in the 2009 inspection 1.5 rate and subsequent increase in 1.0 2010. 0.5 0.0 Chart 3.3 compares 2010 results T-Bay Wind Lond Bar Tor Ham Sud for Toronto to other # investigations 3.55 2.77 2.37 2.14 2.10 1.62 1.50 municipalities for the average number of inspections per Chart 3.3 (OMBI 2010) Number of Bylaw Inspections per Complaint (Service Level) complaint and Toronto ranks fifth of seven (third quartile) in terms of having the highest rate of inspections.

82 Bylaw Enforcement Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How many bylaw complaints are made by Toronto residents? To assess if residents comply 1,800 with bylaws, the number of 1,500 complaints made by residents 1,200 900 about infractions provides an complaint's 600 indication of success. population 100,000 per 300 Chart 3.4 provides Toronto’s 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 total number and rate of bylaw Total # complaints (reactive & proactive) 18,742 21,825 25,472 23,780 35,178 31,618 44,947 complaints per 100,000 # complaints -reactive 18,742 21,825 25,472 23,780 24,689 25,446 35,411 population. Results are # identified proactively 10,489 6,172 9,536

Complaints (reactive & proactive)/100K Pop'n 701 809 942 871 1,285 1,147 1,621 separated into two components:

Proactively identified/100k Pop'n 383 224 344 complaints received requiring Complaints -reactive/100k Pop'n 701 809 942 871 902 923 1,277 investigation (reactive) Chart 3.4 (City of Toronto) Number of Complaints per 100,000 Population violations identified during (Community Impact) inspections initiated by staff (proactive). This comprises a How does the Toronto's rate of bylaw complaints compare to greater proportion of work in other municipalities? Toronto than in other 3,000 municipalities. 2,500 Median 1,582 2,000 Complaints increased in 2010 1,500 due to integration with 311, and 1,000 the tendency for increases in 500 election years, and lower 0 Sud T-Bay Lond Bar Tor Ham Ott Wind comparative 2009 volumes #complaints/100K Pop. 580 786 1,341 1,543 1,621 2,001 2,700 2,897 during the strike period.

Chart 3.5 (OMBI 2010) Number of Bylaw Complaints per 100,000 Population Chart 3.5 compares Toronto’s (Community Impact) 2010 rate of bylaw enforcement complaints (both reactive and What percent of Toronto residents voluntarily comply after a proactive) to other municipalities. bylaw infraction? Toronto ranks fifth of eight (third 100% quartile) in terms of having the 90% lowest complaint rate. 80%

70% Once staff respond to a 60% complaint and confirm a bylaw 50% infraction, the offending party 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % compliance 97.2% 93.8% 95.3% 97.6% 95.7% 95.9% 95.9% must comply with the bylaw. If Chart 3.6 (City of Toronto) Percent of Voluntary Compliance After Bylaw Infraction this is not done voluntarily, it (Community Impact) may require follow-up with enforcement or prosecution. How does Toronto’s rate of voluntarily bylaw compliance Chart 3.6 reflects Toronto’s compare to other municipalities? voluntary compliance rate for 100% Median 86.7% bylaw infractions, which has 80% remained above 95 per cent

60% over almost the entire period. Chart 3.7 compares Toronto’s 40% 2010 voluntary compliance rate 20% for bylaw infractions to other 0% municipalities and Toronto ranks Bar Sud Tor T-Bay Wind Ham Lond third of seven (second quartile) % compliance 99.9% 99.6% 95.9% 86.7% 85.5% 75.7% 44.8% in terms of having the highest Chart 3.7 (OMBI 2010) Percent of Voluntary Compliance after Bylaw Infraction compliance rate. (Community Impact)

83 Bylaw Enforcement Services

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How long does it take in Toronto to resolve a bylaw complaint? Chart 3.8 provides Toronto's 180 data on the average number of 160 140 days it takes to resolve or close 120 a substantiated complaint 100 regarding yard maintenance and 80 property standards. In 2010 the 60 40 time required to close a 20 complaint file decreased, 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 illustrating the results of staff initiatives to reduce the time to # days yard mtn 77 67 86 63 close complaint files In 2011 # days prop stds 166 147 158 92 continuing efforts have led to a - Chart 3.8 (City of Toronto) Average Number of Days to Resolve/Close Bylaw 22% reduction the time to Complaint (Customer Service) resolve an investigation compared to 2011. How does the time it takes to resolve yard maintenance bylaw complaints in Toronto compared to other municipalities? Charts 3.9 and 3.10 compare

70 Toronto’s 2010 results to other

60 municipalities on the average Median 21.8 50 time it takes to resolve or close yard maintenance and property 40 standards complaints 30 20 Toronto ranks seventh of seven

10 (fourth quartile) with the longest

0 time to resolve both yard T-Bay Bar Ott Ham Wind Sud Tor maintenance and property # days yard mtn 3.0 8.5 15.0 21.8 27.0 34.6 63.0 standards complaints.

Chart 3.9 (OMBI 2010) Average Number of Days to Resolve/Close Yard Maintenance Bylaw Complaint (Customer Service) Toronto, unlike the other municipalities in Chart 3.9 does How does the time it takes to resolve property standards bylaw not consider investigation files complaints in Toronto compared to other municipalities? closed when extensions (including those from Property.

100 Standards Committee), are

90 given and/or the case goes to 80 Median 21.6 70 court. Toronto's results include 60 this extra time period for 50 extensions and court time, which 40 can be a contributing factor to 30 20 Toronto's higher results. 10 0 T-Bay Ott Ham Bar Sud Wind Toronto As a result, final resolution, using the definition noted above, # days prop stnds 4.0 17.2 19.8 21.6 23.4 56.0 91.6 takes much longer in Toronto. Chart 3.10 (OMBI 2010) Average Number of Days to Resolve/Close Property Standards Bylaw Complaint (Customer Service)

84 Bylaw Enforcement Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

2011 Achievements and 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following initiatives are intended to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the City of Toronto Municipal Licensing and Standards Division’s Bylaw enforcement program:

2011 Initiatives Completed/Achievements:

enhanced the online business license look-up site to allow the public to check if a business is properly licensed launched the e-business model for business license renewals achieved an adoption rate, 93% higher than for the same period in 2010 under the Animal Services "Fall in Love" Campaign amended the A-Frame Sign By-Law to reduce permit fees and provide access to all businesses implemented a remote computing system, increased management oversight in district offices and implemented the Investigation Support Unit, which provides a complaint triage, dispatch and follow-up function from a central location for all district operations. In 2011 overall investigation response times improved by 48% from 2010. continued the strategy for collaborative enforcement action with other City divisions and external agencies sterilized 102 feral cats by June 3, 2011 which prevented the birth of approximately 13,500 kittens by 2015. continued successful collaboration and partnership model with various cat interest groups across the city continued the Multi Residential Apartment Building (MRAB) inspection program, which in 2011 proactively inspected 210 buildings commenced operation of a dedicated team for Graffiti and in 2011 there was a 329% increase in the number of pro-active graffiti investigations conducted. In addition, there was also a 2011 increase of 77% in the number of graffiti complaints received, which is most likely due to media exposure and the availability of 3-1-1 to make those complaints.

Factors Influencing Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality found in the charts included in this report are influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

service standards set by each municipality’s Council geographic size and population density of the municipality monitoring and compliance tracking - type and quality of systems used to track complaints, inspections, and related data inspection policies - extent and complexity of inspections or other responses carried out by each municipality. Differences in inspection policies from municipality to municipality make it more challenging to make a direct comparison response capability - nature of the complaint and resources available to respond affecting the timeliness of the response

85 CChhiillddrreenn’’ss SSeerrvviicceess

Children’s Services is the service manager of child care within Toronto. In partnership with the community, it promotes equitable access to high quality care for children and support for families and caregivers. An integrated approach to planning and management ensures that services to children promote early learning and development, respond to family needs and choices and respect the diversity of Toronto’s communities.

Children's Services

Child Care Child Care System Delivery Management

Child Care Directly Operated Planning and Child Care Development

Contracted Child Support Services Care

Subsidy Eligibility Assessment and Placement

Child Care Funding & Subsidies

Special Needs Resourcing

86 Children’s Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service Level Indicators How much is spent or Investment per 1,000 Increased 1 4.1 invested in childcare per Children (12 & under) - 4.2 child (aged 12 and (Service Level) Investment/gross cost Highest rate/level of under)? per child increased expenditures on pg. children compared to 88 (service level indicator) others

(service level indicator) Community Impact Measures How many regulated Regulated Child Care Stable 2 4.3 childcare spaces are Spaces in Municipality 4.4 available? per 1,000 Children (12 Number of regulated High rate of regulated pg. & under)– spaces was stable spaces compared to 89 (Community Impact) others How many subsidized Fee Subsidy Child Care Stable 3 4.5 childcare spaces are Spaces per 1,000 LICO 4.6 available? Children – Number of subsidized Low rate r of subsidized pg. (Community Impact) spaces was stable spaces compared to 90 others What percentage of Percentage of Children Stable 4 4.6 children under 12 years in the Municipality (12 old are considered low and under) that are Proportion of low Highest proportion of pg. income children? LICO Children -– income children is low income children 90 (Community Impact) stable at approximately compared to others 33 per cent How large is the waiting Size of Waiting List for a Increased 4 4.7 list for a subsidized child Subsidized Child Care 4.8 care space? Space as a % of All Size of wait list for a Larger waiting list for a Subsidized Spaces – subsidized space subsidized child care pg. (Community Impact) increased space compared to 90 others Efficiency Measures How much does it cost Annual Child Care Decreased 4 4.9 per year, to provide an Service Cost per 4.10 average child care Normalized Child Care Decrease in cost per Higher cost per space? Space – (Efficiency) subsidized space subsidized space pg. compared to others 91 Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results)

1- Increased 0 - Favourable 1 - 1st quartile 0 - 1st quartile 0 - Stable 3 - Stable 0 - 2nd quartile 1 - 2nd quartile 0 - Decreased 1 - Unfavour. 0 - 3rd quartile 1 - 3rd quartile 0 - 4th quartile 3 - 4th quartile

100% stable or 75% favourable 100% above 20% above increased or stable median median

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of 12 municipalities.

87 Children’s Services

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How much is spent or invested in Toronto for childcare per child aged 12 and under? One method of examining

$1,200 $1,056 service levels for child care is to $1,022 relate municipal costs to all $1,000 children under the age of 12.

$800 This category includes children $600 who are cared for in regulated child care programs, by families $400 at home, or in non-regulated $200 child care arrangements.

$0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Chart 4.1 reflects Toronto’s 2009 change in acct. policy $11 $24 gross cost or investment in all Gross $ Investment child care related activities, per $733 $792 $957 $965 $998 $1,011 $1,032 /Child child aged 12 years and under. It shows an increased Chart 4.1 (City of Toronto) Gross Cost/Investment per Child ages 12 and Under cost/investment in 2010. (Service Level) These costs include the How does Toronto’s cost (investment) per child under 12, activities of operating and compare to other municipalities? purchasing subsidized child $1,200 care spaces, wage subsidies, Median $589 special needs resourcing, other $1,000 municipally funded activities, and administration. $800 Chart 4.2 compares Toronto’s $600 2010 child care cost or investment per child to other

$400 Ontario municipalities.

$200 Toronto ranks first of twelve

$0 municipalities (first quartile), Tor Sud Ott Lond Wind Ham Musk Niag Wat Halt Durh York with the highest cost or Gross $ Inv $1,056 $922 $807 $700 $656 $650 $529 $526 $483 $480 $407 $317 investment per child.

Chart 4.2 (OMBI 2010) Gross Investment per Child ages 12 and Under (Service Level)

These costs can be influenced by the number of subsidized spaces, the age mix of children, the relative cost of living and the level of child poverty in a municipality.

88 Children’s Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How many regulated childcare spaces are in Toronto? 180 Providing access to early 150 learning and care is a primary objective of Children’s Services. 120

90 The number of licensed child 60 care spaces available impacts 30 access for families. For parents 0 that are unable to afford the full 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 cost of child care services, regulated spaces per 1,000 children 127 130 133 135 136 140 158 157 158 158 158 access to a subsidy is very Total # important. regulated spaces 47,537 40,065 50,452 51,209 51,683 53,300 55,533 55,579 56,091 56,642 56,785 Chart 4.3 (City of Toronto) Regulated Child Care Spaces per 1,000 Children Under Chart 4.3 provides information 12 (Community Impact) on the total number and rate of regulated Child Care spaces How does the number of regulated child care spaces in there were in Toronto per 1,000 Toronto compare to other municipalities? children under the age of 12. It 300 shows small increases each year between 2006 and 2010. 250

Median 156 200 Chart 4.4 compares 2010 results

150 for the number of regulated child care spaces there were per 100 1,000 children under 12 in

50 Toronto, relative to other Ontario municipalities. 0 Sud York Halt Lond Ott Tor Niag Ham Musk Wind Durh Wat Toronto ranks sixth of 12 # spaces 248 206 184 172 171 158 154 146 146 129 124 111 (second quartile) in terms of Chart 4.4 (OMBI 2010) Regulated Child Care Spaces per 1,000 Children Under 12 - having the largest number of (Community Impact) regulated spaces.

The total number of regulated spaces is a function of provincial licensing responsibility and the availability of federal or provincial capital funding. The municipal role in increasing the supply is often limited to application of instruments such as Section 37 agreements, which require developers to fund child care in new developments, and municipal capital funding.

While the previous charts relate to the number of regulated spaces, Chart 4.5 on the next page provides information on the number of subsidized child care spaces in Toronto, per 1,000 children in low income (LICO) families.

89 Children’s Services

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How many subsidized child care spaces are in Toronto? These subsidized spaces are for 250 parents who are unable to afford 200 the full cost of child care. Over 150 the period of 2002 to 2009, the 100 number of subsidized child care 50 0 spaces increased, but remained 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 stable in 2010. # subsized spaces per 1,000 LICO Children 170 198 189 190 191 198 201 203 208 207 205 Total # of Chart 4.6 compares Toronto’s subsidized spaces 23,112 22,523 21,562 21,664 21,806 22,616 22,882 23,423 23,983 24,120 24,011 2010 result to other Chart 4.5 (City of Toronto) Subsidized Child Care Spaces per 1,000 LICO (Low municipalities for the number of Income) Children Under 12 (Community Impact) subsidized child care spaces per 1,000 children in low income How does the number of subsidized child care spaces in Toronto (LICO) families, reflected as bars compare to other municipalities? relative to the left axis. Toronto Subsized spaces % LICO Children 320 Medians - 209.9 subsidized spaces and 16.7% LICO Children 35% ranks seventh of twelve per 1,00 LICO 280 30% municipalities (third quartile) in Children 240 25% 200 20% terms of having the highest 160 120 15% number of subsidized spaces. 80 10% 40 5% The number of subsidized 0 0% spaces in municipalities is Ott Sud Musk Wat Lond Niag Tor Halt Wind Ham Dur York Sub Spaces influenced by economic per 1,000 LICO 303.7 273.8 256.9 238.6 220.4 214.6 205.1 194.6 157.3 155.3 152.7 110.0 conditions and provincial funding % LICO Children 15.2% 17.7% 7.3% 12.5% 19.9% 15.9% 32.5% 10.0% 16.4% 25.0% 11.9% 17.0% decisions.

Chart 4.6 (OMBI 2010) Subsidized Spaces per 1,000 LICO (Low Income) Children (Community Impact) and % of All Children Considered as LICO Children Chart 4.6 also reflects the number of children in low income How large is the waiting list for a subsidized space in Toronto? families, as a percentage of all 80% children in the municipality, 60% plotted as a line graph relative to

40% the right axis. This provides some indication of the level of 20% child poverty. Toronto by far, has 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 the highest levels and the % 45.7% 57.4% 70.0% 73.7% relationship between these two measures may indicate that Toronto is underserved in terms Chart 4.7 (Toronto) Size of Waitlist for a Subsidized Space as a Percentage of All of the number of subsidized Subsidized Spaces (Community Impact) spaces.

How large is the waiting list for a subsidized space in Toronto The size of the waiting list for a compared to other municipalities? subsidized space also provides 175% an indication of demand and 150% Chart 4.7 shows demand in 125% Median 7.2% Toronto grew significantly 100% between 2007 and 2010 to the 75% 50% point where the wait list

25% represented almost 74 per cent

0% of all subsidized spaces. Chart Musk Sud Wat Wind Lond Niag Ham Halt Ott Tor Durh York 4.8 compares the size of the % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% 7.2% 11.3% 12.3% 50.9% 73.7% 99.8% 156.7% 2010 waiting list in Toronto to Chart 4.8 (OMBI 2010) Size of Waitlist for a Subsidized Space as a Percentage of All other municipalities and Toronto Subsidized Spaces (Community Impact) ranks tenth of twelve (fourth quartile) in terms of having the smallest waiting list. 90 Children’s Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How much does it cost per year to provide an average child To examine efficiency, the most care space in Toronto? comparable area of child care $6,000 operations between municipalities is the cost of $5,000 providing a subsidized child care $4,000 space. Children of different ages require a different level of staff to $3,000 child ratios to provide care. Since $2,000 more staff is required to provide

$1,000 care to infants, a municipality will pay more for an infant space and $- 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 less for a space occupied by a $cost/ school-aged child, where fewer normalized space $4,082 $4,116 $4,268 $4,302 $4,516 $4,735 $5,013 $5,408 $5,723 $5,816 $5,770 staff is required to provide care. CPI Adjusted Cost (2000 Base) $4,082 $3,991 $4,052 $3,967 $4,094 $4,216 $4,391 $4,649 $4,807 $4,863 $4,705 Source for costs are Provincial Returns This measure adjusts for these different staffing ratios by Chart 4.9 (City of Toronto) Annual Child Care Cost per Normalized Child Care converting them to “a normalized Space (Efficiency) space” which makes the results

How does Toronto’s annual cost to provide a child care space more comparable. compare to other municipalities? A normalized space takes into

$7,000 consideration the mix of infant,

$6,000 toddler, pre-school, and school- $5,185 age spaces, the different staffing $5,000 ratios required, and the costs

$4,000 associated with providing care.

$3,000 Chart 4.8 provides Toronto’s

$2,000 annual child care costs per

normalized child care space for $1,000 the period 2000 to 2010. To $0 Musk Wat Sud Ham Lond Ott Niag Wind York Tor Durh Halt reflect the impact of inflation, the

$cost/ chart also provides Consumer normalized space $4,327 $4,741 $4,896 $4,975 $5,049 $5,168 $5,201 $5,362 $5,424 $5,770 $5,953 $6,006 Price Index (CPI) adjusted Source for costs are Provincial Returns results, plotted as a line graph. Chart 4.10 (OMBI 2010) Annual Childcare Cost per Normalized Child Care This adjusts/discounts the actual Space (Efficiency) result for each year by the change in Toronto’s CPI since the base year of 2000.

Cost increases in 2005 through 2009 for Toronto as indicated in Chart 4.8 reflect Toronto City Council’s direction to eliminate the gap between rates paid on behalf of subsidized clients and the actual cost of providing care, as well as the growth of service to young children under Best Start expansion. The reduction in the cost per space in 2010 primarily reflects adjustments in the age mix of the children in these spaces.

Chart 4.9 compares Toronto’s 2010 annual child care costs per normalized child care space, to other municipalities. Toronto ranks tenth of twelve (fourth quartile) in terms of having the lowest cost. The cost of service between municipalities varies significantly depending on the proportions of different modes for providing care used in each municipality (e.g. home or centre-based care).

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

2011 Achievements and 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following initiatives are expected to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Children’s Services:

2011 Initiatives Completed/Achievements

participated in a joint table comprised of City and Ontario Ministry of Education staff to address ongoing fiscal pressures and impacts of the Province of Ontario's new Early Learning Program (ELP) on Toronto's child care system advised on policy development related to the implementation of ELP in Toronto and Ontario completed a ward level analysis of the 5 year impact of ELP on child care and identified the resources required to address those impacts opened new child care centres through established Capital Partnership Agreements and the Regent Park Revitalization Initiative (Chester Le, Native Child and Family and Regent Park Child Care Centres) completed development of a Middle Childhood Strategy increased the supply of locally-produced food in Municipal Child Care Services (MCCS), following Council approval of the Toronto Environment Office's local food initiative continued to reduce lost-time hours in MCCS increased and enhanced online services and integration with 311 developed and secured Council approval for a Child and Family Outcomes Framework partnered with the Aboriginal community in the development of a Child and Family Centre Model recognized by the Province, as a Community Integration Leader, to participate in a Community Action Research project implemented new Quality Assurance Model for conducting Operating Criteria Assessments

2012 Initiatives Planned

continue to address ongoing fiscal pressures and impacts of the Province of Ontario's new Early Learning Program (ELP) on Toronto's child care system through participation in a joint table comprised of City and Ontario Ministry of Education staff continue to work with partners, including the Province and Boards of Education, to address impacts of ELP on the child care system develop a comprehensive plan to respond to ELP transition Municipal Child Care Services to reflect changes resulting from ELP and expedite delivery of services in under-served, high-needs areas of the City utilize all available subsidy to maintain Council approved service levels of 24,000 child care subsidies improve geographic equity at the individual ward level by 10% each year through service growth and reallocation of existing resources to within 10% of equity by 2019 improve the average level of quality child care services under contract as measured by the City's Operating Criteria such that the percentage of programs that meet or exceed each item grows from 65% to 90% by 2012 continue to implement climate change initiatives that reduce the impact on the environment

92 Children’s Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

increase accessibility to services for public/operators by continuing to develop online services further the eService strategy

Factors Influencing the Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality included in this report can be influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

varying levels of child poverty in municipalities results in differing needs for subsidized child care cost to provide child care can be impacted by economic variables such as the cost of living in the municipality and the income levels of its residents rates for child care spaces other than those directly operated by a municipality are set in service agreements between the municipality and the child care service providers; and these rates can be influenced by the level of funding available, local wage conditions, pay equity legislation, municipal policies and business practices

93 CCuullttuurraall SSeerrvviicceess

Cultural Services

Arts Heritage Cultural Events Theatres Programming Programming Development Programming

The data included in this report goes beyond the activities provided by the City of Toronto’s Cultural Services Unit to include all City of Toronto investments towards the culture and creative sector.

Those investments include:  operation and administration of 21 museums historic sites, performing and visual arts centres  grants to 9 Major Cultural Organizations (including festivals), 223 Toronto Arts Council operating grant recipients, and one-time grant recipients  encouraging public art projects in both private and public developments  assisting a wide range of community arts organizations in accessing and sharing municipal services and facilities  operation of three major Theatres – the Sony Centre, the St. Lawrence Centre and the Toronto Centre for Arts  planning and production of special events such as Nuit Blanche and Winterlicious

Toronto has a wealth of creative capital—from its training centres, skilled workers, and great cultural institutions and festivals, to its unrivalled diversity and exciting cultural scenes. The cultural sector contributes more than $9 billion annually to Toronto's GDP and employs more than 130,000 people. Creative occupations are growing more than twice as quickly as the overall labour force and creative industries are growing faster than financial services, the medical and biotechnology industries, and the food and beverage industry.

Along with those directly involved in the creation and presentation of artistic, cultural and heritage endeavours are the citizens and visitors who comprise the audience. In every neighbourhood, in every corner of the city, cultural activity has helped to define Toronto as a liveable city bursting with creative energy and ideas. Toronto has a reputation regionally, nationally and globally as a city of great cultural diversity and depth.

Cultural Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service Level Indicators How much is spent on all Cost of All Cultural Increased 1 5.1 cultural services? Services per Capita - 5.2 (Service Level) Spending on cultural Higher rate of spending services per capita on Cultural Services per pg. increased capita compared to 96 others (service level indicator) (service level indicator) How much is spent on Cost of Arts Grants per Increase 1 5.3 arts grants? Capita (Service Level) 5.4 Spending on arts grants Higher rate of spending per capita increased on arts grants per capita pg. compared to others 97 (service level indicator) (service level indicator)

Community Impact Measures How many people attend Estimated Attendance Increased 5.5 city-funded cultural at City-Funded Cultural events? Events – (Community Attendance at cultural Not pg. Impact) events increased Available 98

Are recipients of arts Arts Grants issued by Stable 1 5.6 grants able to use those municipality as a 5.7 grants to obtain other Percentage of the Arts grants as % of Toronto Arts grants are revenues? Gross Revenue of recipients gross a lower percentage of pg. Recipients – revenue was stable recipients gross 98 (Community Impact) revenue compared to others

(less dependent on City for funding)

Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results)

2 - Increased 1 - Favourable 2 - 1st quartile 1 - 1st quartile 0 - Stable 1 - Stable 0 - 2nd quartile 0 - 2nd quartile 0- Decreased 0 - Unfavour. 0 - 3rd quartile 0 - 3rd quartile 0 - 4th quartile 0 - 4th quartile

100% 100% favourable 100% above 100% above increased or or stable median median stable

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of nine municipalities.

Cultural Services

2008 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How much is spent on all cultural services in Toronto? $35 Chart 5.1 provides Toronto’s $25.59 $29.82 $30 gross cost per capita of all $25 cultural services. It includes arts $20 services, cultural affairs, $15 museum and heritage services, special events, the operations of $10 three large theatres: (Sony $5 Centre, St. Lawrence Centre and $0 Toronto Centre for Arts), and all 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Impact of changes arts and culture grants. in acct. policy $3.18 $4.01 $cost per capita $20.39 $24.51 $24.82 $22.82 $22.41 $25.82 This provides an indication of service levels and the resources Note: the 2008 & 2009 amounts previously reported of $22.36/capita and $23.27 respectively, were restated to include additional divisional overhead costs. The 2009 cost now also includes additional devoted to all cultural services.

capital maintenance amounts

Chart 5.1 (City of Toronto) Cost of All Culture Services per Capita (Service Level) In 2009, changes in accounting policy were instituted by all How does Toronto’s cost of all culture services compare to other Ontario municipalities as municipalities? described on page 26 of this report. For Toronto these $40 changes amounted to $4.01 per $35 capita in 2010, which has been $30 graphed as a stacked column to Median $16.99 isolate it from the 2010 result $25 using the costing methodology $20 used in 2008 and prior years. $15

$10 Excluding the impact of the accounting policy change, there $5 was an increase in expenditures $0 Ham Tor Ott T-Bay Calg Lond Bar Wind Sud in 2010. This increase was $cost per capita $36.43 $29.82 $25.25 $18.52 $16.99 $11.18 $11.05 $8.28 $7.56 primarily related to the increase in cost at the Sony Centre Chart 5.2 (OMBI 2010) Cost of Culture Services per Capita (Service Level) Theatre for productions. (Note this service level indicator is based on gross expenditures, so revenues associated with the productions are excluded.)

Results reported here are based on gross expenditures, including an allocation of program support costs so that results are comparable to other Ontario municipalities. This therefore differs from the basis used to calculate per capita expenditures on arts and culture used in the Culture Plan for the Creative City (2003) and Capital Gains: An Action Plan for Toronto (2011) http://www.toronto.ca/culture/pdf/creative-capital- gains-report-august9.pdf . The per capita benchmark reported in these plans is used to compare Toronto’s net expenditures on operations, grants and capital to major cities in North America such as Vancouver, Montreal, Chicago, New York and San Francisco.

Chart 5.2 compares Toronto’s cost of all Cultural Services on a per capita basis to other Ontario municipalities based on the OMBI costing methodology and Toronto ranks second of nine municipalities (first quartile) in terms of having the highest costs/service levels per capita.

Cultural Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How much does Toronto spend on arts grants? $7 Arts grants are one component of Cultural Services costs $6 discussed on the previous page. $5 Chart 5.3 summarizes Toronto’s $4 cost of arts grants per capita, $3 which are comprised of grants to four local art service

$2 organizations, nine major

$1 cultural organizations (including festivals), 220 Toronto Arts $0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Council operating grant $cost per capita $6.03 $5.52 $5.95 $6.27 $6.25 $6.41 recipients, and one-time Toronto Arts Council grant recipients. Chart 5.3 (City of Toronto) Cost of Arts Grants per Capita (Service Level)

Arts grants in 2010 increased Toronto’s cost of arts grants compare to other How does slightly with a modest economic municipalities? factor increase in the grant $14 amounts. $12 hart 5.4 compares Toronto’s $10 C 2010 costs of arts grants per $8 Median $3.51 capita to other municipalities. $6 Toronto ranks second of nine $4 (first quartile) in terms of having $2 the highest grant/service levels.

$0 This ranking is due to the T-Bay Tor Ott Calg Wind Sud Lond Ham Bar significant size of Toronto’s arts $cost per capita $11.45 $6.41 $4.95 $4.64 $3.51 $3.41 $3.24 $2.79 $2.42 community and the corresponding positive impact it Chart 5.4 (OMBI 2010) Cost of Arts Grants per Capita (Service Level) has on the economy.

Cultural Services

2008 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How many people attend city-funded cultural events in Toronto? Chart 5.5 summarizes Toronto's results for the estimated 21,000,000 40,000 number of residents and 18,000,000 35,000 tourists attending city-funded 30,000 15,000,000 cultural events (bar chart 25,000 relative to left axis), and the 12,000,000

20,000 estimated number of cultural # events # # attendees # 9,000,000 15,000 events (line graph relative to 6,000,000 10,000 right axis).

3,000,000 5,000 Attendance in 2010 grew by 0 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 over 1 million. # attendees 8,988,407 9,406,987 11,348,057 12,021,827 11,623,328 14,073,870 13,225,514 16,345,242 17,400,769 # events 16,814 18,431 20,146 19,554 24,811 30,651 32,702 34,498 36,633 An objective of municipalities Source: City of Toronto, Cultural Services, Toronto Arts Council providing arts grants is that Chart 5.5 (City of Toronto) Estimated Attendance at City-Funded Cultural Events - those organizations also (Community Impact) develop other sources of revenues so that they are not Are recipients of arts grants in Toronto able to utilize those dependant on municipal grants to obtain other revenues? funding. 6% Chart 5.6 represents Toronto's results for municipal arts grants 4% received by organizations from the City, as a percentage of all revenues of those recipient 2% organizations. In 2010 arts grants were $16.7 million, which

0% comprised 4.7 per cent of the 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $355 million in gross revenues grants as % 4.8% 5.3% 5.4% 5.0% 4.7% 4.7% of those recipient organizations. of gross revenues Chart 5.6 (City of Toronto) Arts Grants Received as a % of Recipients Gross The composition of the revenue Revenue (Community Impact) sources of cultural grant recipients was as follows: How well are recipients of arts grants in Toronto able to utilize  5 per cent City of Toronto those grants to obtain other revenues, in comparison to other investment municipalities?  18 per cent Provincial 15% Median 9.5% investment  12% 12 per cent Federal investment 9%  27 per cent private revenue 6%  38 per cent earned revenue.

3% Chart 5.7 compares Toronto’s 0% 2010 result, to other Calg Tor Sud Lond Bar Wind T-Bay municipalities and Toronto % of gross revenues 4.3% 4.7% 6.3% 9.5% 10.9% 16.6% 18.1% ranks second of nine, in terms Chart 5.7 (OMBI 2010) Arts Grants Received as a % of Recipients Gross having municipal arts grants Revenue (Community Impact) comprise the lowest percentage of the grant recipients total revenues, as an indication of how well they are leveraging municipal grants 98

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

2010 Achievements or 2011 Planned Initiatives

The following initiatives have and are expected to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Cultural Services in Toronto:

2011 Initiatives Completed/Achievements:

 undertook extensive community consultations to produce Creative Capital Gains: An Action Plan for Toronto(http://www.toronto.ca/culture/pdf/creative-capital-gains-report-august9.pdf), an update to the 2003 Culture Plan for the Creative City  continued to expand Scotiabank Nuit Blanche's audience and profile as an internationally significant contemporary arts festival  established a new operating model for Casa Loma

2012 Initiatives Planned

 coordinate implementation of the recommendations in Creative Capital Gains: An Action Plan for Toronto  reconvene the External Advisory Working Group to review progress and outcomes to date of the 5-year Toronto Community Arts Action Plan (2008-2013) and brainstorm next steps as the Plan draws closer to the end of its current term  produce the Nuit Blanche program for 2012 and continue development of a two-year planning cycle  finalize plans for Bicentennial Commemoration of the War of 1812 and begin implementation  coordinate activities for Cultural Services regarding the Pan Am Games 2015  City public art projects slated for completion in 2012 include Dufferin Jog underpass

Factors Influencing Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality found in the charts included in this report are influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

 program mix – each municipality funds a different set of programs in terms of historical sites, arts grants, cultural events and other cultural services  financial support - arts grants per capita can be influenced by the size of the funding envelope and the size of the arts community  planning and integration– whether a municipality has adopted a cultural policy or plan may affect the way in which programs and services are delivered, how annual data is collected and the amount of funding invested in the community  non residents – cultural activities can be a key strategy for municipalities in attracting tourists but those tourists are not considered in per-capita based measures

EEmmeerrggeennccyy MMeeddiiccaall SSeerrvviicceess

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) provides ambulance - based health services, responding in particular to medical Emergency Medical Services emergencies and to special needs of vulnerable communities through mobile health care. The major services provided are: EMS System Emergency & Access and Preventative Care Preliminary Care Emergency & Preventative Care Services

EMS provides emergency and preventative care services to Pre-Hospital the people of Toronto through activities such as: Emergency Care

• Pre-hospital emergency medical care, which includes support, instruction, care, treatment and transport provided from the Inter-Facility moment the request for emergency care is initiated until the Patient Transport patient's care is transferred to the receiving health care provider. Major activities include: Community o response to emergency 911 calls within the designated Medicine response time standards o pre-hospital emergency medical care for the treatment of residents involved in both community emergencies as well as mass casualty incidents o patient transport to appropriate facilities o medical support to other emergency services • EMS is often the first health-care provider to identify a need for services by the City's at-risk patient population – the elderly, chronically ill and economically disadvantaged - who call 911 frequently. Community paramedicine training helps paramedics to focus on illness and injury prevention, the management of a patient's medical condition, mobility, or performing activities of daily living – issues that may not be apparent to family, friends, or the public. • Community Referrals by EMS (CREMS) allows the paramedic to make a referral (a simple phone call) to the Community Care Access Centre (CCAC) on behalf of the patient. These referrals provide much needed services for patients and are an effective and proven mitigation tool for future 911 calls from these patients. For many patients, having the paramedic offer a CCAC referral is the first step to connecting them with much needed help and reducing their reliance on the 911 system. This support includes: o Referrals made by CCAC for nursing services, personal support, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, social work and many other much needed services. o A follow-up visit by the paramedic to help with complex medical patient referrals and assistance connecting with other allied services/agencies. • Inter-facility patient transport, which includes emergency patient transfers. The continuing reduction in non-emergency responses reflects Toronto EMS’s focus on confining non-emergency service to only medically-essential transport services such as cancer and dialysis patients requiring paramedic care during their transport.

100

EEmmeerrggeennccyy MMeeddiiccaall SSeerrvviicceess

EMS System Access and Preliminary Care Services The Central Ambulance Communications Centre (CACC), is the initial access point to City of Toronto’s emergency health services system for victims of illness or injury, and is in operation 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

The Toronto EMS Communications Centre is the second largest municipally run Emergency Medical Dispatch centre in the world to achieve the internationally recognized Centre of Excellence accreditation along with other key leaders in the industry like the London Ambulance Service, (UK) and Emergency Medical Care Inc. (Province of Nova Scotia). Niagara EMS is the only other Ontario Communications centre to have achieved this prestigious recognition of quality and excellence in Emergency Medical Dispatch.

These ambulance communication services allow for: • immediate response to 911 requests for service • immediate medical care provided to callers over the phone • effective resource management and deployment

101

Emergency Medical Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service / Activity Level Indicators How many hours are EMS Actual Weighted Increased 4 6.1 EMS vehicles in-service Vehicle In-Service 6.2 and available to respond Hours per 1,000 Increased number of Lower rate of to emergencies? Population - (Service in-service vehicle hours in-service vehicle hours pg. Level) compared to others 104 (service level indicator) (service level indicator) (2009 was low due to strike) (high population density cities, like Toronto, have shorter travel distances and may require fewer vehicle hours)

How many emergency EMS vehicle responses Increased 2 6.3 vehicle responses are – Emergency per 1,000 6.5 performed by EMS Population - (Activity Number of emergency High rate of Level) vehicle responses emergency vehicle pg. increased responses compared to 105 others (activity level indicator) (activity level indicator) (2009 was lower due to strike)

How many non- EMS vehicle responses Decreased 2 6.3 emergency vehicle – Non Emergency per 6.5 responses are performed 1,000 Population - Number of non- Higher rate of non- Pg by EMS? (Activity Level) emergency responses emergency responses 105 decreased compared to other municipalities but less (activity level indicator) than 5% of total responses and is declining

(activity level indicator)

How many total vehicle All EMS vehicle Increased 2 6.3 responses (emergency & responses per 1,000 6.5 non-emergency) are Population (Activity Number of total vehicle High rate of pg. performed by EMS? Level) responses increased total EMS vehicle 105 (activity level indicator) responses compared to others (2009 was lower due to strike) (activity level indicator)

Community Impact Measures What percentage of time Percentage of Stable 4 6.6 do ambulances spend at Ambulance Time Lost to 6.7 hospitals transferring Hospital Turnaround - Percentage of lost Higher percentage of pg. patients? (Community Impact) ambulance time was lost ambulance time 106 stable compared to others

102 Emergency Medical Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Customer Service Measures How long does it take EMS, 90th Percentile Increased 2 6.8 from the time an EMS Crew Notification 6.9 crew is notified, to arrive Response Time to Life Crew notification Crew notification at the emergency scene? Threatening Calls – response time increased response time at median pg. (Customer Service) compared to others 107

How long does it take EMS 90th Percentile Increased 2 6.8 from the time the EMS Total (excluding 9-1-1) pg. communication centre is Response Time to Life Total EMS response Total EMS response 107 notified of the call, to Threatening Calls - time increased time at median arrive at the emergency (Customer Service) compared to others scene?

Efficiency Measures What does it cost for EMS Cost per Patient Increased 2 6.10 EMS to transport a Transported - 6.11 patient? (Efficiency) Cost per patient Low cost per patient pg. transported increased transported compared 108 to others

What is the hourly cost to EMS Cost per Actual Increased 4 6.12 have an EMS vehicle in- Weighted Vehicle 6.13 service, available to Service Hour – Cost per in-service Highest cost per in- pg. respond to emergencies? (Efficiency) vehicle hour increased service vehicle hour 109 compared to others

Service/ Performance Service/ Performance Overall Results Activity Level Measures Activity Level Measures Indicators (Results) Indicators (Results) (Resources) (Resources)

1 - Increased 0 - Favourable 0 - 1st quartile 0 - 1st quartile 0 - Stable 1 - Stable 3 - 2nd quartile 3 - 2nd quartile 0 - Decreased. 4 - Unfavour. 0 - 3rd quartile 0 - 3rd quartile 1 - 4th quartile 2 - 4th quartile

100% stable or 20% favourable 75% above 60% above increased or stable median median

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages –20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of thirteen municipalities.

103 Emergency Medical Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How many hours are Toronto’s EMS vehicles in-service and available to respond to emergencies? One indication of EMS service levels is the hours that EMS 280 vehicles are in-service, either on 240 calls or available to respond to 200 emergencies. 160 120 80 Chart 6.1 provides Toronto’s 40 weighted in-service EMS vehicle 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 hours per 1,000 population. Weighted Vehicle Hours 208 227 233 252 261 251 244 272 266 244 248 Weighted hours take into per 1,000 Pop'n Total Weighted consideration the number of 532,979 588,958 609,863 667,534 698,122 678,632 660,077 741,699 727,232 671,883 686,531 Vehicle Hours personnel on the three different

Notes: 2006 and prior years data is not comparable to 2007 and subsequent years due to methodology change types of emergency response 2009 results previously reported of 681,753 hours and 247 hours/1,000 population, were restated to be consistent with the 2010 methodology. vehicles being ambulances, first response units and supervisory Chart 6.1 (City of Toronto) Weighted EMS In-Service Vehicle Hours per units. 1,000 Population (Service Level)

Over the longer term, Toronto’s in- How do Toronto’s in-service EMS vehicle hours compare to service vehicle hours have other municipalities? generally increased as a result of 750 5,000 Median Hours 349 additional overtime staffing

600 4,000 required for increased demand on

ambulance services. This

450 3,000 increased demand arose from

300 2,000 hospital offload delay due to

1,000 population emergency room overcrowding / EMS Vehicle Hours per 150 1,000 Population per sqarekm off-load delays (see Chart 6.6), increased call volumes and a 0 0 T- Sud Musk Niag Wind Ham Lond Ott Durh York Halt Tor Wat response time reduction strategy Bay Veh Hours 652 628 450 438 412 368 349 326 303 263 249 248 193 that increased targeted ambulance Pop. Dens. 44 17 332 234 1,493 469 863 328 245 598 508 4,373 393 availability.

Chart 6.2 (OMBI 2010) Weighted EMS In-Service Vehicle Hours per 1,000 Population (Service Level)

Toronto's 2010 in-service vehicle hours increased from 2009 as a six week strike in 2009 required EMS to reduce the number of ambulances in service under the legislated Essential Services Agreement. The number of in-service vehicle hours increased only marginally in 2010 over 2009 due to efforts to minimize paramedic overtime and improve service efficiency.

Chart 6.2 compares Toronto’s 2010 weighted in-service EMS vehicle hours per 1,000 population, to other OMBI municipalities, reflected as bars relative to the left axis. Population density (population per square km), is plotted as a line graph relative to the right axis. Toronto ranks twelfth of thirteen municipalities (fourth quartile) in terms of having the highest number of in-service EMS vehicle hours.

Toronto’s significantly higher population density may be a factor in the lower number of vehicle hours. Those municipalities with lower population densities may require proportionately more vehicle hours in order to provide acceptable response times

Although Toronto's EMS system has the second lowest rate of vehicle hours, Toronto’s ambulances were also the busiest in the province being engaged in patient care activities 52.3 per cent of the time compared to the OMBI median of 31.7 per cent in 2010.

. 104 Emergency Medical Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How many vehicle responses does Toronto EMS provide? Another indicator of EMS 120 service/activity levels is shown 100 in Chart 6.3, which reflects the 80 total number of emergency 60 and non-emergency vehicle 40 20 responses, on a per 1,000 population basis. 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total # calls 258,279 252,484 247,289 239,344 234,132 239,714 240,318 301,084 306,004 296,170 319,644 Total calls/1,000 pop'n 100.7 97.3 94.3 90.4 87.6 88.9 88.9 110.3 111.7 107.5 115.3 The continuing reduction in Non-emerg. calls/1,000 pop'n 27.0 23.2 18.5 15.1 13.5 11.6 8.9 7.4 6.9 5.7 5.6 non-emergency responses Emerg. calls/1,000 pop'n 73.7 74.1 75.8 75.3 74.1 77.3 80.0 102.9 104.8 101.8 109.7 reflects Toronto EMS’s focus Note: Results for 2007 and subsequent years are not not comparable to 2006 and prior years on confining non-emergency Chart 6.3 (City of Toronto) Emergency & Non-Emergency Vehicle Responses per service to only medically- 1,000 Population (Activity Level) essential transport services such as cancer and dialysis How many patient transports does Toronto EMS provide patients requiring paramedic 200,000 care during their transport.

180,000 The number of emergency 160,000 incidents (high priority calls 140,000 considered to be of a life- threatening or urgent nature at 120,000 the time of dispatch) has 100,000 continued to rise since 2004. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Emergency Transports 141,109 154,026 160,289 163,648 164,516 173,301 The 2010 increase in vehicle Total Patients Transports 165,556 172,428 177,157 179,270 177,002 185,451 responses appears higher than normal, but it is related to the Chart 6.4 (City of Toronto) Total Patient Transports six week strike in 2009 when service levels were reduced. How do the number of EMS vehicle responses in Toronto compare to other municipalities? The number of emergency 200 patients transported by Median Total Calls 102 160 Toronto EMS continues to grow rapidly, increasing 23% 120 (+32,000 patients) since 2005, 80 placing great pressure on

40 Toronto EMS’s resources.

0 T-Bay Sud Ham Wind Tor Ott Niag Lond Durh Musk Wat Halt York Total/1,000 pop'n 182.9 138.0 127.1 119.3 115.3 108.4 102.0 97.6 87.3 71.6 65.3 63.4 62.4 Non Emerg/1,000 pop'n 30.3 26.6 2.5 3.7 5.6 5.9 2.3 2.6 2.1 30.2 1.9 0.6 2.5 Emergency/1,000 pop'n 152.6 111.5 124.6 115.6 109.7 102.5 99.7 95.1 85.2 41.4 63.4 62.9 59.9 Chart 6.5 (OMBI 2010) Emergency & Non-Emergency Vehicle Responses per 1,000 Population (Activity Level)

Chart 6.5 compares Toronto’s 2010 results for the total number of emergency and non-emergency vehicle responses, to other OMBI municipalities. In terms of the having the highest rate of vehicle responses to calls for service, Toronto ranks: • fifth of thirteen in (second quartile) for emergency vehicle responses • fifth of thirteen (second quartile) for non-emergency vehicle responses.

Some municipalities handle more non-emergency patient transfers, while in other municipalities third-party providers have assumed most of these transfers. The continuing reduction in non-emergency responses reflects Toronto EMS’s focus on confining non-emergency service to only medically-essential transport services such as cancer and dialysis patients requiring paramedic care during their transport. 105 Emergency Medical Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

What percentage of time do ambulances in Toronto spend at The ambulance turnaround time hospitals transferring patients? required to transfer an EMS 180,000 patient from the care of EMS paramedics to the care of hospital 150,000 staff, is important as it can have a 120,000 significant impact on service. This 90,000 turnaround time includes the time 60,000 it takes to transfer the patient, 30,000 complete patient care 0 documentation, and other activities 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 as well as delays in transfer of # of hours lost 146,551 165,510 154,814 128,466 129,485 care due to shortages of hospital % of hours lost 24.5% 24.8% 23.8% 21.1% 20.9% resources (commonly referred to as off-load delay). Note: 2009 result previously reportied of 20.7% of hours lost was restated

Chart 6.6 (City of Toronto) Hours of Ambulance Time Lost to Hospital Turnaround Off-load delays result in less time (Efficiency) that paramedics are available “on the road” to respond to other How does Toronto ambulance time spent at hospitals compare emergency calls and as a result, to other municipalities? EMS may be pressured to add 30% resources in order to maintain

Median 16.3% sufficient units available to 25% respond to calls and to keep the response times (as seen in Charts 20% 6.8 and 6.9) at acceptable levels.

15% Chart 6.6 shows Toronto’s data for the total and percentage of 10% ambulance hours involved in the turnaround activities noted above. 5% Off-load delays at hospitals account for much of this time 0% Musk Sud Halt Niag Lond Wind Durh Wat York Ham Tor T-Bay Ott % hours lost 0.1% 10.8% 13.1% 13.1% 13.6% 15.8% 16.3% 19.2% 19.6% 20.0% 20.9% 21.6% 26.4%

Chart 6.7 (OMBI 2010) Percentage of Ambulance Time Lost to Hospital Turnaround (Efficiency)

In mid-2008, Toronto implemented the Hospital Offload Delay Nurse Program, which provided extra nursing shifts in seven hospital emergency rooms to speed up offloading of Toronto EMS patients. In 2010 the program was expanded to 14 hospitals and automated data sharing linkages were established with 11 of these hospitals The program contributed to improved/shortened wait times from an average of 70 minutes in 2008 to 49.3 minutes in 2009 and 48.5 minutes in 2010 despite an increase of 8,500 patient transports over 2009. The program resulted in an increase in ambulance unit availability by 93.5 unit hours per day or an equivalent of almost 4 ambulances, 24 hours a day in 2009 to 104.6 unit hours per day in 2010. It is also expected to improve EMS response time to life threatening calls and reduce overtime costs.

Figure 6.7 compares Toronto’s 2010 result for ambulance turnaround time to other OMBI municipalities and Toronto ranks eleventh of thirteen (fourth quartile) in terms of having the shortest ambulance turnaround time.

While the Hospital Offload Delay Nurse Program has begun to relieve some pressure on EMS resources, Hospital Offload Delay remains a significant pressure requiring EMS to continue to add overtime resources in order to maintain service levels

106 Emergency Medical Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How long does it take in Toronto for EMS to arrive at the emergency scene? From a customer service perspective, EMS response time 14:00 to emergencies is a key 12:00 10:00 consideration. 8:00 6:00 Chart 6.8 provides Toronto’s th 4:00 90 percentile EMS response 2:00 for serious and life-threatening th 0:00 emergency calls. The 90 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total EMS response percentile means that 90 per 10:41 11:29 11:15 11:18 11:31 12:17 11:57 11:58 12:26 12:40 13:04 time(Min:Sec) cent of all emergency calls Crew notification response 9:54 9:27 9:36 9:56 10:09 10:38 time(Min: Sec) have a response time less than the time-period reflected on the Chart 6.8 (City of Toronto) EMS 90th Percentile Response Times for Life Threatening graph. Calls - (Customer Service) Between 2005 and 2010, the How do Toronto’s EMS response time compare to other number of emergency patient municipalities? transports increased by 32,000

14:00 patients without a commensurate increase in 12:00 Median 10 min 38 sec 10:00 paramedic staffing. This volume increase coupled with significant 8:00 increases in hospital offload 6:00 delay has resulted in a decrease 4:00 in ambulance availability to 2:00 respond to the next incident. The 0:00 T- result is an increase in the time it Lon Wind Niag Ham Halt Sud Tor Durh Ott Wat York Musk Bay takes EMS to arrive at an Resp (min:sec) 9:21 9:45 9:45 10:15 10:16 10:26 10:38 10:43 10:59 11:33 12:02 12:52 19:00 emergency scene.

Chart 6.9 (OMBI 2010) EMS 90th Percentile EMS Crew Notification Response Time for Life Threatening Calls (Customer Service) .

Between 2001 and 2004, the 90th percentile total EMS response time was fairly stable, with the addition of more hours of ambulance service required to address the increasing time spent by EMS at hospitals to complete the transfer of patients. Response times stabilized in 2006 and 2007 but since 2008 have been increasing again due to continuing rapid growth in the volume of emergency patients without compensating growth in the paramedic work force.

The goal of Toronto EMS for life-threatening calls is a total response time within 8 minutes and 59 seconds for life threatening calls (excluding 911 call handling time by Toronto Police) but with existing resources and the off-load delays at hospitals mentioned earlier, this standard was met for only 69 per cent of these calls in 2007, 66 per cent in 2008, 64 per cent in 2009, and 62 per cent in 2010 versus 90 per cent of the calls back in 1996 to 1998, when off-load delays were not an issue.

Chart 6.9 compares Toronto’s 90th percentile EMS crew notification response time in 2010 to other municipalities. Toronto ranks seventh of thirteen (at median) municipalities for the fastest (shortest) response time

The two different response times shown in Chart 6.8 represent 1) the period from the point when Toronto EMS picks up the phone at their communications centre to the time of arrival of EMS crews at the emergency scene (this excludes the 911 call handling time by Toronto Police) and 2) the EMS crew notification response time represents the time from when the responding EMS crew is notified of the emergency to arrival on the scene.

107 Emergency Medical Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

What does it cost for EMS transport of a patient in Toronto? Chart 6.10 looks at efficiency of $1,000 $869 $788 EMS services in Toronto in $800 terms of utilization, by relating costs to the number of patients $600 that have been transported (both $400 emergency and non- emergency). $200 From 2002 to 2008, Toronto $0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 EMS' cost per patient impact of change in acct. policy $31 $47 transported increased steadily $transport $530 $652 $705 $737 $709 $725 $750 $757 $822 $ transport because of the additional time $530 $633 $673 $691 $654 $656 $663 $666 $706 (CPI Adjusted base 2002) required to complete patient

Toronto's costs exclude those related to the dispatch/communications function so that they are comparable to other transports due to offload delays municipalities, where this function is provided by the Ontario Ministry of Health at hospitals.

Chart 6.10(City of Toronto) Cost of EMS per Patient Transported (Efficiency) Increases in staffing costs occurred as Toronto EMS was How does Toronto’s cost of patient transport compare to other forced to use paramedic municipalities? overtime hours to compensate $1,250 for this lost time while attempting

Median $875 to maintain adequate response $1,000 times. In addition, increases in collective agreement wage and $750 benefit costs have also been a significant contributing factor to $500 cost increases.

$250 .

$0 T-Bay Lond Wat Ham Wind Tor Sud Ott Halt Durh Musk York $transport $501 $695 $742 $818 $845 $869 $881 $929 $966 $976 $1,064 $1,122

Chart 6.11 (OMBI 2010) Cost of EMS per Patient Transported (Efficiency)

Starting in 2009, changes in accounting policies were instituted by all Ontario municipalities as described on page 26. The 2010 impact of these accounting policy changes amounted to an increase of $47 per patient transported, which has been plotted as a stacked column to isolate it from the 2010 result using the costing methodology used in 2008 and prior years. Excluding the change in accounting policy, costs increased in 2010 due to collective agreement wage and benefit costs and use of overtime to meet uncompensated growth in emergency patient volumes.

To reflect the impact of inflation, Chart 6.10 also provides Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjusted results plotted as a line graph. This adjusts/discounts the actual result (excluding the impact of accounting policy changes) for each year by the change in Toronto’s CPI since the base year of 2002.

Chart 6.11 compares Toronto’s 2010 cost per patient transported to other OMBI municipalities and Toronto ranks sixth of twelve (second quartile) in terms of having the lowest cost. Toronto’s ambulances were also the busiest in the province being engaged in patient care activities 52.3 per cent of the time compared to the OMBI median of 31.7 per cent in 2010.

Although Toronto has higher costs on an hourly basis (Chart 6.13), Toronto also has a high utilization rate of its vehicles in transporting patients, which improves Toronto's ranking for this measure based on the cost per patient transported. 108 Emergency Medical Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

What is the hourly cost in Toronto to have an EMS vehicle in– service, available to respond to emergencies? Chart 6.12 looks at efficiency of

$240 $205 $232 EMS services in Toronto in $200 terms of supply, by relating costs to the hours that EMS vehicles $160 are in-service, responding or $120 available to respond, to $80 emergencies. $40 $0 Starting in 2009, changes in 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 impact of change in accounting policies were $8 $12 acct. policy instituted by all Ontario $hour $156 $168 $170 $180 $185 $173 $185 $197 $220 municipalities as described on $hour (CPI Adjusted $156 $163 $162 $169 $171 $157 $164 $171 $189 page 26. The 2010 impact of -2002 Base) these accounting policy changes Results for 2007 and subsequent years are not comparable to 2006 and prior years due to a methodology change in determining vehicle hours The 2009 result of $202 previously reported was revised to $205 to reflect a more accurate figure for vehicle hours amounted to an increase of $12 Toronto's costs exclude those related to the dispatch/communications function so that they are comparable to other municipalities, where this per in-service vehicle hour, which has been plotted as a Chart 6.12 (City of Toronto) Cost of EMS per Weighted In-Service Vehicle Hour (Efficiency) stacked column to isolate it from the 2010 result using the costing How does Toronto’s hourly in-service vehicle cost for EMS methodology used in 2008 and compare to other municpalities? prior years.

$240 To reflect the impact of inflation, $220 Median $167 $200 Chart 6.12 also provides $180 Consumer Price Index (CPI) $160 adjusted results, plotted as a line $140 $120 graph. This adjusts/discounts the $100 actual result for each year by the $80 change in Toronto’s CPI since $60 $40 the base year of 2002. $20 $0 Musk Lond T-Bay Ham Sud York Halt Wind Wat Durh Ott Tor $hour $145 $148 $157 $159 $161 $164 $169 $171 $173 $174 $195 $232

Chart 6.13 (OMBI 2010) Cost of EMS per Weighted In-Service Vehicle Service Hour (Efficiency)

Over this nine-year period, the cost per in-service vehicle hour increased primarily due to higher wages from collective agreement settlements, which exceeded the increase in Toronto’s CPI. Costs have also increased due to collective agreement wage and benefit costs and use of overtime to meet uncompensated growth in emergency patient volumes.

Chart 6.13 compares Toronto’s 2010 EMS cost per weighted-in-service vehicle hour to other Ontario municipalities. Toronto ranks twelfth of twelve municipalities (fourth quartile) with the highest cost per vehicle hour. However, it should be recognized that Toronto’s ambulances were also the busiest in the province. Toronto EMS ranked sixth of twelve on the basis of EMS cost per patient transported, as shown in Chart 6.11

109 Emergency Medical Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

2011 Achievements and 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following initiatives are intended to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Toronto EMS.

2011 Initiatives Completed/Achievements

• realized measurable decreases in the impacts of Hospital Off-Load Delay through interaction with the Dedicated Offload Nurse Program. The average offload time in August 2011 was 47 minutes representing an improvement of 16.2 minutes per call over the average of 63.2 minutes in early 2008. • improved patient care access to specialty treatment centres with improved patient clinical outcome (e.g. STEMI Cardiac Care program) • continued internal workflow process design changes and implementation of improved computer-aided dispatch technology in the dispatch centre (i.e., the CACC) to facilitate the deployment of ambulances to improve response time performance • improved patient / client access to healthcare by continued implementation of partnership programs – TeleHealth referral with Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC), Community Referral by EMS (CREMS) with Community Care Access Centres (CCAC) • wireless mobile patient record system became fully operational in 2011 providing an unparalleled amount of patient care data in an electronic format to inform divisional decision-making.

2012 Initiatives Planned

• participate in a complete organizational service-efficiency study • continue to focus on clinical excellence and improved patient outcomes through various initiatives i.e., STEMI Cardiac Care program to reduce pre-hospital heart attack mortality; enhanced stroke and trauma care; continuation of Safe City program (i.e., public access defibrillation) • continue to find operational efficiencies in paramedic staffing (e.g.,new paramedic shift schedule and part-time paramedics) • continue to optimize the EMS Hospital Offload Delay Nurse Program by ongoing negotiations with Toronto hospitals to improve their offload times • continue to focus on improved process design and implementation of innovative technology to assist in the effectiveness and efficiency of the Central Ambulance Communications Centre • continue to employ call diversion and mitigation strategies to address steadily increasing emergency call demand and ambulance transports (e.g., Telehealth)

110 Emergency Medical Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Factors Influencing the Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality included in this report can be influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

• geographic coverage/population density: congestion can make navigating roads more difficult resulting in significant delays. Rural areas can have large under-populated areas making it challenging to provide cost-effective, timely emergency coverage • local demographics: an older more vulnerable or economically disadvantaged population will increase the demand for service, as can seasonal visitors and the inflow of workers from other communities during the day • level of certification: the mix of advanced care vs. primary care paramedics and their differing wage rates can impact costs, as well as the status of multi-year collective bargaining contracts • specialized services: tactical teams, multi-patient transport units, bike and marine teams are increasingly being provided by the larger municipalities to better address urban population demands • off-load delays in hospitals: impacted by a combination of factors, such as bed occupancy rates, the level of activity in hospital emergency departments, and the efficiency of admission procedures • increases in emergency calls due to an expanding population.

111

FFiirree SSeerrvviicceess

Fire Services

Fire Rescue and Fire Prevention, Fire Safety Emergency Inspection & Education Response Enforcement

Fire Code Risk Watch Enforcement

Campaign Based Development Fire Protection Review

The goal of Fire Services is to protect life and property with the three primary fire safety activities in communities being:

• fire prevention, inspection and enforcement – providing building inspection and enforcement of fire bylaws as well as building plan examination services

• fire safety education - providing public education in matters relating to fire prevention and emergency preparation for individuals, community groups and schools

• fire rescue and emergency response - providing fire suppression services, as well as first response to medical emergencies, heavy urban search and rescue, hazardous materials response, road accident response, and response to other disasters and emergencies as required

112 Fire Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service / Activity Level Indicators How many hours are fire Number of Fire In- Stable 3 7.1 vehicles in-service and Service Vehicle Hours 7.2 available to respond to (Urban Area) per Capita Vehicle hours in-service Low rate of in-service emergencies? – (Service Level) are stable vehicle hours compared pg. to others 115 (service level indicator)

(service level indicator)

(high population density cities like Toronto, have shorter travel distances and may require fewer vehicle hours) ( How many emergency Number of Unique Increased 1 7.3 incidents does Fire Incidents Responded to 7.4 Services respond to each by Fire Services per Number of total Higher rate of total year? 1,000 Urban Population incidents responded to incidents responded to pg. – (Activity Level) increased compared to others 116

(activity level indicator) (activity level indicator) How many property fires, Number of Property Decreased 1 7.3 explosions and alarms Fires, Explosions and 7.4 does Fire Services Alarms per 1,000 Urban Number of fires, Higher rate of fires, respond to each year? Population – (Activity explosions and alarms explosions and alarms pg. Level) responded to, responded to compared 116 decreased slightly to others

(activity level indicator) (activity level indicator) How many rescues does Number of Rescues per Increased 3 7.3 Fire Services respond to 1,000 Urban Population 7.4 each year? – (Activity Level) Increase in number of Low rate of rescues rescues responded to compared pg. to others 116 (activity level indicator) (activity level indicator) How many medical calls Number of Medical Increased 1 7.3 does Fire Services Calls per 1,000 Urban 7.4 respond to each year? Population – (Activity Increase in number of Higher rate of medical Level) medical responses responses compared to pg. others 116 (activity level indicator)

(activity level indicator)

113 Fire Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 How many public hazard Number of Public Decreased 2 7.3 and other incidents does Hazard & Other 7.4 Fire Services respond to Incidents per 1,000 Number of hazard & High rate of hazard & each year? Urban Population – other incidents other incidents pg. (Activity Level) responded to is responded to compared 116 decreasing to others

(activity level indicator) (activity level indicator) Community Impact Measures How many residential Rate of Residential Decreased 1 7.5 fires, with property loss, Structural Fires with 7.6 occur? Losses per 1,000 Rate of residential fires Lower rate of residential Households – decreased fires compared to others pg. (Community Impact) 117 What is the rate of Residential Fire Related Decreased 1 7.7 injuries from residential Injuries per 100,000 7.8 fires? Population – Rate of fire related Lowest rate of fire (Community Impact) injuries decreased related injuries pg. compared to others 118 What is the rate of Residential Fire Related Decreased 2 7.9 fatalities from residential Fatalities per 100,000 7.10 fires? Population – Rate of fire related Low rate of fire related (Community Impact) fatalities increased fatalities compared to pg. others 118 Customer Service Measures How long does it take Actual – 90th Percentile Stable 2 7.11 (response time) for Fire Station Notification 7.12 Services to arrive at the Response Time for Fire Station notification Station notification scene of emergency? Services in Urban response time was response time is at pg. Component of stable median compared to 119 Municipality – others (Customer Service) Efficiency Measures What does it cost per Fire Operating Cost Increased 3 7.13 hour, to have a front-line (Urban Areas) per In- 7.14 fire vehicle available to Service Vehicle Hour – Cost per in-service High cost per in-service respond to emergencies? (Efficiency) vehicle hour increased vehicle hour compared pg. to others 120 Service/ Performance Service/ Performance Overall Results Activity Level Measures Activity Level Measures Indicators (Results) Indicators (Results) (Resources) (Resources)

1 - Increased 3 - Favourable 3 - 1st quartile 2 - 1st quartile 1 - Stable 1 - Stable 1 - 2nd quartile 2- 2nd quartile 0– Decreased 1 - Unfavourable 2 - 3rd quartile 1 - 3rd quartile 0 - 4th quartile 0 - 4th quartile

100% stable or 80% favourable 67% above 80% above increased or stable median median

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of eight municipalities.

114 Fire Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How many hours are Toronto’s fire vehicles in-service and available to respond to emergencies? 0.5 As an indicator of service levels, Chart 7.1 provides Toronto’s 0.4 results for both the total number and rate of in-service vehicle 0.3 hours per capita. Results were stable in 2010. 0.2

In –service vehicle hours

0.1 includes hours either responding to, or available to respond to 0.0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 emergencies. vehicle hours per capita 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 The hours when vehicles are

total vehicle hours 1,278,485 1,275,768 1,275,086 1,262,298 1,255,500 1,268,663 1,263,767 removed from service for

mechanical repairs or insufficient Chart 7.1 (City of Toronto) Number of Staffed Fire In-Service Vehicle Hours per staffing, are excluded. The key Capita (Service Level) front-line fire vehicles included in this measure are pumpers, How do Toronto’s in-service fire vehicle hours, compare to aerials, water tankers, and other municipalities? rescue units

1.4 5,000 Chart 7.2 compares Toronto’s 2010 in-service vehicle hours

1.2 Median Hours 0.53 4,000 per capita (shown as bars 1.0 relative to the left axis), to the

urban areas of other 0.8 3,000

pop'n per sq. km Capita per

- municipalities. In terms of having 0.6 Fire Vehicle Hours Vehicle Fire 2,000 the highest number of vehicle 0.4 hours, Toronto ranks sixth of 1,000 eight municipalities (third 0.2 Density Urban quartile). 0.0 0 T-Bay Ott Wind Lond Sud Tor Ham Bar Vehicle hours 1.28 0.68 0.64 0.53 0.52 0.46 0.45 0.44 per capita The most significant factor in Population 332 328 1,493 863 44 4,373 469 1,400 density Toronto's lower ranking is its significantly higher population Chart 7.2 (OMBI 2010) Number of Staffed In-Service Fire Vehicle Hours (in density, which for allOMBI Urban Areas) per Capita (Service Level) & Urban Population Density municipalities, has been plotted as a line graph relative to the right axis of Chart 7.2

In densely populated municipalities such as Toronto, proportionately fewer fire stations and vehicle hours may be required because of proximity to residents and businesses, while less densely populated areas may require more fire vehicles and stations in order to provide desired response times. Toronto’s urban form also requires different response capabilities and equipment.

115 Fire Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How many and what type of emergency incidents does Toronto Fire Services respond to each year? Chart 7.3 provides the number 60 and type of incidents responded to by Toronto Fire Services, 50 expressed on a per 1,000 population basis. 40

30 In 2010, a total of 144,214 incidents were responded to and 20 in relation to 2009, there were 10 increases in the total number of incidents, as well as medical and 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 rescue incidents. Decreases Total 50.4 48.8 52.1 51.3 52.0 51.8 51.5 52.0 were experienced in Public Hazards & Other 8.9 8.8 6.8 6.7 7.6 6.8 5.9 5.8 fire/explosions/alarms incidents Medical 24.8 24.1 26.0 25.6 25.6 28.6 27.5 28.4 and public hazard incidents. Rescues 0.8 0.8 2.9 3.0 3.0 0.8 2.6 2.9 Fires/Expl/Alarms 15.9 15.2 16.4 16.0 15.8 15.7 15.5 14.9 Chart 7.4 compares Toronto’s 2010 results for the number of Chart 7.3 (City of Toronto) Number of Incidents Responded to by Fire Services (by incidents per 1,000 persons, to Type) per 1,000 Population (Service Level) the urban areas of other Ontario

municipalities. How many emergency incidents are responded to in Toronto, compared to other municipalities? In terms of having the highest

number of incidents per 1,000 80 population, Toronto ranks:

60 Median - total incidents 38.7 • second of eight (first quartile) 50 for the total number of incidents 40 • second of eight (first quartile) 30 for medical calls 20 • second of eight (first quartile) for fires, explosions and 10 alarms 0 T-Bay Tor Ham Bar Wind Ott Sud Lond • sixth of eight (third quartile) Total 68.7 52.0 46.7 44.7 32.8 29.0 27.1 23.6 for rescues Public Hazards & Other 6.2 5.8 5.6 4.1 5.3 3.4 6.2 3.1 • third of eight (second Medical 36.7 28.4 28.0 25.5 8.5 7.0 5.5 4.9 quartile) for public hazards Rescues 4.4 2.9 1.1 4.0 4.6 5.0 0.6 2.9 and other incidents Fires/Expl/Alarms 21.3 14.9 12.0 11.1 14.5 13.5 14.7 12.7

Chart 7.4 (OMBI 2010) Number of Incidents Responded to by Fire Services (by Type) per 1,000 Population in Urban Areas (Service Level)

Toronto's high ranking on total incidents responded to is primarily related to medical incidents, which in 2010 accounted for 55 per cent of all incidents responded to. The significance of medical incidents responded to by Fire Services in each municipality is influenced by municipal-specific response agreements between Fire Services, Emergency Medical Services and hospital protocols.

116 Fire Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How many residential fires, with property loss, occur in Toronto? Assessing the rate at which 1.8 residential fires, with property losses, occur is one method to 1.5 determine if Fire Services is 1.2 meeting the objective of protecting the buildings and 0.9 property where people live, work or visit. 0.6 0.3 Chart 7.5 provides the total number and rate of residential 0.0 fires in Toronto per 1,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 # of fires / households. There was a 1.62 1.49 1.43 1.35 1.23 1.20 0.94 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.95 1,000 household decline in the rate of residential Total Residential 1,558 1,454 1,411 1,346 1,244 1,228 995 1,053 1,060 1,086 1,040 fires from 2000 to 2006. From Fires 2007 to 2010 results have been fairly stable with a small Chart 7.5 (City of Toronto) Rate of Residential Structural Fires with Property decrease experienced in 2010. Losses per 1,000 Households (Community Impact)

Chart 7.6 compares Toronto's How does Toronto’s rate of residential fires compare to other 2010 rate of residential fires to municipalities? the urban areas of other Ontario 1.8 municipalities and shows

1.6 Toronto ranking second of eight Median - 1.05 1.4 municipalities (first quartile) in

1.2 terms of the lowest rate of fires.

1.0 The longer term decline in 0.8 Toronto's rate of fires and strong 0.6 ranking relative to other

0.4 municipalities, illustrates that fire

0.2 prevention and education

0.0 programs are working effectively Bar Tor Ott Ham Lond Sud T-Bay Wind Rate of Fires 0.78 0.95 1.01 1.03 1.07 1.19 1.48 1.64

Chart 7.6 (OMBI 2010) Rate of Residential Structural Fires with Property Losses per 1,000 Households (Community Impact)

117 Fire Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

What is the rate of injuries from residential fires in Toronto?

10 8 Another objective of Fire 6 Services is to protect the safety 4 of residents when fires occur. 2 Chart 7.7 provides the total 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 number and rate of residential Fire injuries per fire related injuries in Toronto 8.15 7.94 7.44 7.26 6.44 4.82 3.03 4.47 2.26 2.43 1.98 100,000 persons per 100,000 persons. It indicates Total fire 209 206 195 192 172 130 82 122 62 67 55 injuries a longer term decreasing trend, with 2010 showing the lowest Chart 7.7 (City of Toronto) Rate of Residential Fire Related Injuries per 100,000 number of injuries in any year Persons (Community Impact) over this 11 year period.

How does Toronto’s rate of injuries from residential fires, compare to other municipalities? Chart 7.8 compares Toronto’s 2010 rate of residential fire 12 related injuries per 100,000 9 Median 6.73 population, to other Ontario 6 municipalities. Toronto ranks first of eight municipalities (first 3 quartile) with the lowest rate of 0 Tor Ott Bar Lond Sud Ham T-Bay Wind injuries. Fire injuries per 1.98 2.90 4.26 6.63 6.82 7.61 9.17 9.58 100K persons Chart 7.9 provides the total Chart 7.8 (OMBI 2010) Rate of Residential Fire Related Injuries per 100,000 number and rate of residential Persons (Community Impact) fire related fatalities in Toronto per 100,000.The unusual spike What is the rate of fatalities from residential fires in Toronto? in fire fatalities in 2003 was as a result of a gas explosion that 1.0 claimed seven lives. Results in 0.8 0.6 2010 showed a decline in the 0.4 number of fatalities. 0.2 0.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Chart 7.10 compares Toronto’s # of fire fatalities 0.62 0.73 0.73 0.94 0.45 0.48 0.37 0.59 0.47 0.73 0.58 2010 rate of residential fire per 100K persons total fatalities 16 19 19 25 12 13 10 16 13 20 15 related fatalities to other Ontario municipalities. Toronto ranks Chart 7.9 (City of Toronto) Rate of Residential Fire Related Fatalities per 100,000 fourth of eight municipalities Persons (Community Impact) (second quartile) in terms of the lowest rate of fatalities. How does Toronto’s rate of fatalities from residential fires compare to other municipalities? Toronto is undertaking a number 1.0 initiatives to reduce the number Median 0.61 of fire-related injuries and fatalities, a number of which are 0.5 described in the 2011 and 2012 initiatives described at the end of 0.0 this section. T-Bay Ott Wind Tor Sud Bar Ham Lond fatalities per 0.00 0.11 0.46 0.58 0.63 0.71 0.76 0.82 100,000 persons

Chart 7.10 (OMBI 2010) Rate of Residential Fire Fatalities per 100,000 Population (Community Impact)

118 Fire Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How long does it take in Toronto for fire services to arrive at the emergency scene (response time)? When residents require fire services assistance, the time it takes for fire vehicles to arrive at 7:00 the emergency scene from the 6:00 time the emergency call is 5:00 placed (total response time), is very important. 4:00

3:00 Consistent information across 2:00 municipalities is not currently 1:00 available on time component 0:00 relating to fire dispatch time and 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 911 call handling time. Response time 6:42 6:42 6:50 6:26 6:34 6:31 6:40 6:42 (Min:Sec) Response times for this report are therefore formally referred to Chart 7.11 (City of Toronto) 90th Percentile Fire Station Notification Response Time as the “station notification (Customer Service) response time”. This refers to the time from the point that fire How does Toronto’s fire response time compare to other station staff has been notified of municipalities? an emergency call, to the point

12:00 when they arrive at the Median 6:42 (Min: Sec) emergency scene. 10:00 Chart 7.11 provides Toronto’s 8:00 90th percentile fire station 6:00 notification response time. The 90th percentile means that 90 4:00 per cent of all emergency calls have a station notification 2:00 response time within the time

0:00 period reflected on the graph Lond T-Bay Ham Tor Ott Bar Sud Response time 6:13 6:24 6:25 6:42 6:52 8:54 9:29 (Min: Sec) In 2010, this was 6 minutes and 42 seconds, an increase of 2 seconds over 2009. If the Fire Chart 7.12 (OMBI 2010) 90th Percentile Station Notification Response Time dispatch time was also added, (Customer Service) the 2010 total response time in Toronto would be 7 minutes and 37 seconds, however this excludes the 911 call handling time

Chart 7.12 compares Toronto’s 2010 station notification response time (90th percentile) to other municipalities. Toronto ranks fourth of seven municipalities (at median) for the shortest response time. The proximity of Toronto's fire stations and vehicles to residents and businesses is the primary factor behind this result

119 Fire Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

What does it cost to have a front-line fire vehicle available to respond to emergencies in Toronto? As discussed under Chart 7.1, the $350 $329 $297 hours that front-line fire vehicles, $300 are in-service provides an $250 indication of service levels. $200 $150 Chart 7.13 looks at the efficiency aspect of delivering these service $100 levels, and provides Toronto's cost $50 per hour, to have a front-line $0 vehicle in service, staffed and -$50 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 available to respond to Change $24 ($21) emergencies. in acct. policies $cost/ vehicle hour $249 $260 $274 $284 $300 $305 $318 CPI adjusted Starting in 2009, changes in $249 $255 $264 $269 $278 $281 $286 (base year 2004) accounting policies were instituted by all Ontario municipalities as Chart 7.13 (City of Toronto) Cost of Fire Services per In-Service Vehicle Hour described on page 26. The impact (Efficiency) of these accounting policy changes amounted to a decrease of $21 per How does Toronto’s fire cost per in-service vehicle hour, in-service vehicle hour primarily compare to other municipalities? related to a decrease in unfunded liabilities. $350

$300 Median $276 Excluding the impact of the $250 accounting policy changes, Toronto's 2010 costs rose by $13 $200 per hour primarily because of $150 increased wages and benefits.

$100 To reflect the impact of inflation, $50 Chart 7.13 also provides Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjusted results, $0 T-Bay Ott Wind Lond Sud Tor Bar Ham plotted as a line graph. This $Cost per in-service $171 $237 $271 $272 $280 $297 $315 $320 vehicle hour adjusts/discounts the actual result for each year (excluding accounting policy changes) by the change in Chart 7.14 (OMBI 2010) Cost of Fire Services (Urban Areas) per In-Service Vehicle Toronto’s CPI since the base year Hour (Efficiency) of 2004.

Chart 7.14 compares Toronto’s 2010 fire cost per in-service vehicle hour, to other Ontario municipalities. Toronto ranks sixth of eight municipalities (third quartile) with the highest cost per hour.

Factors that may contribute to Toronto’s higher costs include: • a different mix of fire vehicles because of Toronto’s urban form • capabilities such as HUSAR (Heavy Urban Search and Rescue), high angle rescue, ice/swift water rescue, confined spaces, etc. requiring additional training, and equipment, that not all fire services have • Toronto’s wage rates for firefighter may be higher than in other municipalities in terms of basic rates as well as recognition pay for longer service. Municipalities can also be at different points in their cycle of collective agreements. • when there is insufficient staffing during a shift for a full complement of fire vehicles in Toronto, some vehicles are removed from service so that the remaining vehicles are fully staffed. Other municipalities may choose to leave vehicles in service with a reduced number of firefighters

120

2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

2011 Achievements and 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following initiatives have and are expected to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Fire Services in Toronto:

2011 Initiatives Completed/Achievements

• completed the annual “Alarmed for Life” campaign (a community-based proactive smoke alarm education program) and in 2011 the number of residences visited increased to 80,141 • placed into service 12 Rescue Pumpers and one rear mount Aerial device as well as a fire pump testing trailer that allows for mobile testing of fire pumps • completed implementation of a significant upgrade to the CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) system, which allowed for implementation of a new Business Intelligence tool that will assist in future quality assurance and improvement initiatives • participated in two HUSAR (Heavy Urban Search and Rescue) activations in Goderich and Woodstock, in addition to providing HUSAR support to EMAT (Emergency Medical Assistance Team) during the evacuation of northern communities during a significant wild fire event

2012 Initiatives Planned

• continue to work on reducing retrofit inspections to zero – hotel retrofits to be completed within the mandated five (5) year time from January 1, 2007 to January 1, 2012. In addition, Fire Services should complete plans examination and approve plans for the City's Building Division within seven working days. Preliminary new building inspections should be done within five working days of notification, and final inspection within two working days of notification. This workload is in addition to the existing mandate to inspect all retrofits of public and commercial buildings. • increase the efficiency of fire prevention inspectors by 10 per cent within three years through the use of mobile tablets and One Step software introduced in 2009/2010. • continue to implement the Risk Watch program in all schools from the existing grade four up to grade eight. • begin the process of updating the 2007 Master Fire Plan. upon completion of the efficiency review of Fire Services and Emergency Medical Services • begin the implementation phase of the 2009 Quality Assurance study in the Communications Division • complete a required upgrade to the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system • begin to utilize the Business Intelligence (BI) software that followed the CAD upgrade • inspect Propane sites (approximately 120) as required by the Ontario Fire Code, TSSA and Ontario Regulations • inspect and follow up of hoarding calls that create a high fire risk for firefighters, property and citizens • implement a legal agreement with Toronto Hydro to inspect all hydro vaults to ensure they meet code and reduce the potential for serious vault fires. Vaults, approximately 5 -10 to be released on monthly basis. • Implement the Fire Code Compliance Program for Hospitals/Care Occupancies for approximately 300 facilities. Outstanding facilities to be completed in 2013 and every two years thereafter

121 Fire Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

• provide public education forums (1,000 events annually) to promote fire safety, special events and advertising as it is critical to reach out to vulnerable groups such as seniors and children impacted by hazards • reinforce the Risk Watch Program in 600 schools by 2013 and research and provide material to private schools • inspection & enforcement of Ontario Fire Code at TTC locations to minimize risk • deliver fire safety programs throughout the year to a wide range of groups and agencies covering a variety of topics including: o emergency procedures and home fire safety to groups such as English as a Second Language (ESL), daycares and schools o high rise communities to deal with issues of hoarding o cooperative communities, group homes, industry (businesses, government facilities), institutions (jails, detention centres), churches, church groups, and special interest groups – (Brownies, Scouts, New Mothers, etc)

Factors Influencing the Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality included in this report can be influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

• the age and densification of housing stock • the nature or extent of fire risks, such as the type of building construction or occupancy (apartment dwellings versus single family homes) • differences in population densities • geography and topography • transportation routes, traffic congestion and travel distances • socio-demographics • the extent of fire prevention and education efforts, enforcement of the fire code and the presence of working smoke alarms • staffing levels on fire apparatus/vehicles

122 GGeenneerraall RReevveennuuee SSeerrvviicceess

General revenue services refers to services provided for billing and issuing invoices and for collecting accounts receivable owed to the municipality by citizens, businesses and other agencies that do business with the municipality.

The goal of general revenue services is to ensure the municipality collects revenue to which it is entitled in a timely, accurate, and efficient manner in order to assist the municipality in exercising prudent fisscal management. This service includes:

• cash receipts • local improvement billing • special assessment billing • processing bill payments and collections • monitoring the performance of accounts receivable

123

General Revenue Services

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Efficiency Measures How long does it take for Average Collection Stable 2 8.1 the municipality to Period for Accounts 8.2 receive payment on Receivable in Days - Number of days to Low number of days to invoices issued? (Efficiency) receive payment on receive payment on pg. invoices issued was invoices issued 125 stable compared to others

How many of the Bad Debt Write-off as a Decreased 2 8.3 invoices billed are never Percentage of Revenue 8.4 collected? Billed - (Efficiency) Level of uncollectable Low rate of amounts decreased to uncollectable amounts pg. 0.02% compared to others 125

How much does it cost to Cost of the Accounts Decreased 3 8.5 bill and collect an Receivable Function per 8.6 accounts receivable Invoice Issued- Cost per invoice High cost per invoice invoice? (Efficiency) decreased compared to others pg. 126 How much does it cost to Cost of the Accounts Decreased 1 8.7 bill and collect $1,000 of Receivable Function per billings? $1,000 of billings Cost per $1,000 of Lower cost per $1,000 of pg. (Efficiency) billings decreased billings compared to 126 others

Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results)

n/a 3- Favourable n/a 1 - 1st quartile 1- Stable 2 - 2nd quartile 0 -Unfavour. 1- 3rd quartile 0 - 4th quartile

100% favourable 75% above or stable median

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of 14 municipalities.

124

General Revenue Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How long does it take for Toronto to receive payment on invoices issued? In 2010, Toronto issued over 50 142,000 invoices with an invoice 40 value of over $1.6 billion for 30 functions such as provincial cost 20 sharing for social programs, sale 10 of blue boxes and work done on 0 roads by utility companies. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

# days 19.0 33.0 31.3 44.7 44.7 Once invoices are issued, it is important these amounts be Chart 8.1 (City of Toronto) Average Collection Periods for Accounts Receivable collected on a timely basis to Invoices in Days (Efficiency) optimize the City's cash flow.

How does Toronto compare to other municipalities for the length Chart 8.1 reflects Toronto's of time to receive payment on invoices issued? average collection period (in days) for these invoices, which 120 increased in 2009 due to the 100 Median 54.6 days strike but remained at that same 80 level in 2010 due to staffing 60 issues and reductions in the 40 operating budget. 20 0 Chart 8.2 compares Toronto's Wat Ott Halt Lond Tor Sud Ham Wind T-Bay Bar Musk York Durh Niag 2010 average collection period # days 25.4 36.1 37.6 39.0 44.7 47.8 48.2 61.0 71.4 72.9 77.2 81.8 82.2 83.5 for accounts receivable invoices Chart 8.2 (OMBI 2010) Average Collection Periods for Accounts Receivable Invoices to other municipalities. Toronto in Days (Efficiency) ranks fifth of fourteen (second quartile) in terms of having the How many of the invoices billed in Toronto are never collected? shortest collection period. 0.4%

0.3% For invoices that can't be

0.2% collected on a timely basis it is

0.1% important that every effort be made to ultimately collect these 0.0% amounts. Amounts that are 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % Bad Debt deemed to be uncollectible are Write Off 0.10% 0.30% 0.10% 0.10% 0.02% considered to be a bad debt

Chart 8.3 (City of Toronto) Bad Debt Write-offs as a Percentage of Revenue Billed expense and are written off. (Efficiency) Chart 8.3 shows Toronto's bad debt expense over time, and in How does Toronto compare to other municipalities in terms of 2010 it decreased and invoices billed that are never collected? represented only 0.02 per cent of the revenues billed. 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% Median 0.06% 0.7% Chart 8.4 illustrates that in 0.6% relation to other municipalities 0.5% 0.4% Toronto's 2010 result ranked fifth 0.3% 0.2% of fourteen municipalities 0.1% (second quartile) in terms of 0.0% Ham Wind Lond York Tor Wat Bar Durh Niag Ott Musk Sud Halt T-Bay having the lowest rate of bad % 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% 0.04% 0.06% 0.07% 0.10% 0.14% 0.14% 0.22% 0.87% 0.95% debt expense. Chart 8.4 (OMBI 2010) Bad Debt Write-offs as a Percentage of Revenue Billed (Efficiency)

125 General Revenue Services

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How much does it cost to bill and collect an accounts receivable invoice in Toronto? Chart 8.5 provides Toronto's cost of the accounts receivable $30 function to bill and collect one invoice and shows a lower cost $25 in 2010. This decrease was due $20 to a greater number of invoices processed with fewer staff and a $15 greater use of technology.

$10 Chart 8.6 compares Toronto's $5 2010 cost of the accounts receivable function per invoice to $0 2007 2008 2009 2010 other municipalities. Toronto $/invoice $28.79 $28.58 $26.31 $21.30 ranks ninth of fourteen municipalities (third quartile), in Chart 8.5 (City of Toronto) Cost of Accounts Receivable Function per Invoice Issued terms of having the lowest cost. (Efficiency) One factor in Toronto's higher How does Toronto's cost to bill and collect an accounts cost appears to be the size of receivable invoice, compare to other municipalities? the average invoice, which is $60 over four times larger than the median of other OMBI $50 municipalities. This can be an $40 indication of greater amount of Median $20.92 effort or complexity that may be $30 involved in the billing process.

$20 To take into consideration the $10 magnitude of billings, Chart 8.7 provides 2010 results for Toronto $0 Niag Ott T-Bay Sud Wat Lond Durh Halt Tor Ham Musk Wind Bar York and other municipalities for the $cost $8.57 $9.33 $9.99 $15.26 $15.35 $18.10 $20.91 $20.93 $21.30 $21.61 $32.40 $37.30 $39.12 $61.68 cost to bill and collect $1,000 of billings. On this basis Toronto Chart 8.6 (OMBI 2010) Cost of Accounts Receivable Function per Invoice Issued (Efficiency) ranks second of fourteen municipalities (first quartile) How does Toronto's cost to bill and collect $1,000 of receivables, compare to other municipalities Toronto's 2010 costs ($1.89 per $1,000 of billings) for this $30 measure also decreased from the 2009 result of $2.49 per $25 $1,000 of billings. $20 Median $6.05 $15

$10 $5

$0 York Tor Ott Wat Niag Durh Wind Ham Halt T-Bay Sud Lond Musk Bar

$cost $1.48 $1.89 $3.93 $4.46 $4.66 $5.16 $5.53 $6.57 $6.82 $7.88 $7.89 $8.67 $25.96 $28.03

Chart 8.7 (OMBI 2010) Operating Cost of A/R Function per 1,000 Dollar of Billings

126

General Revenue Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

2011 Achievements or 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following initiatives are intended to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Toronto's General Revenue Services:

2011 Initiatives Completed/Achievements

re-engineered business processes instituted a new system for late payment charges initiated an online payment project

2012 Initiatives Planned

revise policy and procedures review invoicing and collection processes implement on-line payments through banking institutions

Factors Influencing Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality found in the charts included in this report are influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

level of government and types of services: single-tier vs. two-tier and the specific services each one offers will affect the results systems/processes: the type and quality of systems used to capture Accounts Receivable including uploads and automated billing municipal policy: collection practices and payment terms

127

GGoovveerrnnaannccee && CCoorrppoorraattee MMaannaaggeemmeenntt

Governance and Corporate Management refers to the component of municipal government responsible for governing the municipality, providing direction and leadership to staff, and sustaining the organization.

Governance & political support, consists of the Mayor and Councillors and their offices, the Accountability Officers, as well as portions of the City Clerk’s Office, which directly support the work of elected officials.

Corporate management activities include:

• City Manager • Corporate Accounting • Corporate Finance • Debt Management & Investments • Development Charges Administration • Taxation • Strategic Communications • Protocol • Real Estate and properties owned by the City but not used for service delivery, such as Old City Hall ,the St. Lawrence Market and Union Station

128 Governance and Corporate Management 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Efficiency Measures How large is the Governance and Increase 2 9.1 governance and Corporate Management 9.2 corporate management Costs as a % of Total Costs of governance Low cost of governance structure? Operating Costs – and corporate and corporate pg. (Efficiency) management increased management of single- 130 tier municipalities (increased expenditures on real estate assets) Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results)

n/a 0 - Favourable n/a 0 - 1st quartile 0 - Stable 1 - 2nd quartile 1 - Unfavour. 0 - 3rd quartile 0 - 4th quartile

100% favourable 100% above or stable median

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of nine single-tier municipalities.

129 Governance & Corporate Management 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How large is the governance and corporate management structure in Toronto? Chart 9.1 provides Toronto’s governance and corporate 3.5% 3.0% management costs as a 3.0% 2.5% percentage of total operating 2.5% expenditures (excluding debt 2.0% and transfers to capital or 1.5% reserves) 1.0% 0.5% In 2010, these costs represented 0.0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 only 3.0% of total expenditures change 0.4% 0.3% in Toronto, with governance and in acct. policy % Governance and political support comprising 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 2.7% Corporate Management approximately 1 per cent and corporate management Chart 9.1 (City of Toronto) Governance and Corporate Management Costs comprising the balance of 2 per as a Percentage of Total Operating Expenditures (Efficiency) cent

Starting in 2009, changes in How does the relative size of Toronto’s corporate management accounting policies were and governance structure, compare to other municipalities? instituted by all Ontario municipalities as described on 6% page 26. The 2009 impact of Single-Tier Municipalities these accounting policy changes 5% Median 3.9% amounted to an increase of +0.4 4% per cent which is plotted as a Regional Municipalities stacked column to isolate it from Median 1.8% 3% the 2010 result using the costing methodology used in 2008 and 2% prior years. 1% Excluding the impact of the 0% T- Ham Calg Tor Ott Sud Lond Bar Wind York Niag Dur Halt Musk Wat accounting policy changes, Bay % Governance & Toronto’s 2010 results increased 2.0% 2.9% 3.0% 3.6% 3.9% 4.0% 4.8% 4.9% 5.4% 1.0% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9% 2.1% Corporate Management compared to 2009 with much of that increase related to Chart 9.2 (OMBI 2010) Governance and Corporate Management Costs as a increased spending on real Percentage of Total Operating Expenditures (Efficiency) estate assets such as Union Station, that are not used directly in municipal service delivery and are thus considered as a corporate management expense.

Chart 9.2 compares Toronto’s 2010 costs of governance and corporate management to other municipalities. Single-tier and regional municipalities have been grouped separately to reflect differences in government structure and the range of public services they are responsible for delivering, which impact results for this measure. Any comparison of results should be made within these two groups, because of these differences.

Of the single-tier municipalities, Toronto ranks third of nine (second quartile) with the lowest rate/cost of governance and political support. .

130 Governance and Corporate Management 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Factors Influencing the Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality included in this report can be influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

• the level of municipal government (single-tier vs. regional municipalities) because of differences in service responsibilities • the extent of real estate holdings of the municipality that are not used in direct service delivery • the size of municipal Council

131 HHoosstteell SSeerrvviicceess

Shelter, Support & Housing Administration

Homeless and Housing Social Housing System City Emergency Human First Solutions Management Services

Provide Emergency Shelter & Related Manage Social Housing Emergency Human Provider Subsidies Services Response Support

Homeless & Housing Manage Rent Subsidies Emergency Human Support in the & Housing Allowances Services Preparation Community

Manage New Affordable Housing & Other Non Subsidized Programs Boxes shaded reflect the activities covered in this report Manage Centralized Social Housing Waiting List

Hostel Services provides shelter and assistance to homeless individuals and families with children. Meals and basic necessities are provided in a secure environment, as well as case management, counselling and support programs for adults and children. Housing workers help clients in pursuing permanent housing opportunities.

During the winter, additional shelter spaces are made available through the Out of the Cold program and the extreme Cold Weather alert system. City funding also supports the Habitat Services program, which supplies 931 boarding home and rooming house beds for adult psychiatric survivors.

132

Hostel Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service Level Indicators How many emergency Average Nightly Decreased 1 10.1 shelter beds are there? Number Emergency 10.2 Shelter Beds Available Fewer shelter beds in Highest rate/number of per 100,000 Population 2010 shelter beds pg. – (Service Level) 134 (service level indicator) (service level indicator) Community Impact Measures What is the average Average Length of Stay Stable 4 10.3 length of stay for singles per Admission to 10.4 and families in Emergency Shelters for average length of stay is Longer length of emergency shelters? Singles & Families – stable average stay singles pg. (Community Impact) and families 135

(related to more transitional beds, which have longer stays) What is the average Average Length of Stay Stable 10.3 length of stay for singles per Admission to in emergency shelters? Emergency Shelters for average length of stay N/A pg. Singles - (Community for singles was stable 135 Impact)

What is the average Average Length of Stay Increased 10.3 length of stay for families per Admission to N/A in emergency shelters? Emergency Shelters for average length of stay pg. Families - (Community for families increased 135 Impact) Customer Service Measures What is the emergency Average Nightly Bed Stable 1 10.5 shelter bed occupancy Occupancy Rate of 10.6 rate? Emergency Shelters – Occupancy rate of Higher occupancy rate (Customer Service) shelter beds was stable of shelter beds pg. 136 Efficiency Measures What does it cost per Gross Hostels Cost per Increased 4 10.7 night to provide a shelter Emergency Shelter Bed 10.8 bed? Night - (Efficiency) gross cost per shelter High gross cost per bed night increased shelter bed night pg. 137 (related to greater % of city operated beds) Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results)

0 - Increased 0 - Favourable 1 - 1st quartile 1- 1st quartile 0 - Stable 3 - Stable 0 - 2nd quartile 0- 2nd quartile 1 - Decreased 2 - Unfavour. 0 - 3rd quartile 0- 3rd quartile 0 - 4th quartile 2- 4th quartile

0% stable or 60% favourable 100% above 33% above increased or stable median median

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of 12 municipalities. 133 Hostel Services

2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How many emergency shelter beds are there in Toronto? 200 The primary indicator of service levels for Hostel Services is the 160 number of emergency shelter 120 beds available in the community for use by homeless individuals 80 and families.

40 Chart 10.1 provides information 0 on Toronto's total number and 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 rate of emergency shelter beds beds per 100,000 pop'n 188.2 165.7 159.2 164.4 154.8 156.5 150.0 153.6 154.4 146.3 per 100,000 population.

Total beds 4,881 4,341 4,213 4,393 4,177 4,232 4,094 4,207 4,256 4,057 A direct comparison of 2001 Chart 10.1 (City of Toronto) Number of Emergency Shelter/Hostel Beds per 100,000 Population (Service Level) shelter beds to 2010 beds demonstrates a longer-term

trend of decrease in the number How does the number of emergency shelter beds in Toronto, of shelter beds. Year over year compare to other municipalities? comparison shows both small

160 increases and decreases

between years. The decrease in

120 Median 37.6 shelter beds in 2010 was directly

related to the decrease of motel

beds used by families. Family 80 shelter use is closely tied to

immigration and federal refugee 40 and immigration policies. The

family sector expands or 0 Tor Ott Lond Ham Sud Niag Wat Dur Halt York Wind contracts to respond to these

Beds/ changes, through contracts with 100,000 pop'n 146.3 107.1 98.6 68.1 45.3 37.6 32.7 15.0 11.6 10.8 9.3 motel operators. Chart 10.2 (OMBI 2010) Number of Emergency Shelter/Hostel Beds per 100,000 Population (Service Level)

Of the 4,057 emergency shelter beds in Toronto in 2010, 1,409 or 34.7 per cent were operated by the City and another 2,648 or 65.3 per cent were contracted through other organizations.

Chart 10.2 compares Toronto’s 2010 rate of emergency shelter beds per 100,000 population, to other municipalities. Toronto ranks first of eleven (first quartile), with the greatest number of shelter beds.

Toronto has a comparatively higher number of shelter beds because large urban centres tend to have proportionately higher numbers of homeless individuals and families. The City of Toronto has provided shelter services since the 1950’s. Individuals and families have always migrated to large urban centres for employment, housing and services.

134

Hostel Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

What is the average length of stay in Toronto’s emergency shelter system? Emergency shelters are intended to provide temporary 80 70 short-term accommodation until 60 an individual or family is able to 50 find appropriate housing in the 40 community. 30 20 One way of assessing 10 municipalities' success in 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 achieving this objective is to Singles & Family (days) 30 15 15 14 14 15 15 examine the average length of Singles (days) 29 14 14 14 13 15 14 stay in emergency shelters. Families (days) 71 54 49 49 48 50 53 Chart 10.3 summarizes the Chart 10.3 (City of Toronto) Average Length of Stay in Emergency Shelters (Community Impact) average length of stay for singles and families in Toronto’s

How does the average length of stay in Toronto’s emergency shelters from 2004 to 2010, as well as a blended result for shelters compare to other municipalities? singles and families.

24 Longer term trends show the

length of stay in Toronto for 20 Median 11.0 singles has remained stable.

16 The length of stay for families

12 slightly increased. in 2009 and

8 2010. The increase may be

attributed to the decrease of a 4 number of refugees and new 0 Ham Wind Sud Niag Ott York Lond Wat Durh Tor Halt immigrants accessing the shelter

Single & Fam. (days) 7.0 7.1 8.5 10.5 10.7 11.0 11.4 12.1 13.6 14.8 26.0 system when compared to

Chart 10.4 (OMBI 2010) Average Length of Stay (Days) in Emergency Shelters previous years. (Singles and Families) (Community Impact)

Chart 10.4 compares the 2010 average blended length of stay in shelters for both singles and families in Toronto compared to other municipalities. Toronto ranks tenth of eleven municipalities (fourth quartile), in terms of having the shortest length of stay in shelters. In Toronto, the length of stay is impacted by the availability of transitional shelter beds, which have longer lengths of stays.

135 Hostel Services

2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

What is the occupancy rate of Toronto's emergency shelter beds? A challenge for municipalities is 100% to match the supply of shelter beds to the demand or need for 80% emergency shelters, to ensure that beds are available when 60% required, but that valuable 40% resources are not tied up if these beds are unused. 20% One way of examining a 0% municipality’s success in this 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % occupancy 93% 93% 93% 90% 91% 91% 91% 92% 94% 91% area is to look at the occupancy rate of Toronto's emergency Chart 10.5 (City of Toronto) Average Nightly Occupancy Rate of Emergency Shelter Beds (Customer Service) shelter beds, as shown in Chart 10.5.

How does the occupancy rate for Toronto's emergency shelter Occupancy rates from 2001 beds, compare to other municipalities? through 2010 have remained

140% fairly stable generally ranging

120% between 91 and 94 per cent. Median 80.6% 100% The slightly higher rate in 2009

was attributable to the period of 80% the 2009 strike, when directly 60% operated shelters were unable to

40% provide housing search and

20% housing supports to assist

0% residents to move out of the Ott Tor Durh Lond Ham Wat Wind Niag York Halt Sud system. % occupancy 124.6% 91.0% 90.5% 87.3% 86.9% 80.6% 79.7% 73.1% 70.4% 67.3% 62.2%

Chart 10.6 (OMBI 2010) Average Nightly Occupancy Rate of Emergency Shelter Beds (Customer Service)

Chart 10.6 compares Toronto's 2010 occupancy rate of emergency shelter beds to other Ontario municipalities and Toronto ranks second of eleven municipalities (first quartile), in terms of having the highest occupancy rate.

The City of Toronto family shelter system fluctuates due to external factors. Federal immigration policies and international geopolitical circumstances can lead to both increases and decreases in family shelter occupancy.

136

Hostel Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

What does it cost per night to provide a shelter bed in Toronto? The average cost to provide an $93.00 $86.04 emergency shelter for one night $90 provides some indication of $75 efficiency as reflected in Chart 10.7. These costs reflect both $60 direct costs and an allocation of $45 internal program support costs such as facilities, information $30 and technology, legal, and $15 human resources. $0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Starting in 2009, changes in change in acct. policy $1.14 $2.28 accounting policy were instituted $per bed night $76.80 $78.40 $83.38 $82.62 $84.90 $90.72 by all Ontario municipalities as Chart 10.7 (City of Toronto) Cost of Emergency Shelter Bed Night (Efficiency) described on page 26 of this report. The 2010 impact of these accounting policy changes How does Toronto’s nightly cost to provide a shelter bed amounted to an increase in the compare to other municipalities? cost of per shelter bed night, which has been plotted as a $100 stacked column to isolate it from Median $54 the 2010 result using the costing $80 methodology used in 2008 and prior years $60

$40 Excluding the impact of accounting policy changes, $20 Toronto's 2010 cost per bed night increased. This is $0 attributed to a combination of Wat Durh Ott Niag Lond Ham Wind Halt York Tor Sud decreased use of low cost motel $ bed night $39 $43 $48 $49 $53 $54 $60 $65 $90 $93 $120 beds within the family sector, salary increases as a result of Chart 10.8 (OMBI 2010) Cost per Emergency Shelter Bed Night (Efficiency) collective bargaining and inflationary pressures in the municipally operated shelters.

Chart 10.8 compares Toronto’s 2010 cost per shelter bed night to other municipalities with Toronto ranking tenth of eleven (fourth quartile) in terms of having the lowest cost per bed night.

Toronto is one of three OMBI municipalities that directly operate some of their own shelters (38 per cent of the shelter beds in Toronto) while the other eight OMBI municipalities do not directly operate any of their own beds, as they are contracted or purchased from other service providers.

One factor behind Toronto’s higher costs is that for the municipally operated shelters, 100 per cent of the operating costs are recorded on the City’s books. For purchased or contracted shelter beds, the amounts paid by municipalities (the amounts on the municipal books) covers only a portion of actual costs of the shelter operation with the balance of the other provider’s revenues coming from independent fundraising and accessing other sources such as the United Way. The large majority of OMBI municipalities contract or purchase all of their shelter beds; therefore, their costs will be lower than Toronto's.

137

2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

2011 Achievements or 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following achievements and initiatives have and will help to improve the effectiveness of Toronto’s Hostel Services operations.

2011 Initiatives Completed/Achievements:

fully Implemented the Shelter Management Information System (SMIS) for all 57 shelters. implemented enhancements to the financial module of the Shelter Management Information System implemented the Short Term Rent Support Program, a provincial rent supplement program that housed 400 shelter residents provided street respite to hundreds of people, while admitting 118 clients to transitional shelters through the operation at the Streets to Homes Assessment and Referral Centre provided emergency accommodation to an average of 3,700 men, women, children and youth 365 nights of the year, including providing a safe place to sleep, food, and counselling, housing support and referrals, as required expanded the services of Central Intake, a call centre that coordinates access to vacant beds in the shelter system for singles and families and provides eviction prevention services implemented Customer Service Tracker to track complaints and other service request calls from clients of the shelter system and members of the community

2012 Initiatives Planned:

provide 1.406 million bed nights of emergency shelter (3,844 per night, 366 days a year) to homeless individuals, including the provision of meals, counselling, housing support and referrals continue capital investment in the state of good repair of city owned shelters provide input and advice to the Province’s Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy as the regulations are developed for the consolidation of homeless funding

Factors Influencing the Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality included in this report can be influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

condition - chronic vs. newly or episodic homelessness, natural disasters and weather related events, communicable diseases, agency or funder policies, and community capacities for providing sufficient housing, income and support for residents who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness municipal policies: average lengths of stay are shortened when municipal policies limit funding to a set time period supply of and demand for beds: number of emergency shelter beds available in a community may vary by season, by climate, and by bed type (single vs. family) availability of housing: including transitional and supportive housing in the community, and supplementary support services

138 IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn aanndd TTeecchhnnoollooggyy SSeerrvviicceess

Information and Technology

Client Support & IT Business IT Enterprise IT Service IT Infrastructure Improvement Solutions Strategy

Enterprise Client Service Management Solution Hosting Planning and Support (Procurement, (Data Centre) Architecture Payroll, HR

Telephone & IT Training and Risk Management Enterprise Web Wireless Education & Security Communication

Enterprise IT Project Geographic Network Management Information and Mapping

IT Financial Enterprise-Other IT Device Management, Solutions (eg. 311, Management Procurement & Revenue) Contract Management

Program Specific Solutions

Client Support & IT Service Improvement

This service provides help and support to the client in accessing and maximizing the value of IT services. This includes client relationship management, service desk and client side support, IT training and education, IT project management and IT procurement and contract management.

Business IT Solutions

This service primarily delivers major business IT solutions for the City as an enterprise, as well as specific solutions for major City programs to enable the delivery of City services. It provides IT development, sustainment and implementation of applications and solutions. This service also provides enterprise financial, geographic information and mapping, and web solutions as well as program specific solutions.

IT Infrastructure

This service provides enterprise hosting to support all business IT solutions deployed in the City. It manages the City networks including internet, e-mail and fax, telephone and wireless communication and manages IT devices including computers, printers and peripherals across the city.

Enterprise IT Strategy

This service provides the enterprise IT strategic plan and identifies opportunities for business transformation. It also manages risk and manages the security of the City IT environment. It develops the enterprise architecture framework, which is the blueprint for future process, design and IT investments, and manages the enterprise IT portfolio to optimize investments in alignment with business objectives. This service also provides a quality management framework.

139 Information and Technology Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service/Activity Level Indicators What is the Operating and Capital Decreased 2 11.1 cost/investment in Cost in Information and 11.2 information and Technology Services as Cost/investment in I&T High rate of investment technology services in a Percentage of services decreased in I&T services pg. relation to the services Municipal Operating compared to others 141 supported? and Capital (service level indicator) Expenditures (service (service level indicator) level indicator) How much is spent on Operating and Capital Stable 3 11.3 information and Costs for Information 11.4 technology services for and Technology I&T cost per municipal Low rate of I&T each staff member Services per Staff staff member supported investment per pg. supported? Supported with Active was stable municipal staff member 142 I&T Account (service supported, compared to level indicator) others (service level indicator) (service level indicator) Community Impact Measures How frequently is the Number of Visits to Decreased 3 11.5 City's website visited? Municipal Website per 11.6 Capita Website visits Low rate of website decreased visits compared to pg. others 143

Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results)

0 Increased 0 - Favourable 0 - 1st quartile 0 - 1st quartile 1 - Stable 0 - Stable 1 - 2nd quartile 0- 2nd quartile 1 - Decreased 1 - Unfavour. 1 - 3rd quartile 1 - 3rd quartile 0 - 4th quartile 0 - 4th quartile

50% stable or 100% favourable 50% above 0% above increased or stable median median

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of 15 municipalities (eight upper tier municipalities and seven single tier municipalities).

140 Information and Technology Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

What is the cost/investment in information and technology One way to examine the level of services in Toronto, in relation to the services supported? investment in Information and Technology (I&T) services is to 2.0% contrast the service cost with the 1.8% operating and capital costs of 1.6% the service areas they support. 1.4% 1.2% Chart 11.1 provides Toronto's

1.0% cost of I&T services as a 0.8% percentage of the City's total 0.6% operating and capital costs (of 0.4% the service areas they support), 0.2% which in 2010 represented 1.5 0.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 per cent. This decrease was % op. and cap. cost / 1.3% 1.4% 1.8% 1.5% caused by 2010 growth in the op. and cap. expenditures operating and capital expenditures of the city services

Chart 11.1(City of Toronto) Operating and Capital Cost in Information and Technology that I&T supports, that exceeded Services as a Percentage of Municipal Operating and Capital Expenditures (Service the small decline in 2010 Level) expenditures of I&T.

Chart 11.2 compares Toronto's How does the cost /investment in information and technology 2010 result to other services in Toronto compare to other municipalities? municipalities for the cost of I&T services as a percentage of the 3.5% total municipal expenditures they

3.0% support.

Median Upper Tier 1.4% 2.5% Median Single Tier 1.3% Because of differences in 2.0% municipal service delivery responsibilities between single 1.5% tier municipalities like Toronto 1.0% and upper tier / regional municipalities, results have been 0.5% grouped separately. These costs 0.0% Halt Durh Musk York Wat Niag Calg Ott Bar Tor Lond T-Bay Wind Sud only include those of the % op. and cap. cost/ 1.8% 1.6% 1.4% 1.3% 1.0% 1.0% 3.0% 1.7% 1.7% 1.5% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% centralized corporate I&T op. and cap. Expenditure functions and not those that are

Chart 11.2(OMBI 2010) Operating and Capital Cost in Information and Technology decentralized. Services as a Percentage of Municipal Operating and Capital Expenditures (Service Level) In terms of having the highest percentage of investment in Information and Technology, Toronto ranks fourth out of eight single tier municipalities (second quartile).

141 Information and Technology Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How much does Toronto's information and technology services spend per municipal staff member supported? Chart 11.3 provides another way to examine the level of $4,000

$3,500 investment in I&T services, in

$3,000 relation to the staff supported, using an indicator of cost of I&T $2,500 $2,000 services per staff member supported. These costs relate to $1,500 $1,000 all I&T activities, described on $500 the lead page of this section. $0 2009 2010 I&T Operating Cost Toronto's 2010 costs were stable $3,798 $3,745 /Staff with Active I&T account in relation to 2009.

Note: the 2009 result previously reported of $3,847 , and the 2010 result of $5,035 reported in the 2010 OMBI Joint Report ,have been restated to be based on a more accurate figures for the number of staff supported. Chart 11.4 compares Toronto's 2010 result to other municipalities for the cost of I&T Chart 11.3 (City of Toronto) Operating and Capital Costs for Information and Technology Services per Staff Supported with Active I&T Account (Service Level) services per staff member supported. Because of How does the I&T cost per municipal staff member in Toronto differences in municipal service compare to other municipalities? delivery, responsibilities between single tier municipalities like $9,000 Median Upper-Tier $4,373 Median Single-Tier $3,894 Toronto, and upper-tier / regional $8,000 municipalities, results have been $7,000 grouped. $6,000 $5,000 Toronto ranks sixth of nine single $4,000 tier municipalities (third quartile) $3,000 in terms of having the highest IT $2,000 cost/investment per municipal $1,000 staff member supported $0 Halt York Durh Musk Wat Niag Calg Bar Ott Lond Wind Tor Sud T-Bay Ham I&T Operating Cost $6,619 $5,893 $5,702 $3,043 $2,845 $2,387 $7,855 $5,627 $4,829 $4,028 $3,894 $3,745 $3,547 $3,120 $3,092 /Staff with Active I&T accounts

Note: Toronto's 2010 result differs from the OMBI Joint Public Report to reflect a more accurate number of staff members supported by I&T

Chart 11.4 (OMBI 2010) Operating and Capital Costs for Information and Technology Services per Staff Supported with Active I&T Account (Service Level)

142 Information and Technology Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How frequently is Toronto's website visited? One of the main goals of IT

25.0 services is to facilitate, communication of information,

20.0 and completion of transactions (e-business) between the City

government, residents and other 15.0 users, through the City's website. 10.0

One method to assess the 5.0 effectiveness of providing these functions is to examine the 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 number of website visits.

Total web visits 64,283,119 66,638,864 52,844,425 42,937,963

Web visits/capita 23.6 24.3 19.2 15.5 Chart 11.5 provides Toronto's

data on the total number of Chart 11.5 (City of Toronto) Number of Visits to Municipal Website per Capita website visits by year as well as (Community Impact) the number of visits per capita

How frequently is Toronto's website visited compared to other The decreasing trend is municipalities? attributable to:

• between July 2008 and early

60.0 2010, the Toronto Transit 50.0 Commission (TTC) 40.0 transitioned their content Median 16.9 30.0 from toronto.ca to their own hosted service, ttc.ca. The 20.0 transition resulted in a 10.0 significant 20% decrease in 0.0 visits to toronto.ca. Ott Lond Sud Bar Calg Tor T-Bay Wind Ham # website visits • visits/transactions to 50.7 31.5 24.9 19.4 16.9 15.5 10.9 9.6 8.0 /capita Toronto's on-line services such as 311, which are not Note: Upper Tier municipalities are not inlcuded due to the differences in services that are provided included in these results but are an increasing area of Chart 11.6 (OMBI 2010) Number of Visits to Municipal Website per Capita activity (Community Impact)

Chart 11.6 compares Toronto's 2010 website visits to other single-tier municipalities. Only single tier municipalities are included in this comparison due to the different (fewer) services provided by regional governments that would impact comparability.

Toronto ranks sixth of nine single tier municipalities (third quartile) in terms of the highest number of website visits.

If 2010 data was included for visits to the TTC's website and for on-line service transactions, Toronto's ranking would have been better and staff are working towards including these components in future results.

143 Information and Technology Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

2011 Achievements and 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following initiatives have and are expected to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Information and Technology Services in Toronto:

2011 Initiatives Completed/Achievements

• successfully contributed to completion or progress in the following business projects that impact Toronto citizens and businesses: o established the Electronic Service Delivery (ESD) program, an enterprise approach to advancing eService capabilities at the City o completed 311 Phase III development including allowing 3rd party application developers to create mobile applications to access 311, integration with Toronto Animal Services customer requests, ability for the public to subscribe to Instant Messages from 311 for request status, and enhanced 311 reporting o completed Toronto Water's Automated Meter Reading implementation project including wireless infrastructure to support ward by ward replacement of aged water meters and automated collection of consumption data, as well as system integration and workflow automation for Toronto Water and Revenue Services. o completed several business architecture projects in support of key enterprise and program initiatives including Enterprise Document & Records Management (EDRMS), eLearning, Elections, eProcurement, and Accounts Payable and Toronto Building • trained 2500+ staff on corporate and business applications and provided self directed IT training services to 140 City staff • completed a Business Intelligence Strategy for the City in collaboration with City Divisions and Offices • completed business impact analysis and application portfolio for business continuity planning • completed the City's Quality Assurance Strategy with a commitment to service excellence and continuous improvement. • provided effective enterprise-wide IT technical support through the I&T Service Desk • completed implementation of the productivity suite upgrade to Microsoft Office 2007 and conversion of Access Databases • enhanced and upgraded the Enterprise Geospatial Environment to allow for deployment of business web mapping applications • successfully upgraded the Recreation Program Registration (Class) system, implemented the residential 24 hour and 48 hour temporary/guest on-street parking permits, the Children Services' Online Subsidy Application Form, and the Bentley ProjectWise system for managing City engineering drawings • completed the City's Wide Area Network (WAN) redesign, the enhanced network routing for the City's core network and high-speed service to support virtualized datacentre • successfully completed the financial integration between IBMS and SAP to improve the speed of permit delivery and reduce back-office errors in accordance with Auditor General's recommendations • developed a new IT Enterprise Policies and Standards Framework, which included completing fit/gap analyses, restructuring the relevant intranet site and revising communication methodologies

2012 Initiatives Planned

• optimization of telecommunication technologies –implement a new telecommunication infrastructure by converting the Centrex lines for telephone to Unified Messaging technology and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), and establishing a high capacity Wide Area Network (WAN) data services. This will result in advanced communication methodologies, protocols, and transmission technologies for delivery of voice and data communications and multi-media sessions

144 Information and Technology Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

• performance measurement project is underway to improve the way I&T measure and report on performance. The scope of the initiative is to develop a framework and roadmap for the collection and implementation of strategic, tactical and operational performance measures that are business (customer) driven to enable continuous improvements, efficiency and effectiveness for IT services • web foundation project to advance the work of strategic planning, deployment and implementation of the website revitalization vision articulated by the eCity committee. The work of this project is a vital component of the construction of a framework to facilitate service bundling activities and the implementation of the "My Toronto" user interface, key features of the eCity and eService strategies. • eService – Toronto Building project will realize the eCity vision of providing city services anywhere, any time to residents, developers, and the business community. It will enable Toronto Building services online, including submission, collaboration, issuance, and access to background records' history completely on-line. • central property database/one address repository to develop a central property database that will be utilized to link and integrate all property based information systems, databases and other repositories across all City divisions

Influencing Factors

Each municipality’s results are influenced to varying degrees by a number of factors, including:

• order of government: due to the nature of service delivery obligations, results may vary among upper tier and single-tier municipalities • organizational form: the extent to which IT services are centralized, decentralized or contracted to third parties in each municipality can influence reported results • unique conditions: each municipality exercises flexibility in how it chooses to deploy technology to meet its own unique needs • IT Services: the types of IT services provided may vary from one municipality to another (e.g. does IT deliver all/some telecommunications services, geospatial information services, etc

145 IInnvveessttmmeenntt MMaannaaggeemmeenntt SSeerrvviicceess

Investment management services are provided in Toronto by the Capital Markets section of the Corporate Finance division, which is responsible for the internal investment management of several City investment portfolios.

In accordance with a Toronto City Council-approved directive, City funds are managed in a manner that seeks to provide the highest investment return consistent with the maximum security of principal, while meeting the City's cash requirements and conforming to all legislation governing investment of the City's funds.

146

Investment Management Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Efficiency Measures What rate of return are Gross Fixed Income Decreased 2 12.1 Toronto's investments Yield on Book Value – 12.2 earning? (Efficiency) Decrease in rate of High rate of return on return on investments investments compared pg. to others 148 (decline in global interest rates) How much does it cost to Management Expense Stable 1 12.3 manage the city's Ratio– (Efficiency) 12.4 investments? Cost to manage Lower cost to manage investments is stable investments compared pg. to others 148

Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results)

n/a 0 - Favourable n/a 1 - 1st quartile 1 - Stable 1 - 2nd quartile 1 - Unfavour. 0 - 3rd quartile 0 - 4th quartile

50% favourable 100% above or stable median

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of 14 municipalities.

147 Investment Management Services

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

What rate of return is Toronto earning on its investments? The primary objectives for all of 6.0% Toronto's investment activities in 5.0% order of priority are: 4.0% ensuring safety of principal 3.0% maintaining adequate 2.0% liquidity to fund the City's 1.0% daily cash needs 0.0% maximizing the rate of return 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 while conforming to the first % return 5.45% 5.28% 4.60% 4.70% 4.15% and second objectives Chart 12.1 (City of Toronto) Gross Fixed Income Yield on Book Value (Efficiency) Chart 12.1 summarizes Toronto's How does Toronto's rate of return on investments compare to gross fixed income yield (rate of other municipalities? return) on the book value of its 6.0% investments. Results in 2010 Median 3.06% 5.0% showed a decrease do to a decline in Canadian and Global 4.0% interest rates and a shortened 3.0% duration (term) to align with the 2.0% City's projected investment 1.0% portfolio. 0.0% York Halt Ham Tor Wat T-Bay Sud Calg Niag Bar Ott Durh Lond Wind Chart 12.2 compares Toronto's % return 5.25% 4.64% 4.57% 4.15% 4.01% 3.96% 3.15% 2.97% 2.58% 2.55% 2.38% 2.11% 1.46% 0.62% 2010 yield (return) on Chart 12.2 (OMBI 2010) Gross Fixed Income Yield on Book Value (Efficiency) investments to other municipalities and Toronto ranks How much does it cost in Toronto to manage the City's fourth of fourteen (second investments? quartile) in terms of the highest 0.02% rate of return.

Toronto also strives to keep its 0.01% cost of managing these investments low. These costs 0.00% include both direct and indirect 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 cost such as facility space, and % MER 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% when expressed as a proportion Note: results of 2009 and prior years previously reported, have been restated (from either .03% or .02%) to reflect of the investment value is more accurate costing of Toronto's investment function referred to as the Management Chart 12.3 (City of Toronto) Management Expense Ratio (Efficiency) Expense Ratio (MER).

How does Toronto's cost to manage investments compare to Chart 12.3 shows Toronto's cost other municipalities? to manage investments to be to 0.25% be very stable representing just 0.20% Median 0.04% 0.01 per cent of the investment 0.15% value in 2010.

0.10% Chart 12.4 reflects Toronto's 0.05% MER compared to other 0.00% Bar Tor Durh Niag Halt Wat York Sud Ham Lond Wind Ott Calg T-Bay municipalities, with Toronto tied % MER 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.04% 0.05% 0.06% 0.06% 0.07% 0.08% 0.23% in second of fourteen (first Note: Toronto's 2010 result has been restated from the OMBI Joint Public Report to reflect more accurate costing of quartile) in terms of having the the investment function lowest investment management Chart 12.4 (OMBI 2010) Management Expense Ratio (Efficiency) costs.

148

Investment Management Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Factors Influencing Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality found in the charts included in this report are influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

asset mix (types of different investment vehicles) availability of product amount of funds under investment cash inflows and outflows (is new cash being added or is the portfolio shrinking?) type of investment management (in house vs. the use of external managers and brokers) strategies employed (active vs. passive) duration (term) of the investment portfolio

149 LLeeggaall SSeerrvviicceess

Legal Services

Civil Prosecution Solicitor Litigation

The goal of Legal Services is to provide responsive, cost effective legal support to Toronto City Council and its local boards and staff on governance, strategic initiatives, legislative compliance, risk management and operational issues using best efforts to see that actions undertaken by the municipality comply with applicable laws and have the desired legal effect.

Some specific objectives include: • meeting the needs of council, division heads and staff for timely, accurate and effective legal advice • protecting, advocating for, and advancing the legal interests of the municipality and the general public interest • providing cost effective representation of the municipality before the courts and boards/tribunals • preparing, negotiating and reviewing contracts and agreements to protect the municipality’s interests • overseeing the delivery of services under the Provincial Offences Act consisting of administrative, prosecutorial and court support functions

Toronto's Legal Services division is comprised of more than 100 practicing lawyers, more than 15 law clerks, 11 conveyancing staff, and more than 30 prosecutions staff, providing services to Council, its local boards and staff in the following areas:

• Municipal Law – providing legal advice and opinions on issues relating to governance, service delivery, operations and corporate initiatives, including contract negotiations and drafting agreements • Real Estate Law- providing assistance and advice on a wide range of diverse and sophisticated real estate transactions dealing with the City’s property interests • Planning and Development Law - providing advice on the use and development of land and policy related matters. including matters relating to the Ontario Municipal Board and the Alcohol and Gaming Commission • Employment Law - providing advice and assistance in matters related to employment law and dealing with issues arising from collective agreements between the City and its unions. Includes dealings with the Ontario Labour Relations Board, Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal and the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal • Litigation – representing and defending in litigation matters at all levels of courts and administrative tribunals • Prosecutions - prosecuting of a wide range of offences committed under City bylaws and provincial statutes

150 Legal Services

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service Level Indicators How much internal legal Legal Services Cost Decreased 1 13.1 work is required to (Internal) per 1,000 support municipal Dollars Municipal Internal legal Higher amount of legal pg. services? Capital and Operating expenditures decreased work compared to other 152 Expenditures - (Service in proportion to OMBI municipalities in Level) operating and capital proportion to operating expenditures and capital expenditures

(service level indicator) (service level indicator) Efficiency Measures How much does it cost Legal Costs per In- Increased 4 13.2 per hour for internal house Lawyer Hour - lawyers, including (Efficiency) Cost per hour for Higher cost per hour for pg. overhead costs? internal (in-house) legal internal (in-house)legal 152 services increased services compared to others

(more complex work may be done by internal lawyers in Toronto that more expensive external lawyers would be doing in other municipalities )

Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results)

0 - Increased 0 - Favourable 1 - 1st quartile 0 - 1st quartile 0 - Stable 0 - Stable 0 - 2nd quartile 0 - 2nd quartile 1 - Decreased 1 - Unfavour. 0 - 3rd quartile 0 - 3rd quartile 0 - 4th quartile 1 - 4th quartile

0% stable or 0% favourable or 100% above 0% above increased stable median median

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of 13 municipalities.

151 Legal Services

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How much legal work done by internal staff is required to One way of comparing the support municipal services? volume of legal services (service levels) provided is to relate $5 internal legal expenditures to the $4 Median $1.73 operating and capital $4 $3 expenditures of the municipal $3 services they support. In 2010, $2 Toronto spent $4.21 per $1,000 $2 of municipal operating and $1 $1 capital expenditures of the $0 services they support. This was Tor Ham York Halt Wind Durh Lond Sud Wat Ott Bar Niag down from $4.39 in 2009. This $cost $4.21 $2.44 $2.40 $2.31 $1.93 $1.76 $1.69 $1.56 $1.52 $1.45 $1.38 $0.93 excludes decentralized legal Chart 13.1(OMBI 2010) Internal Legal Services Cost per 1,000 Dollars Municipal costs incurred by divisions. Capital and Operating Expenses (Service Level) Chart 13.1 compares Toronto How much does it cost per hour for internal lawyers, including 2010 result for this measure to overhead costs? other municipalities and $250 Toronto ranks first of twelve (first Median $130 quartile) in terms of having the $200 highest expenditure/service $150 level.

$100 Toronto's high ranking is likely $50 due to: Toronto's urban $0 Wat Ham Ott Bar Sud Niag Durh Lond Halt Wind Tor York environment leading to a greater complexity of files, $cost $113 $118 $118 $120 $123 $127 $133 $133 $137 $145 $152 $157 greater volumes and higher Chart 13.2 (OMBI 2010) Legal Costs per In-House Lawyer Hour (Efficiency) dollar values many municipalities don't undertake new initiatives until Toronto has done it and withstood legal challenges. other municipalities may be placing greater reliance on external legal services that are not captured in this measure

Chart 13.2 compares Toronto's 2010 cost per hour for internal (in-house) lawyers to other Ontario municipalities. This includes all overhead and legal staff supporting lawyers. Toronto's ranks twelfth of 13 (fourth quartile) in terms of having the lowest cost per hour. Toronto's legal services costs per lawyer hour increased in 2010 to $152 per hour from $146 in 2009.

There are a number of factors that lead to higher cost in Toronto such as: Toronto has a greater proportion of costs for paralegal staff (included in the measure) and although their time is not considered as "lawyer hours", their work such as preparing standard form agreements is less costly compared to other municipalities if that work is being done by lawyers Toronto provides full in-house legal services often involving complex matters. Outside legal counsel are only used in extremely specialized or complex matters with this external legal expertise being much more expensive, as evidenced by the differences between the rates shown in Charts 13.2 and Chart 13.3. Similar legal matters dealt with by in-house lawyers in Toronto may be handled in another municipality by an external lawyer at a higher cost.

152 Legal Services

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

2011 Achievements or 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following achievements and initiatives have and will help to improve the effectiveness of Toronto’s Legal Services operations.

2011 Accomplishments

provided strategic legal advice and services with respect to Enwave's Energy Transfer Agreement provided strategic legal advice: o on the drafting of the harmonized Zoning By-law and represented the City's interests in appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board o to the Fire Collective Bargaining team o with respect to drafting services to support infrastructure and stimulus funding projects o with respect to the Downsview redevelopment o for the acquisition of lands for Spadina Subway extension defended the City's interest in o the Bank Towers Assessment Appeal at the Court of Appeal o the Third Party Sign Tax By-law challenge o class action litigation on the St. Clair Transit Improvement Project

Factors Influencing Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality found in the charts included in this report are influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

organizational form - determines whether all legal costs are controlled centrally by Legal Services as well as the mix of external vs. in-house lawyer hours staffing model - the ratio of paralegal and administrative staff to lawyers affects the cost per lawyer hour, as only lawyer hours are reflected in the cost per hour calculations litigation costs - the nature and volume of legal claims (including civil claims, human rights matters, contractual disputes, by-law challenges, and applications for Judicial review), drive legal costs council philosophy - cost benefit of settling claims at different stages municipal services - different services can demand varying levels of legal support client initiatives - new initiatives (i.e. re-organization or restructuring, bylaw amendments , introduction of new bylaws, official plan review, major infrastructure projects) often generate a considerable amount of legal work and may impact both internal and external legal hours as well as cost per hour reimbursement of legal fees to municipal staff and Council members – staff and Council members may be reimbursed for legal costs incurred to retain external lawyers when they are not represented by in-house lawyers the rates of pay for lawyers in municipalities

153 LLiibbrraarryy SSeerrvviicceess

Toronto Public Library

Library Facility Library Collection Programs and Administration Access Use Outreach

Governance & Study and Borrowing and In- Board Literacy Community Access Library Use Support

E-Services & Instructional and Finance Room Booking Organization Informational

Facilities Information Cultural and Human Resources Maintenance & Services Literary Support Collection, Volunteer & Service Development & Development & Maintenance Customer Engagement

Public libraries provide services for residents of all ages and backgrounds in a welcoming and supportive environment. Libraries promote literacy, address residents’ educational and recreational needs and enhance their quality of life. Libraries are important community hubs that strengthen community connections and build diverse communities. Libraries also support and promote reading skills.

Public libraries provide responsive collections, services and programs that proactively address diverse and changing community needs. Partnerships enhance and extend the library’s reach, remove barriers and engage residents in services.

In an information society, access to the internet and technology is essential to meaningful participation in daily life. Public libraries have an important role in addressing the digital divide, which is residents’ lack of access to technology or the skills to use it effectively. The digital divide relates to education, income and age. Libraries address this divide by providing internet and computer access, wireless access and user education. For some residents, the public library is their main access, for others it augments access available at home, work or school. Increasingly, collections, programs and services are offered online, enhancing accessibility and engaging new library users.

154 Library Services

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service Level Indicators How many hours of Annual Number of Increased 2 14.1 service do library Library Service Hours 14.2 branches provide? per Capita – (Service Number of library hours Slightly higher rate of pg. Level) increased library hours compared 156 to others (service level indicator) (service level indicator) What is the size of library Number of Library Decreased 1 14.3 holdings/ collection? Holdings per Capita - Highest rate of library 14.4 (Service Level) Size of library holdings holdings compared to decreased others pg. (service level indicator) (service level indicator) 157 Community Impact Measures How often do residents Annual Library Uses per Increased 2 14.5 use the library system? Capita (Electronic & 14.6 Non-Electronic) – Total library uses High rate of library use (Community Impact increased compared to others pg. 158 How often do residents Non- Electronic Uses Increased 1 14.5 use non-electronic library per Capita– 14.6 services such as (Community Impact) Non-electronic uses Higher rate of non- borrowing a book or increased electronic library use pg. visiting a branch? compared to others 158 How often do residents Electronic Library Uses Increased 2 14.5 use electronic library per Capita – 14.6 services such as (Community Impact) Electronic library use High rate of electronic accessing a database or increased library use compared to pg. using a computer others 158 workstation? Customer Service Measures How often are items Average Number of Increased 1 14.7 borrowed from the Times in Year 14.8 circulating collection? Circulating Items are Turnover rate of Higher turnover rate of Borrowed /Turnover – circulating materials circulating materials pg. (Customer Service) increased compared to others 159 Efficiency Measures What does it cost for Library Cost per Use - Decreased 3 14.9 each library use? (Efficiency) 14.10 Cost per library use Slightly higher cost per pg. decreased library use compared to 160 others Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results)

1 - Increased 5 - Favourable 1 - 1st quartile 2 - 1st quartile 0 - Stable 0 - Stable 1 - 2nd quartile 2 - 2nd quartile 1 -Decreased 0 - Unfavour. 0 - 3rd quartile 1 - 3rd quartile 0 - 4th quartile 0 - 4th quartile

50% stable or 100% favourable 100% above 80% above increased or stable median median For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of 10 municipalities.

155

Library Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How many hours are library branches open for in Toronto? Two aspects of library services 0.10 that can be used to compare service levels are: 0.08  the service hours of library branches 0.06  the size of the library 0.04 holdings or collections

0.02 Chart 14.1 summarizes the total

0.00 number of library service hours 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 and rate per capita that all hours/capita 0.095 0.094 0.092 0.091 0.091 0.092 0.093 0.089 0.094 0.095 Toronto library branches were total hours 246,042 246,090 243,899 243,819 245,425 247,700 253,875 243,790 260,125 264,300 open. The 2010 increase in Chart 14.1(City of Toronto) Library Service Hours per Capita (Service Level) service hours was attributable to increased open hours at several How do Toronto’s library hours compare to other branches, and efficiencies in municipalities? operations gained through the 0.25 5,000 introduction of self service Median 0.09 4,500 technology

0.20 4,000 .2 compares Toronto’s 3,500 Chart 14 2010 library service hours per 0.15 3,000 capita to other municipalities, 2,500 which are plotted as bars relative 0.10 2,000 km sq. per pop'n - to the left axis. This calculation is

1,500 based on the sum of hours at all Library Service Hours per Capitaper Hours Service Library 0.05 1,000 Density library branches that were open, 500 regardless of the size of those 0.00 0 branches. Wat Sud Wind Lond Tor Ham T-Bay Ott Winn Bar Library hours per capita 0.21 0.19 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.02 This measurement excludes the Population density 393 44 1,493 863 4,373 469 332 328 1,430 1,400 numerous electronic services provided on a 24-hour, seven- day-a-week basis, through Chart 14.2 (OMBI 2010) Number of Library Service Hours per Capita (Service Level) and Population Density library websites, as well as through outreach services such as bookmobiles.

Toronto ranks fifth of ten municipalities (second quartile) in terms of having the highest number of library service hours per capita. A municipality’s result can be influenced by population density (persons per square kilometre), plotted as a line graph relative to the right axis on Chart 14.2. Toronto is far more densely populated than the other municipalities. Municipalities with relatively lower population densities may require more library branches and hence more service hours so that service can be provided within a reasonable distance of residents. In a more urban setting like Toronto, residents can use non-vehicular alternatives to travel to a library such as public transit or walking.

With increased population density, there can also be an increased need and demand to extend service hours. Residents, including students, require computer and wireless access, study space, research materials and a central community hub to relax and engage with others. Access to meeting rooms by community groups can build community networks and capacity.

This measure does not consider the size of library branches, the range of services provided at those branches and if the service hours provided, maximizes usage of library branches in municipalities. If the average weekly service hours per branch is compared, Toronto result of 53 hours per week ranks second of the ten municipalities. 156 Library Services

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

What is the size of Toronto’s library holdings/ collection? Another indication of service levels is the size of the library 5.00 holdings/ collection per capita, 4.00 which consist of both print and electronic media. 3.00 Print media include:

2.00  reference collections

 circulating/ borrowing 1.00 collections

0.00  periodicals 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Holdings/capita 4.09 4.04 4.01 3.98 3.98 3.98 3.95 4.03 4.04 3.97 total holdings 10,606,221 10,581,265 10,606,009 10,636,725 10,750,446 10,766,443 10,792,487 11,025,410 11,124,294 11,012,633 Electronic media include:  CDs/DVDs Chart 14.3 (City of Toronto) Library Holdings per Capita (Service Level)  downloadable materials  audio books How does Toronto’s library holdings/collection compare in size to other municipalities? Chart 14.3 provides information on Toronto’s total (over 11 million 5.00 items) and rate of library Median 2.85 4.00 holdings per capita. The one percent decrease in stock size in 3.00 2010 resulted from a combination of factors including 2.00 the shift to more electronic content and the de-accessioning

1.00 of dated formats such as audio books on cassette. 0.00 Tor Wat Wind Sud T-Bay Ott Lond Bar Winn Ham Chart 14.4 compares Toronto's Holdings/capita 3.97 3.43 3.18 3.14 3.04 2.66 2.45 2.43 2.35 2.20 2010 number of library holdings Chart 14.4 (OMBI 2010) Number of Library Holdings Per Capita (Service Level) per capita to other municipalities. Toronto ranks first of ten municipalities (first quartile) with the highest rate of library holdings.

Toronto’s high ranking reflects the library’s responsiveness to the diverse population and the comprehensiveness of the library’s collections. Toronto offers extensive research and reference collections including both special, historical and archival materials, ESL and literacy collections, electronic and recreational collections. To enhance accessibility, materials are offered for all ages in a range of reading levels, in over forty languages and in a variety of accessible formats, such as large print, and electronic formats including audio and eBooks.

157

Library Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How often do residents use Toronto's library system? One of the primary goals of a 40 35 municipal library system is to 30 maximize the use of library 25 resources and programming by 20 residents. 15 10 Library uses can be grouped into 5 two categories: 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010  non-electronic Total Library Uses /Capita 29.0 30.7 31.0 32.1 32.9 33.6 32.8 33.2 33.9 35.6  electronic Non- Electronic Uses 22.1 22.5 21.8 21.8 21.9 21.7 20.5 20.5 21.7 22.1 /Capita Non-electronic library uses Electronic Uses /Capita 6.9 8.3 9.2 10.2 11.0 11.9 12.3 12.7 12.2 13.5 include:  a visit to a library branch Chart 14.5 (City of Toronto) Library Uses per Capita by Type (Community Impact)  borrowing materials

 reference questions How does library use in Toronto compare to other  use of materials within the municipalities? branch

65  attendance at programs 60 55 Median total 27.6 50 Electronic library use is a growing 45 40 service channel of many library 35 systems. It includes: 30  25 the use of computers in 20 libraries 15  10 online collections available in 5 branches 0 Bar Lond Ott Tor Ham T-Bay Sud Wind Winn Wat  24-hour access to library Total Lib. Uses 65.9 39.6 36.7 35.6 28.2 26.9 25.3 20.8 17.8 17.4 web services and collections elec use/capita 49.4 17.0 16.3 13.5 6.9 9.4 7.3 5.7 4.1 4.9 from home, work or school non- elec use/capita 16.5 22.6 20.4 22.1 21.4 17.6 18.0 15.1 13.8 12.5 Total library uses in Toronto were Chart 14.6 (OMBI 2010) Library Uses per Capita by Type (Community Impact) over 98.7 million in 2010. Chart 14.5 illustrates how many times Toronto’s library system was used, on a per capita basis.

In 2010, total library uses increased as a result of growth in both electronic (+10.7%) and non-electronic (+1.8%) uses. As a longer term trend electronic usage is increasing and represents an increasing proportion of overall library activity.

Chart 14.6 compares Toronto’s 2010 library use per capita, to other municipalities with the following results, in terms of the highest rate of library use

 total library use - ranks fourth of ten municipalities (second quartile)  non-electronic use - ranks second of ten municipalities (first quartile)  electronic use - ranks fourth of ten municipalities (second quartile)

Data collection is an issue for the comparability of electronic use between municipalities, as there continues to be wide variation in the methodology and reliability of metrics in this area

158 Library Services

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How often are items borrowed from Toronto’s circulating collection? The quality of a library’s 6 collection is an important 5 consideration for library users. The average number of times 4 each item in a library’s 3 circulating collection is borrowed (turnover) is one way of 2 measuring this quality. 1 Generally, if the number of times 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 an item has been borrowed in a Turnover rate 4.28 4.44 4.43 4.53 4.70 5.11 4.90 4.68 4.63 4.86 year is higher, it is an indication of how popular and relevant the Chart 14.7 (City of Toronto) Average Number of Times in Year Circulating Items are item is to users. Borrowed (Customer Service) Chart 14.7 provides data on the How does Toronto’s borrowing/turnover rate from our collection turnover rate of Toronto’s compare to other municipalities? circulating collection for the years 2001 to 2010. The 7 Median 3.91 increase in collection turnover 6 rate in 2010, results from a slight

5 reduction in the overall stock size and the ongoing selection of 4 popular and relevant materials.

3 Chart 14.8 compares Toronto’s 2 2010 turnover rate for its 1 circulating collection to other

0 municipalities. Toronto ranks Ham Tor Lond Bar Ott Winn T-Bay Sud Wat second of nine municipalities Turnover rate 5.98 4.86 4.76 4.62 4.43 3.39 3.34 2.27 1.92 (first quartile) in terms of having the highest turnover rate. Chart 14.8 (OMBI 2010) Average Number of Times in Year Circulating Items are Borrowed (Customer Service) Toronto achieved this ranking, while at the same time offering extensive, non-circulating, reference collections.

159

Library Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

What does it cost in Toronto for each library use?

$2.46 $1.74 The cost of library services in $1.71 relation to the number of library $2.05 uses can be used to assess the $1.64 efficiency of library systems.

$1.23 .9 illustrates Toronto’s Chart 14 $0.82 cost per library use.

$0.41 Starting in 2009, changes in $0.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 accounting policies were Change in acct. policy -$0.15 $0.01 instituted by all Ontario Cost per Library Use $1.60 $1.60 $1.62 $1.75 $1.73 $1.76 $1.83 $1.95 $1.89 $1.70 municipalities as described on CPI Adjusted page 26. The 2010 impact of (2001 base) $1.60 $1.56 $1.54 $1.64 $1.59 $1.59 $1.62 $1.69 $1.50 $1.43 these accounting policy changes was not significant Chart 14.9 (City of Toronto) Cost per Library Use (Efficiency) but has been reflected as a stacked column to isolate it How does Toronto’s cost per library use compare to other from the costing methodology municipalities? used in 2008 and prior years

$3.00 To reflect the impact of inflation, Chart 14.9 also provides Median $1.70 $2.50 Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjusted results (excluding $2.00 accounting policy changes) that $1.50 are plotted as a line graph. This adjusts/discounts the actual $1.00 result for each year by the change in Toronto’s CPI since $0.50 the base year of 2001. $0.00 Bar Lond Ott Sud Wind Tor Ham Winn Wat T-Bay Toronto's 2010 cost per use $ library use $0.48 $1.19 $1.34 $1.66 1.68 $1.71 $1.73 2.15 $2.16 $2.78 decreased as a result of the Chart 14.10 (OMBI 2010) Library Cost per Use (Efficiency) significant increase in electronic library uses discussed earlier with Chart 14.5.

Chart 14.10 compares Toronto’s 2010 cost per library use to other municipalities. Toronto ranks sixth of ten municipalities (third quartile), in terms of having the lowest cost. Toronto continues to experience increases in both electronic and non electronic services. Since electronic library uses are less labour intensive, those municipalities that have a higher proportion of electronic use, in relation to total library uses, will tend to have a lower cost per library use.

160 Library Services

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

2010 Achievements or 2011 Planned Initiatives

The following initiatives are intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Toronto’s Library operations.

2011 Initiatives Completed/Achievements

 managed increased in library usage including circulation (2.9%), in person visits (3.9%), and Information requests (3.5%) through the installation of automated checkout, and the renovation of the Toronto Reference Library integrating the stand-alone Periodicals and Newspapers into subject departments. Also consolidated the Urban Affairs collection into the Toronto Reference Library from a standalone branch at Metro Hall and from the North York Central Library  through partnerships, offered library programs related to literacy, lifelong learning and culture to address the needs of Toronto residents with 770,000 attending; 32,642 children participated in the TD Summer Reading Club program and provided 3,300 volunteer opportunities (76% are youth)

2012 Initiatives Planned

 engage the public in developing a new strategic plan to respond to customers’ changing needs and expectations for library services delivered through the website, and in library branches  foster a culture of customer service excellence, innovation, efficiency, responsiveness and accountability through customer service training  address customer expectations efficiently through increased self service features including online fines payment and expanded access to e-content including commercial ebooks and digitization of unique materials from the library’s collections  increase the sustainability of library service by assessing options for revenue diversification through advertising and sponsorship, increased partnerships and implementation of revised fines and fees  increase the efficiency of library processes including the management of library materials, through batch processing and standardization for ordering and receiving, using electronic data interchange with more vendors for orders and invoices, and reducing wait time between processes and movement of collection. Also further automate the processing of customer holds for library materials and automate materials handling in branches through self service check in and automated materials sorters

Influencing Factors

Each municipality’s results are influenced to varying degrees by a number of factors including:

 access: number and size of branches and hours of operation mean municipalities with lower population densities may require more library branches and more service hours to provide residents services within a reasonable distance  collections: size and mix, as well as number of languages supported  programs: range of public programs  library use: mix, variety and depth of library uses and the varying amount of staff resources required to support those uses  web services: availability and degree of investment  demographics: socio-economic and cultural make-up of the population served

161 Long-Term Care Services

Toronto Long-Term Care Homes and Services is committed to providing exemplary long-term care services to residents and clients, Long-Term Care and to actively participating in the creation of an effective Homes and continuum of care through strong partnerships with other Services health care organizations and community partners. Toronto’s Community focus is on the provision of individualized care that respects, Long-Term Care Based Homes supports and enables people to be as independent as Programs possible. Long-Term Care Homes and Services provides long- term care services in long-term care homes as well as in the Homemaking & community. The scope of services include: Nurse Services

10 long-term care homes, providing both permanent and short-stay admissions Adult Day programs in dementia care and other specialized medical Program needs a range of community support programs including adult Support day programs and meals on wheels Housing supportive housing in a number of contracted sites Services homemaking services to qualified clients in their own homes

All services are designed to respect the dignity of residents and clients, support their health, well-being and safety and enable them to remain as independent as possible for as long as possible. Within the long-term care homes, Toronto provides services through an interdisciplinary team comprised of physicians, nurses, personal care staff, therapists, recreation, complementary care and chaplaincy staff, social workers, dietitians, nutrition managers and dietary staff. Support staff maintain the safety and cleanliness of the environment. In the community, nurses and case workers work with contracted personal care staff to provide individualized services to each client, to connect clients to other required community services and to support clients and their families. Toronto has a number of community advisory committees and family committees that help us get meaningful input from the community to guide our care and service delivery. All of our homes have active residents’ councils.

Long-Term Care Homes and Services has a strong advocacy approach and has a full-time Resident-Client Advocate available to assist residents, clients, families, volunteers and staff in their advocacy efforts. They operate through an integrated quality management approach with attention to transparency and accountability and promote a culture of safety in all that we do.

Funding responsibilities for long-term care services are shared by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC), the residents of the homes (or the clients of the community programs) and the City of Toronto, with rates set by the provincial government. Long-term care home residents with limited income are eligible for a subsidy to reduce the fee they pay. Although community clients may pay a small fee, the approach for rates varies with each community program.

The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care regulates and inspects all of Ontario's long-term care homes on a regular basis. In addition, all of the City of Toronto's Long-Term Care Homes and Community Based Program's are accredited by Accreditation Canada, demonstrating that they meet the national standards for safety and quality of care grounded in ethical principles..

162

Long-Term Care Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service Level Indicators How many municipally Number of Municipal Stable 15.1 operated long-term care LTC Beds– (Service beds are there? Level) Unchanged number of - pg. long- term care beds 164

(service level indicator) Community Impact Measures What proportion of all Municipally Operated Stable 3 15.2 long-term care beds does LTC Beds as the City operate? percentage of all LTC Toronto’s municipal Toronto’s municipal pg. Beds in the Municipality share of all long-term share of all long-term 164 – (Community Impact) care beds care beds is low has remained stable compared to others What is the supply of Percentage of LTC Stable 3 15.3 long-term care beds Community Need 15.4 relative to the elderly Satisfied (beds as a % Number of long-term Lower percentage of population? of population >75 years care beds unchanged long-term care beds pg. of age) - (Community relative to elderly relative to elderly 165 Impact) population population compared to others Customer Service Measures How satisfied are long- LTC Resident Very High 2 15.5 term care home Satisfaction -– 15.6 residents? (Customer Service) Results have remained High rate of resident very high, at a 96% satisfaction compared pg. satisfaction rating to others 166 Efficiency Measures How much does it cost LTC Facility Cost (CMI Decreased 2 15.7 per day to provide a long- Adjusted) per LTC 15.8 term care bed? Facility Bed Day Cost per bed day Low cost per bed day (Ministry Submissions) decreased compared to others pg. (Efficiency) 167 Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results)

0 - Increased 2 - Favourable n/a 0- 1st quartile 1 - Stable 2 - Stable 2- 2nd quartile 0 - Decreased 0 - Unfavour. 2 - 3rd quartile 0- 4th quartile

100% increase 100% favourable 50% above or stable or stable median

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of 13 municipalities.

163 Long-Term Care Services

2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How many municipally operated long-term care beds are in Toronto? Examining the number of long- 3,000 term care beds provides an indication of service levels. Chart 2,500 15.1 provides the number of 2,000 long-term care beds in homes operated by the City of Toronto. 1,500 Over this eleven year period, this has remained constant at 2,641 1,000 beds. 500 Besides municipalities, there are 0 also long-term care beds in 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 communities operated by other # Munic. LTC Beds 2,641 2,641 2,605 2,641 2,641 2,641 2,641 2,641 2,641 2,641 2,641 service providers including both Chart 15.1 (City of Toronto) Number of Municipally Operated Long Term Care Beds the for-private and charitable (Service Level) sectors.

What proportion of all long-term care beds are operated by Chart 15.2 presents 2010 data Toronto and other municipalities? for Toronto and other Ontario

100% municipalities on the percentage share of long-term care beds in

80% the community that are provided by the municipality and by other

60% service providers (non-municipal beds).

40% Toronto ranks eight of thirteen 20% (third quartile) in terms of having the highest percentage of beds 0% operated by the municipality. T-Bay Sud Musk Durh Niag Halt Wind Tor Ott Ham Lond Wat York Non-munic beds 59.6% 68.5% 68.7% 69.5% 72.5% 77.0% 82.0% 83.2% 84.8% 89.2% 89.4% 89.8% 93.0% Toronto operates 16.8 per cent of the 15,718 long-term care Mun beds 40.4% 31.5% 31.3% 30.5% 27.5% 23.0% 18.0% 16.8% 15.2% 10.8% 10.6% 10.2% 7.0% Median Municipal Beds 18% beds from all service providers in

Chart 15.2 (OMBI 2010) Municipally Operated Long Term Care Beds as a % Share the city. of all LTC Beds (Community Impact)

164

Long-Term Care Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

What is the supply of long-term care beds in Toronto relative to our elderly population? When individuals require the 12% care provided in a long-term care home, they and/or their 9% families can quickly face a crisis if admission is not possible in a

6% timely manner. The lack of available space in their preferred home can often result in an 3% applicant being required to take admission in a long-term care 0% home that is not their 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 preference. % All Beds 10.1% 10.1% 8.8% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7% 8.7%

% Beds- other providers 8.3% 8.3% 7.3% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% Chart 15.3 provides an indication % Beds-Municipal 1.7% 1.7% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% of how many long-term care Chart 15.3 (City of Toronto) Long Term Care Beds as a Percentage of Population > beds there are in Toronto from 75 Years Old (Municipal and Other LTC Providers) (Community Impact) all service providers as a proportion of the elderly How does Toronto compare to other municipalities for the supply population aged 75 and over, of all long term care beds, relative to the elderly population? which was estimated at 180,470 15% in 2010.

Median all beds 8.9% 12% This is intended to provide some indication of potential need. It

9% should be noted that many seniors do continue living in their

6% own homes or with relatives.

The declining percentage (beds 3% relative to population >75 years) over this seven-year period, 0% reflects the fact that the relatively Sud T-Bay Ham Durh Wat Niag Musk Ott Tor Halt Wind Lond York % All Beds 11.3% 11.2% 10.1% 9.1% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 8.8% 8.7% 8.6% 7.9% 7.6% 6.8% unchanged supply of long-term care beds has not kept pace with % Beds- other providers 7.8% 6.7% 9.0% 6.3% 8.0% 6.5% 6.1% 7.4% 7.2% 6.7% 6.5% 6.8% 6.3% % Beds-Municipal 3.6% 4.5% 1.1% 2.8% 0.9% 2.5% 2.8% 1.3% 1.5% 2.0% 1.4% 0.8% 0.5% the 18 per cent growth in Toronto’s elderly population Chart 15.4 (OMBI 2010) Long Term Care Beds as a Percentage of Population > 75 over Years Old (Municipal and Other Providers) -Community Impact this period.

Chart 15.4 reflects 2010 data for Toronto and other municipalities on the number of long-term care beds there are from all service providers as a proportion of the population aged 75 and over.

Toronto ranks ninth of thirteen municipalities (third quartile) in terms of having the largest supply of long term care beds (from all service providers) relative to the population aged 75 and older.

The minimum provincial standard for the provision of long-term care beds is 10 per cent of the population 75 years of age and over.

165 Long-Term Care Services

2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How satisfied are residents in Toronto’s long term care homes? 100% Achieving a high level of satisfaction among residents, 80% clients and families is a priority for Toronto’s long-term care 60% homes. Satisfaction surveys are mailed regularly with results 40% trended and used to guide continuous quality improvement. 20% Chart 15.5 provides the 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 percentage of surveyed long- % satisfied 98% 98% 97% 97% 96% 98% 96% term care residents and their families in Toronto homes, who Chart 15.5 (City of Toronto) % of Residents Satisfied with Toronto's Long-Term Care are satisfied or highly satisfied Homes as a Place to Live (Customer Service) with the homes as a place to live. Results over this period How does Toronto’s resident satisfaction in long term care continue to be very good/high. homes, compare to other municipalities? 100% Median 95.0% In 2005, the Province released the Commitment to Care report, 90% which adopted Toronto's Your Opinion Counts survey as a

80% leading practice. Toronto's survey is more detailed than the

70% OMBI survey used by other municipalities.

60% Chart 15.6 compares the satisfaction rate of Toronto’s 50% Musk T-Bay Durh Niag Wind Tor Halt Ott Wat York Sud Ham Lond residents in long-term care homes to other municipalities. % 100% 98% 97% 97% 97% 96% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 94% 91% Chart 15.6 (OMBI 2010) Percentage of Residents Satisfied With Municipal Long-Term Care Homes as a Place to Live (Customer Service) Toronto ranks sixth of fourteen municipalities (second quartile) in terms of the highest resident satisfaction rating.

Municipal long term care homes have historically experienced high satisfaction ratings from their residents as a place to live and all OMBI municipal long-term care service providers maintain comprehensive quality improvement programs to ensure safe, high quality care and services for the residents in their homes.

166

Long-Term Care Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How much does it cost per day in Toronto to provide a long- term care bed? $240 The unit of measurement of $210 efficiency in long- term care $180 homes is the cost to provide a $150 long term care bed for one day. $120 $90 The needs of each long-term care resident vary, requiring a $60 different scope of service and/or $30 level of care. As a result, there $0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 can be significant and legitimate $ cost of LTC Bed $124 $130 $131 $141 $149 $160 $169 $181 $195 $206 $202 variances in cost. These per Day requirements vary from one Source: MOH Annual Report home to another, from one year Chart 15.7 (City of Toronto) Long Term Care (CMI Adjusted) Cost per Bed Day to another and from one (Efficiency) municipality to another.

How does Toronto’s daily cost of providing a long term care To improve the comparability of bed, compare to other municipalities? results for the measure, costs $300 are adjusted by the case mix Median $206 index (CMI), which is a $250 numerical factor that partially adjusts costs to reflect $200 differences in the level and

$150 intensity of nursing care required by residents. $100

$50

$0 Niag Sud T-Bay Ott Tor Lond Ham Halt Wat York Durh Wind $bed day- Prov. Report $175 $184 $190 $201 $202 $205 $208 $210 $212 $229 $240 $282 Source: MOH Annual Report Chart 15.8 (OMBI 2010) Long Term Care (CMI Adjusted) Cost per Bed Day (Efficiency)

Chart 15.7 provides Toronto’s (CMI adjusted) long-term care cost per bed day. Toronto’s salary and benefit costs, which account for 85 per cent of gross costs, have increased as a result of two arbitration awards with CUPE Local 79 in 2005 (job classification harmonization, job evaluation and pay equity) and 2007 (part-time workers). Provincial per diem rates have also increased due primarily to the nursing and personal care costs. The 2010 decrease in costs was due to the number of approved beds pending provincial beds in abeyance approval.

Chart 15.8 compares Toronto’s 2010 result to other municipalities, for the (CMI adjusted) long term care cost per bed. Toronto ranks fifth of twelve municipalities (second quartile) in terms of having the lowest cost.

Toronto continues to search for efficiencies, economies and reduction of net municipal costs by streamlining operations wherever possible. Toronto has preserved high resident care and safety standards as evidenced by high satisfaction ratings in Chart 15.5. Toronto has restructured to match available funding wherever efficiency is possible outside of direct resident care, safety and key drivers of quality of life.

167

Long-Term Care Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

2011 Achievements or 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following achievements and initiatives have and will help to improve the effectiveness of Toronto’s Long-Term Care and Services.

2011 Achievements:

continued to achieve excellence in integrated quality management and clinical areas for enhanced care and services based on best practices, leadership in falls prevention strategy, medication and pain management, and rehabilitation embedded a continuous safety culture, which resulted in a 10% reduction in resident/client falls and an over 90% reduction in compensable occupational acquired staff illness in daily work and developed environments in all ten homes to respond to the care, comfort and safety needs of residents with higher acuity and dementia continued to influence public policy on aging and long-term care issues by providing input into the Regulations for the Long-Term Care Act, promoting age friendly communities, and leading the City of Toronto – 5 Local Health Integration Networks Collaborative Table expanded services in dementia care, behavioural response care, and mental health by working with other providers and alleviating alternative level of care pressures in hospitals received approval for additional funding from Central Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) to provide specialized dementia care for up to eight (8) individuals with significant responsive behaviour

2012 Initiatives Planned:

more effective and efficient staff scheduling more effective automated administrative and reporting tools centralized IPAC resources to enhance standardized application of best practices and efficiency. upgrades to physical plants regionalized staff education resources to strengthen standardization of evidenced-based learning through an efficient adult-training delivery model

Factors Influencing the Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality included in this report can be influenced to varying degrees by factors such as: staff mix: ratio of registered and non-registered staff varies amongst municipalities, resulting in a higher cost structure for registered staff support and type of programming provided as determined by Toronto City Council role of LHINs: establishing the mix of health services for a given community demographics: age of the population and specific needs of the client uncontrollable price variables: pay equity legislation and wage arbitration, availability of appropriate skilled workers other providers: charitable and private sector participation in the long-term care business

168 PPaarrkkiinngg SSeerrvviicceess

Toronto Parking Authority

Off Street On Street Administration & Services Services Management

Surface Carparks

Parking Garages

The objective of parking services is to provide safe, attractive and conveniently located off and on street parking for the public in order for them to access nearby commercial areas and neighbourhoods.

Parking services in Toronto are provided through four organizations: • The Toronto Parking Authority (TPA), a local board of the City of Toronto, which owns and operates the system of municipal off street parking lots (‘Green P’) and the on street metered parking. TPA operates: o 160 municipal parking lots (off street) containing about 23,800 spaces. Twenty of these lots, accounting for approximately 10,000 spaces are garages. The remaining 10,000 spaces are located in approximately 140 surface lots. The TPA also issues parking tickets on these lots. o 18,800 on street spaces. Approximately 17,000 of the spaces are operated by 2,615 parking machines with the remaining spaces operated by way of single space meters. • The Parking Enforcement unit of the Toronto Police Service enforces the City’s bylaws issuing yellow tags/tickets to illegally parked vehicles and regulate traffic movement and ensure public safety. • The Parking Tags unit of the City's Revenue Services division processes payments of parking tags/tickets. • The Transportation Services division administers a permit parking program that entitles permit holding residents to park their automobile on the street within a specified area exclusively during permit parking hours. This program generally services those residential areas where driveways and/or garages are not common.

The data provided in this report is focused on the management of paid on street parking (parking machines and meters) and off street parking spaces (parking garages and surface lots).

169

Parking Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service Level Indicators How many parking Number of Paid Parking Increased 2 16.1 spaces are managed? Spaces (all types) 16.2 Managed per 100,000 Number of parking High rate of parking Population – (Service spaces- all types spaces – all types pg. Level) increased compared to others 172

(service level indicator ) (service level indicator ) How many on street Number of On-Street Increased 2 16.1 parking spaces are Paid Parking Spaces 16.2 managed? Managed per 100,000 Number of on- street High rate of on- street Population- (Service parking spaces parking spaces pg. Level) increased compared to others 172

(service level indicator ) (service level indicator ) How many off street Number of Off-Street Increased 2 16.1 parking spaces are Paid Parking Spaces 16.2 managed? Managed per 100,000 Number of off street Number of off street Population- (Service parking spaces parking spaces at pg. Level) Increased median compared to 172 others (service level indicator ) (service level indicator ) Efficiency Measures What does it cost to Parking Services Cost Increased 4 16.3 manage a parking per Paid Parking Space 16.4 space? (all types) Managed – Cost to manage a Highest cost to manage (Efficiency) parking space (all a parking space (all pg. types)increased types) compared to 173 others What does it cost to Parking Services Cost Increased 1 16.3 manage an on-street per On-Street Paid 16.4 parking space? Parking Space Cost to manage an on- Lower cost to manage Managed – (Efficiency) street parking space an on-street parking pg. increased space compared to 173 others What does it cost to Parking Services Cost Decreased 4 16.3 manage an off-street per Off-Street Paid 16.4 parking space? Parking Space Cost to manage an off- Highest cost to manage Managed – (Efficiency) street parking space an off-street parking pg. decreased space compared to 173 others How much parking fee Gross Parking Fee Decreased 1 16.5 revenue is generated Revenue per Paid 16.6 from all parking spaces? Parking Space (all Parking fees per parking Highest rate of parking types) Managed– space (all types) fees per parking space pg. (Efficiency) decreased (all types) compared to 173 others

170 Parking Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 How much parking fee Gross Parking Fee Increased 1 16.5 revenue is generated Revenue per Paid On- 16.6 from on-street parking Street Parking Space Parking fees per on- Highest rate of parking spaces? Managed– (Efficiency) street parking space fees per on-street pg. increased parking space compared 173 to others How much parking fee Gross Parking Fee Decreased 1 16.5 revenue is generated Revenue per Paid Off- 16.6 from off- street parking Street Parking Space Parking fees per off- Highest rate of parking spaces? Managed– (Efficiency) street parking space fees per off-street pg. decreased parking space compared 173 to others Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results)

3 - Increased 2 - Favourable 0 - 1st quartile 4- 1st quartile 0- Stable 0 - Stable 3 - 2nd quartile 0 - 2nd quartile 0- Decreased 4 - Unfavour. 0- 3rd quartile 0 - 3rd quartile 0 - 4th quartile 2 - 4th quartile

100% stable or 40% favourable 100% above 67% above increased or stable median median

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of nine municipalities.

171 Parking Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How many paid parking spaces does Toronto have? Chart 16.1 provides Toronto's 1800 total number and rate per 1500 100,000 population of on street 1200 parking (parking machines and 900 meters) and off street parking 600 spaces (parking garages and

300 surface lots).

0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 total spaces 38,826 39,218 39,617 39,790 40,298 42,694 In 2010, the supply of both on off-street spaces 19,990 20,379 21,012 21,207 21,676 23,861 street and off street parking on-street spaces 18,836 18,839 18,605 18,583 18,622 18,833 spaces increased. total spaces/100K pop'n 1,439 1,450 1,451 1,453 1,462 1,540 off-street spaces/100K pop'n 741 754 770 774 787 861 Chart 16.2 compares Toronto's on-street spaces/100K pop'n 698 697 681 679 676 679 2010 results to other municipalities for the number of Chart 16.1 (City of Toronto) Number of Paid Parking Spaces Managed per 100,000 paid parking spaces managed Population (Service Level) per 100,000 population. In terms of having the highest number of How does the number of paid parking spaces in Toronto parking spaces Toronto ranks : compare to other municipalities? 3,500 • fourth of nine(second 3,000 quartile) for total spaces 2,500 • fourth of nine (second 2,000 Median total spaces 1,374 quartile) for on-street spaces 1,500 • fifth of nine (at median) for 1,000 off-street spaces 500 0 Toronto’s high population density T-Bay Wind Bar Tor Ham Sud Lond Winn Ott total spaces 2,796 2,050 1,901 1,540 1,374 1,196 822 805 764 and the availability of public transit (less use of cars off-street spaces 1,741 1,360 1,152 861 843 872 392 255 307 on-street spaces 1,055 690 749 679 531 324 430 549 457 especially in the downtown core) contribute to this ranking.

Chart 16.2 (OMBI 2010) Number of Paid Parking Spaces Managed per 100,000 Population (Service Level)

172 Parking Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

What does it cost to manage a parking space in Toronto? Chart 16.3 provides Toronto’s 2,000 annual costs to manage a paid 1,600 parking space for both on street 1,200 and off street parking as well as a

800 blended cost for all spaces. These costs exclude those for the parking 400 tickets/tags issued by Toronto 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Police Services for illegal parking $ per blended space $1,048 $1,151 $1,204 $1,220 $1,249 and management of parking at $ per on-street space $319 $365 $408 $400 $434 $ per off-street space $1,723 $1,847 $1,902 $1,925 $1,892 TTC (transit) lots.

Chart 16.3 (City of Toronto) Parking Services Cost per Paid Parking Space Toronto's costs in 2010 decreased Managed (Efficiency) for on-street spaces and increased

for off-street spaces. How does Toronto’s cost to manage a parking space compare to other municipalities? 2,000 Chart 16.4 compares Toronto’s

Median cost for all spaces- $724 per space 2010 cost per parking space 1,500 managed to other municipalities. In

1,000 terms of the having the lowest cost

per space, Toronto ranks: 500 • ninth of nine (fourth quartile) 0 T-Bay Lond Sud Wind Bar Ham Ott Winn Tor for all spaces total spaces $373 $499 $547 $703 $724 $739 $1,048 $1,073 $1,249 • second of nine (first quartile) on-street spaces $224 $501 $562 $612 $735 $452 $767 $801 $434 off-street spaces $463 $496 $542 $750 $717 $919 $1,466 $1,659 $1,892 for on-street parking spaces Chart 16.4 (OMBI 2010) Parking Services Cost per Paid Parking Space • ninth of nine (fourth quartile) Managed (Efficiency) for off-street spaces

How much parking fee revenue is generated per parking Toronto’s higher costs are related space in Toronto? to off street parking where 50 per 4,000 cent of the spaces are located in 3,000 parking garages, which are more

2,000 costly to operate than surface lots.

1,000 When examining efficiency, 0 parking revenues generated from 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $ per blended space $2,478 $2,589 $2,842 $2,829 $2,731 those spaces should also be $ per on-street space $1,974 $2,101 $2,428 $2,385 $2,419 considered. Chart 16.5 reflects $ per off-street space $2,944 $3,021 $3,205 $3,210 $2,978 Toronto's parking revenues per Chart 16.5 (City of Toronto) Parking Services Fee Revenue per Paid Parking Space Managed (Efficiency) space and shows increased revenues for on-street parking and How does Toronto's parking fee revenue per parking space decreased revenues for off street compare to other municipalities? parking.

3,500 3,000 Median revenue $1,068 per space Chart 16.6 compares Toronto’s 2,500 2010 parking fee revenue per 2,000 parking space to other 1,500 municipalities. In terms of having 1,000 500 the highest revenue per space, 0 Tor Ott Winn Lond Ham Sud Bar Wind T-Bay Toronto ranks: on-street spaces $2,419 $2,286 $1,242 $1,517 $1,060 $786 $888 $714 $646 • first of nine (first quartile) for all off-street spaces $2,978 $2,295 $2,406 $699 $1,073 $948 $776 $772 $350 spaces total spaces $2,731 $2,289 $1,611 $1,127 $1,068 $904 $820 $752 $462 • first of nine (first quartile) for on-street parking spaces Chart 16.6 (OMBI 2010) Gross Parking Fee Revenue per Paid Parking Space • first of nine (first quartile) for Managed (Efficiency) off-street spaces 173 Parking Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

2011 Achievements or 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following initiatives are intended to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of parking operations:

2011 Achievements

• addressed off-street parking shortfalls by opening new surface carparks • completed IT security measures to meet both Payment Credit Industry (PCI) compliance standards for credit card acceptance and to enhance data security in general

Factors Influencing Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality found in the charts included in this report are influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

• local policies - bylaws and standards set by the municipality’s Council vary considerably • geographic layout of on street and off street parking spaces compared to parking needs in municipalities for retail, commercial, and entertainment facilities, as well as the availability of public transit and parking alternatives such as parking lots operated by other providers • geographic size and available resources for enforcement coverage • technology - the type and quality of technology used to manage operations, enforcement and payment control, and the level of automation at off-street lots and use of parking attendants • type of off-street parking- the mix of surface lots and parking garages, with garages being more expensive to maintain

174

PPaarrkkss SSeerrvviicceess

Parks Services include the provision of parkland for residents and visitors of all ages to enjoy nature and green open space.

Ravines, naturalized areas, watercourses and woodlots are maintained and managed by the Parks and Forestry branches (many on behalf of the Toronto Regional Conservation Authority).

There are parkettes, neighbourhood parks and regional and destination parks that attract citizens from across the Greater Toronto Area. Many of the parks include amenities such as benches, drinking fountains, grassy areas, flower and shrub beds, trails and pathways and trees for the passive enjoyment by everyone. Other features include greenhouses, conservatories, formal gardens, allotment gardens, animal displays and butterfly habitat.

Active pursuits including baseball, cricket, football, flying disk, soccer, jogging and walking, which are available in most of the larger parks. Outdoor swimming and skating are provided in every district of the City.

There are many permit demands from residents for sport fields and stadiums for organized play, special events for community celebrations and wedding photographs.

Waste reduction/diversion, waterfront development, restoration and naturalization are all examples of initiatives that factor into the costs of providing parks services in Toronto.

Toronto provides a wide range of park maintenance activities, which reflect the diverse character of our Parks Services. We are responsible for grass, park amenity, athletic field, pathway, playground and winter amenity maintenance.

For the purposes of this report, the costs of golf courses, ski hills marinas and the provision and maintenance of street trees (trees on the road allowance) are not included in these results, in order to be more comparable with other municipalities' results.

175 Parks Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Boxes shaded reflect the activities covered in this report

Parks, Forestry & Recreation

Community Parks Urban Forestry Recreation

Natural Area Plant Production, Beach Zoo and Farm Parks Parks Planning & Toronto Island Urban Agriculture Preservation & Greenhouses & Trees in Parks Street Trees Maintenance Attractions Maintenance Development Ferry Operations Restoration Conservatories

Life Saving Parks Plant Production Tree Planting Tree Planting Stations Construction

Swimming Beach Parks Tree Care Tree Care Conservatories maintenance Management Maintenance Maintenance

Waterfowl Management PFR Signage Tree Protection Tree Protection Program Parks, Sportsfields, Trails & Horticulture Tree Planning Tree Planning Maintenance Review Review

Equipment Maintenance

PFR Infrastructure Maintenance

176 Parks Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service Level Indicators How much maintained Hectares of Maintained Increase 4 17.1 parkland does Toronto Parkland in Municipality 17.2 have? per 100,000 Population Small increase in Lowest rate of hectares – (Service Level) amount of maintained of maintained parkland pg. parkland in relation to population, 179 compared to others (service level indicator) (service level indicator)

(urban form leads to result) How much natural Hectares of Natural Stable 4 17.1 parkland does Toronto Parkland in Municipality 17.2 have? per 100,000 Amount of natural Lowest rate of hectares Population– (Service parkland was of natural parkland in pg. Level) unchanged relation to population, 179 compared to others (service level indicator) (service level indicator)

(urban form leads to result) How much total parkland Hectares of all Stable 4 17.1 of all types does Toronto (Maintained and 17.2 have? Natural) Parkland per Total amount of all Lowest rate of hectares 100,000 Population– parkland was stable of all parkland in pg. (Service Level) relation to population 179 (service level indicator) compared to others

(service level indicator)

(urban form leads to result) What is the length of Km of Maintained Increased 4 17.4 Toronto's recreational Recreational Trails per trail system? 1,000 Persons – Amount of trails Lowest rate of pg. (Service Level) increased kilometres of,trails in 180 relation to population (service level indicator) compared to others

(service level indicator)

(urban form leads to result) Community Impact Measures What proportion of the Maintained Parkland in Stable 1 17.3 municipality's area is Municipality as a maintained parkland? Percentage of Total Maintained parkland as Highest percentage of pg. Area of Municipality- proportion of city area is maintained parkland in 180 (Community Impact) stable relation to area compared to others

177 Parks Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 What proportion of the Natural Parkland in Stable 1 17.3 municipality's area is Municipality as a natural parkland? Percentage of Total Natural parkland as Higher percentage of pg. Area of Municipality- proportion of city area is natural parkland in 180 (Community Impact) stable relation to area compared to others What proportion of the All Parkland in Stable 1 17.3 municipality's area is Municipality as a parkland (all types)? Percentage of Total Total parkland as Higher percentage of all pg. Area of Municipality- proportion of city area is parkland in relation to 180 (Community Impact) stable area compared to others How frequently do Percentage of Toronto Stable 17.5 Toronto residents use Survey Respondents N/A parks? Using Toronto Parks Level of park usage was pg. and Frequency of Use- stable in 2011 181 (Community Impact) Customer Service Measures How satisfied are Toronto Percentage of Toronto Stable 17.6 parks' users? Survey Respondents Satisfied With Use of High level of satisfaction N/A pg. Parks - (Customer with parks was 181 Service) maintained in 2011

Efficiency Measures What does it cost to Cost of Parks per Increase 4 17.7 operate a hectare of Hectare - Maintained 17.8 parkland? and Natural Parkland – Cost of parks per Highest cost of parks (Efficiency) hectare increased per hectare compared to pg. others 182 (excludes impact of change in accounting policy) Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results)

2 - Increased 0 - Unfavour. 0 - 1st quartile 3 - 1st quartile 2 - Stable 5 - Stable 0 - 2nd quartile 0 - 2nd quartile 0- Decreased 1 - Favourable 0- 3rd quartile 0 - 3rd quartile 4 - 4th quartile 1 - 4th quartile

100% 83% favourable 0% above 75% above favourable or or stable median median stable

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of eight municipalities.

178 Parks Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How much parkland is there in Toronto? The number of hectares of parkland in a municipality is one 300 way of examining service levels. 250 Parkland includes both: 200 • maintained parkland (such 150 as sports fields, recreational trails, picnic areas, and 100 playgrounds) 50 • natural parkland (such as ravines, watercourses, and 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 woodlots) that is an integral Total Hectares 8,010 8,010 8,035 8,035 8,042 8,045 8,047 8,058 component of the Total Parkland per 100K pop'n 302.7 299.7 297.8 297.1 294.6 293.8 292.0 290.6 municipality's green space Natural Parkland per 100K pop'n 139.3 137.9 136.6 136.3 135 134.6 133.8 132.9 Maintained parkland per 100K pop'n 163.4 161.8 161.2 160.8 159.6 159.2 158.3 157.7 Parks can vary in size and include a variety of features such Chart 17.1 (City of Toronto) Natural and Maintained Parkland per 100,000 Population as sports fields, baseball (Service Level) diamonds, flower and shrub

beds, fountains, playgrounds, How do the hectares of parkland in Toronto, compare to other woodlots, paved areas and municipalities? benches. 3,000 5,000

4,500 2,500 Chart 17.1 provides the total 4,000 Median- total parkland 616 hectares hectares of parkland in Toronto 3,500 2,000 as well as the two components 3,000 1,500 2,500 of maintained and natural

2,000 parkland, expressed on a per 1,000 1,500 hectares of of parkland hectares 100,000 population basis. The per population 100,000 1,000 500 area of parkland in Toronto has 500 remained fairly stable over this

0 0 per square km. population (density) T- Sud Bar Lond Wind Ham Ott Tor period and is reflective of Bay Natural parkland 1,576 1,082 705 390 230 177 155 133 Toronto’s fully developed urban

Maintained parkland 867 307 252 271 340 321 240 158 form. The additional eleven

Total parkland 2,442 1,390 957 661 570 499 395 291 hectares added of maintained Population density 44 332 1,400 863 1,493 469 328 4,373 parkland in 2010 are related to

new parkland acquisitions and

Chart 17.2 (OMBI 2010) Hectares of Parkland per 100,000 Population and Population parks coming online. For Density (Service Level) example: Canoe Landing Park and land from 3 surplus TDSB sites. Chart 17.2 compares Toronto's 2010 results to other municipalities for the hectares of parkland per 100,000 population, which are reflected as bars relative to the left axis. In terms of having the highest amount of parkland, Toronto ranks: • eighth of eight (fourth quartile) for maintained parkland • eighth of eight (fourth quartile) for natural parkland • eighth of eight (fourth quartile) for all parkland (maintained and natural)

Population density (population per square kilometre) is plotted as a line graph relative to the right axis in Chart 17.2 and is a significant factor in these results. Toronto is more densely populated than other OMBI municipalities. In the developed urban core area of municipalities, it is more difficult to establish new parks in terms of both the availability and cost of land to purchase. Accordingly, while Toronto has the lowest hectares of parkland relative to population (population based standard), it has the highest proportion of parkland as a percentage of municipal geographic area (geographic based standard) as discussed with Chart 17.3. 179 Parks Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How does the proportion of the Toronto’s geographic area that is While the previous charts relate parkland, compare to other municipalities? the amount of parkland to 15% population, it is important to examine what proportion of a 12% municipality’s total geographic median- total parkland 5.2% area is parkland. This provides 9% some indication of the public’s proximity to, and the availability 6% of parkland for active and passive use. From an 3% environmental perspective, the 0% proportion of parkland is an Bar Tor Wind Lond T-bay Ham Ott Sud important measure of the mix of Total parkland % 13.0% 12.7% 8.5% 5.7% 4.6% 2.3% 1.3% 1.1% parkland and developed areas. Natural parkland % 9.6% 5.8% 3.4% 3.4% 3.6% 0.8% 0.5% 0.7% Maintained parkland % 3.4% 6.9% 5.1% 2.3% 1.0% 1.5% 0.8% 0.4% Chart 17.3 compares Toronto's Chart 17.3 (OMBI 2010) Hectares of Parkland as a percentage of Municipal 2010 results to other Geographic Area (Community Impact) municipalities for the hectares of parkland expressed as a How do the kilometres of recreational trails in Toronto, compare percentage of total geographic to other municipalities? area. Toronto's 2010

1.2 5,000 percentages were unchanged median 0.41 km 4,500 from 2009.

1.0 4,000 In terms of having the highest 3,500 0.8 proportion of parkland relative to 3,000 geographic area, Toronto ranks:

0.6 2,500 • first of eight (first quartile) for

2,000 maintained parkland km. of km. trails per

population 1,000 0.4 • second of eight (first quartile) 1,500 (density) km sq. per population for natural parkland 1,000 • second of eight (first quartile) 0.2 500 for all parkland

0.0 0 Sud Lond T-Bay Wind Bar Ott Ham Tor The urban and rural mix of Km of trails per 1,000 pop'n 1.06 0.53 0.47 0.46 0.36 0.26 0.09 0.09 Population Density 44 863 332 1,493 1,400 328 469 4,373 municipalities and geographic features such as lakes and rocky Chart 17.4 (OMBI 2010) Kilometres of Recreation Trails per 1,000 Population (Service Level) & Population Density areas can influence these results.

The length of trail systems in municipalities is another aspect of service levels that can be examined. Chart 17.4 reflects 2010 information for Toronto and other municipalities on the kilometre length of all maintained recreational trails per 1,000 population, which are plotted as bars relative to the left axis. These trails include those that have signage and are mapped, and they can be either owned or leased by the municipality. They support a range of non-motorized recreational uses such as walking, hiking, bicycling and riding/equestrian as well as motorized uses such as snowmobile trails. It excludes the length of trails bicycle lanes on streets.

Toronto ties with Hamilton and ranks eighth of eight (fourth quartile) with the smallest amount of trails per 1,000 persons. The primary factor behind this ranking is Toronto’s densely populated urban form, which makes it more difficult to establish new trails in developed areas. Population density (persons per square kilometre) in each municipality is plotted as a line graph relative to the left axis and shows Toronto’s density is higher than other municipalities. Toronto's trail system in 2010 amounted to a total length of 244.1 kilometres (kms). and increased by 8.4 kms. over 2009. The trail system grew by 2.65 kms. and also includes 5.6 kms. of waterside boardwalks that were not previously incorporated in the total..

180 Parks Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How frequently do residents use parks in Toronto? An objective of municipalities is 100% to promote physical activity 80% through the active and passive 60% use of their park systems.

40% Chart 17.5 reflects 2001 to 2011 20% results of the Focus Ontario 0% 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Survey about the percentage of At Least Once in Year 89% Toronto survey respondents who Less than once/month 16% 14% 16% 14% 14% 13% 14% 11% use Toronto's parks system. Once or couple times/month 26% 25% 21% 22% 27% 29% 26% 20% There was a methodology Once or more times/week 48% 55% 56% 53% 50% 48% 47% 59% change in 2011, where Never 9% 5% 8% 9% 9% 7% 9% 7% 11% frequency of use of the parks system was no longer collected, Source - Focus Ontario Survey- 2011 results based on 500 people surveyed but 2011 results are stable in relation to 2010, with 89 per cent Chart 17.5 (City of Toronto) Frequency of Parks Visit in a Year (Community Impact) of respondents visiting Toronto parks at least once a year.

How satisfied are users of Toronto's parks? Chart 17.6 is based on the

100% results of the Focus Ontario Survey with respect to the 80% degree of satisfaction of survey 60% respondents who used Toronto's

40% parks system. In 2011, approximately 94 per cent of the 20% parks users were either very 0% satisfied or somewhat satisfied 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Other with their park visit, which are 8% 9% 12% 9% 10% 8% 7% 7% 6% Somewhat satisfied 43% 45% 46% 45% 50% 49% 51% 48% 39% similar to results in 2010 and

Very satisfied 49% 46% 42% 46% 41% 44% 42% 45% 55% those of prior years.

Source - Focus Ontario Survey - 2011 results based on 500 people surveyed

Chart 17.6 (City of Toronto) Overall Satisfaction with Visits to Park (Customer Service)

181 Parks Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

What does it cost to operate a hectare of parkland in Toronto? Chart 17.7 reflects the cost per hectare of operating or servicing $20,000 all parkland in Toronto (both $17,686 $18,000 maintained and natural $16,000 $14,712 parkland). $14,000 $12,000 These costs exclude the portion $10,000 related to boulevard tree $8,000 maintenance, (considered as $6,000 roads expenditure for $4,000 benchmarking purposes), as well $2,000 as costs for ski hills, marinas $0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 and golf courses, to allow for Impact of change in acct. policy $235 $1,996 better comparability with other Cost per Hectare $11,712 $11,846 $13,989 $12,718 $13,357 $14,220 $14,477 $15,690 CPI Adjusted (2003 base) $11,712 $11,654 $13,517 $12,085 $12,450 $12,950 $13,126 $13,872 municipalities.

Chart 17.7 (City of Toronto) Cost of Maintaining All Parkland per Hectare (Efficiency) Starting in 2009, changes in accounting policies were How do Toronto’s parkland operating costs compare to other instituted by all Ontario municipalities? municipalities as described on $20,000 100% page 26. The 2010 impact of $18,000 these accounting policy changes $16,000 80% amounted to an increase of $14,000 median $7,071 $1,996, per hectare, which is $12,000 60% plotted as a stacked column to $10,000 isolate it from the 2008 and prior $8,000 40% hectare per $cost $6,000 year's results using the previous costing methodology. $4,000 20% % of parkland all

$2,000 is parks that maintained $0 0% To reflect the impact of inflation, Sud Lond Bar T-Bay Ham Ott Wind Tor Cost per Hectare $2,269 $3,835 $4,477 $6,858 $7,284 $9,738 $11,858 $17,686 Chart 7.7 also provides % maintained 35% 41% 26% 22% 64% 61% 60% 54% Consumer Price Index (CPI) parkland adjusted results, which is plotted as a line graph. This adjusts/discounts the actual Chart 17.8 (OMBI 2010) Cost per Hectare of Parkland (Efficiency) and Percentage result for each year by the of All Parks that are Maintained change in Toronto’s CPI since the base year of 2003.

Excluding the impact of the accounting policy changes, Toronto's 2010 costs increased in part due to a rise in Parks labour cost related to operating impacts of capital, parkland acquisition and waterfront parks, as well as expenditures linked to ravine maintenance & the "Dogs-Off-Leash" program.

Chart 17.8 compares Toronto's 2010 result to other municipalities for the cost per hectare of operating or servicing all parkland (both maintained and natural areas), which are shown as bars relative to the left axis. Toronto ranks eight of eight (fourth quartile) with the highest cost per hectare

The proportion of maintained parkland of all parkland is a significant influencing factor in these results and has been plotted as a line graph on Chart 17.8 relative to the right axis. Maintained parkland is more costly to maintain than forests and other natural parkland; because of the higher standards for turf maintenance, and the maintenance requirements for varying numbers and ranges of amenities such as greenhouses, washroom structures, playgrounds, sports fields, and splash pads.

182 Parks Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Other factors that influence results and contribute to Toronto's higher parks costs include:

• varying municipal standards for maintained parkland, such as the frequency of grass cutting and differences in the costs of maintaining different levels and types of sports fields • the special parks features found in the downtown core and throughout the City; that are limited in number /size or simply not found in the Parks and Recreation operations of other municipalities • high density areas in municipalities such as Toronto are more costly to maintain because of smaller park sizes and traffic congestion. This congestion can cause delays for staff traveling and transporting maintenance equipment from one park to another in the downtown core • integrated pest control for invasive species of Asian Long Horned Beetle and Emerald Ash Borer, which may have a higher incidence in Toronto • higher population densities may mean higher intensity usage and require different maintenance strategies, for example, litter pick-up & collection, special event / permit support, irrigation, artificial turf and sport field and pathway lighting, which can be more costly

2011 Achievements or 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following achievements and initiatives have and will help to improve the effectiveness of Toronto’s parks services:

2011 Initiatives Completed/Achievements:

• completed 17 consultation sessions for public, stakeholder and focus groups and completed an online survey about Parks Services to receive feedback from 4,000 people. • enhanced parks and recreation facilities infrastructure through the addition of new or improved facilities at Six Points Park, East Don Parkland, Bluffers Park (Blue Flag Beach), High Park (Children's Teaching Kitchen), Eastern Beaches (Waterfront Washroom revitalization). • completed conversion of two natural turf to artificial turf multi-purpose sport fields at L’Amoreaux Park • transferred operations of Glen Rouge Campground to Toronto Regional Conservation Authority (TRCA). • completed Phase 2 of Litter Collection transfer to Solid Waste Services (West and South Districts). • opened new Dogs Off-Leash Areas at Yonge and York Mills, L'Amoreaux Park, Earl Bales, G. Ross Lord and Marie Curtis Park • expanded City wide initiatives in partnership with the Toronto District School Board on shared lands including play structures and sport fields at Gracedale Park and Highfield Park. • continued to achieve tree planting objectives with the planting of over 100,000 trees across the City • developed and began implementation of the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) (a destructive insect that kills ash trees) Management Plan (i.e. removal of dead tree, tree planting to replace the 'lost' tree canopy increased education & awareness for private landowners who may face significant costs associated with EAB management) • continued the Area Street Tree Maintenance Program which resulted in more efficient service and contributed to fewer complaints

2012 Initiatives Planned

• finalize the recommendations from the Parks {Service Plan} and report to City Council in 2012 with findings and share outcomes with residents for a 5 year strategic plan • conduct efficiency/productivity reviews to examine opportunities to drive down cost and improve service • initiate and complete transfer of Toronto Urban Farm operations to TRCA • review urban farms and animal services (zoo) operations 183 Parks Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

• implement Outdoor Bake Oven policy and user fees for use by community members • support Ontario Summer Games in Summer 2012 by providing a dozen locations to host sporting events

Factors Influencing the Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality can be influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

• service delivery: differences in service standards established by municipal councils, i.e. types of amenities maintained, frequency of grass cutting • geographic location: varying topography affects the mix of natural and maintained hectares of parkland in each municipality as well as the number of parks and size of average park • environmental factors: soil composition, weather patterns • population density: higher densities may mean more intense usage and require different types of maintenance strategies, e.g. irrigation, artificial turf, sport field and pathway lighting. More intense use of natural parkland can also necessitate more maintenance • changing demographics and community use: increased demand for large social gatherings and various other sports

184 PPllaannnniinngg SSeerrvviicceess

City Planning

Development Civic & City Building & Review, Decision Community Policy & Implementation Improvements Development

Committee of Heritage Inventory Plans Adjustment & Incentives

Community Community Policy, Strategies Planning Improvements & Guidelines

Heritage Surveys, Monitoring & Review Forecasting

Waterfront Renewal

In Toronto, the City Planning Division helps to guide the way the city looks and grows. City Planning works with the community and other City divisions to set goals and policies for development, while keeping important social, economic and environmental concerns in mind.

This involves:

• Community Planning – offers advice to Council on development projects after consulting with members of the public and City Divisions, and after reviewing and analyzing all parts of a development project. • Policy and Research - develops planning policy based on extensive research in land use, housing, community services and the environment. Administers and promotes heritage preservation projects and programs. • Urban Design - promotes a high quality design for Toronto's streets, parks and open spaces. It guides how buildings are located, organized and shaped on a particular piece of land. • Transportation Planning - deals with improving transit, discouraging automobile dependence and encouraging alternative forms of transportation such as walking, cycling, subways and streetcars. • Zoning Bylaw and Environmental Planning - creates and maintains a comprehensive zoning bylaw for the City, and formulates and implements environmental policy from the perspective of City Planning.

185

Planning Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service / Activity Level Indicators How much is spent on Cost of Planning Stable 2 18.1 planning services? Services per Capita 18.2 (Service Level indicator) Cost of planning per Slightly higher rate of pg. capita was stable planning cost per capita 187 compared to others (service level indicator) (service level indicator)

How many development Number of Increased 3 18.3 applications are Development 18.4 received? Applications Received Number of development Low rate of development per 100,000 Population applications received applications received pg. - (Activity Level increased compared to others 188 indicator) (activity level indicator) (activity level indicator)

How many community Number of Non- Decreased 18.5 meetings are planning Statutory Civic N/A staff attending? Engagement Number of meetings pg. Community Meetings attended decreased 189 Attended by City Planning Staff – (activity level indicator) (Activity Level) (fewer community consultation meetings during municipal election period) Efficiency Measures How much does it cost in Development Planning Decreased 3 18.6 Toronto to process a Applications Cost per 18.7 development application? Development Cost per application High cost per Application Received – processed decreased application compared to pg. (Efficiency) others 189

(scale, scope and complexity of applications is a factor) Service/ Performance Service/ Performance Overall Results Activity Level Measures Activity Level Measures Indicators (Results) Indicators (Results) (Resources) (Resources)

1 – Increase 1 - Favourable 0 - 1st quartile 0 - 1st quartile 1 - Stable 0 - Stable 1 - 2nd quartile 0 - 2nd quartile 1 - Decrease 0 - Unfavour. 1 - 3rd quartile 1 - 3rd quartile 0 - 4th quartile 0 - 4th quartile

66% stable or 100% favourable 50% above 0% above increased or stable median median

(impacted by (impacted by recession) recession)

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of 14 municipalities.

186 Planning Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How much is spent on planning services in Toronto? As noted and described on the lead page, Planning Services in $25 $20.05 $19.59 Toronto includes the following: $20 • Community Planning

$15 • Policy and Research • Urban Design $10 • Transportation Planning $5 • Zoning Bylaw and

$0 Environmental Planning 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 change in acct. policy $1.43 $1.98 Chart 18.1 reflects Toronto's $cost/capita $14.50 $15.94 $16.52 $17.23 $18.16 $18.07 costs of all these functions CPI adjusted $14.50 $15.68 $15.94 $16.24 $17.04 $16.53 (base year 2005) expressed on a cost per capita basis. It provides an indication of the amount of resources or Chart 18.1 (City of Toronto) Cost of Planning Services per Capita (Service Level service level devoted to Planning Indicator) Services.

How does the cost of planning services in Toronto compare to Starting in 2009, changes in other municipalities? accounting policies were $30.00 instituted by all Ontario Median Single Tier- $20.02 Median Upper Tier- $8.84 municipalities as described on $24.00 page 26. The 2010 impact of these accounting policy changes $18.00 amounted to an increase of $1.98 per capita, which has $12.00 been plotted as a stacked column to isolate it from the $6.00 2010 result using the costing methodology used in 2008 and $0.00 Halt Musk Wat Durh York Niag Ott Sud T-Bay Tor Lond Bar Wind Ham prior years. # apps $12.70 $11.04 $9.76 $7.91 $5.77 $4.62 $42.51 $23.83 $22.96 $20.05 $19.98 $17.59 $16.94 $8.80 Excluding the impact of the

Chart 18.2 (OMBI 2010) Cost of Planning Service per Capita (Service Level) accounting policy changes, Toronto's cost of Planning Services per capita was stable in 2010.

To reflect the impact of inflation, Chart 18.1 also provides Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjusted results, which have been plotted as a line graph. This adjusts/discounts the actual result for each year by the change in Toronto’s CPI since the base year of 2005.

Chart 18.2 compares Toronto's 2010 cost per capita to other Ontario municipalities providing an indication of the amount of resources devoted to planning services. These municipalities have been separated into two groups: • upper-tier municipalities, who jointly provide planning services with the local (lower-tier) municipalities • single-tier municipalities (including Toronto) where that municipality is the sole provider of planning services

When compared to other single-tier municipalities, Toronto ranks fourth of eight (second quartile) in terms of having the highest cost per capita/service levels.

187 Planning Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How many development applications are received in Toronto per Community planning and the 100,000 population? review and processing of development applications are one 200 of the services provided by City 160 Planning.

120 One way of comparing volumes of 80 activity is to examine the number 40 of development applications received. This includes official 0 plan amendments, zoning by-law 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 # apps amendments, subdivision plans, 155 155 159 144 131 105 133 /100,000 pop'n condominium plans, condominium Total 4,134 4,108 4,288 3,935 3,597 2,866 3,694 conversion plans, minor # applications variances, consents, exemptions from part lot control, and site plan Chart 18.3 (City of Toronto) Number of Development Applications Received per approvals. 100,000 Population (Activity Level Indicator) Chart 18.3 shows Toronto's total How many development applications per 100,000 people does number and rate of development Toronto receive in relation to other municipalities? applications received per 100,000

600 population, which increased Median Upper Tier Municipalities- 130 significantly in 2010 in almost all 500 categories of applications noted 400 above due to a healthier Median Single Tier development climate. 300 Municipalities -137

200 The timing of when applications 100 are received is strongly affected - by market conditions, changes to Musk Halt Niag Durh Wat York Sud Ham Ott Lond Tor Wind T-Bay Bar # of development Provincial legislation, and the 468 182 131 128 121 31 274 177 161 141 133 123 121 107 applications timing of work within the development approvals process Chart 18.4 (OMBI 2010) Number of Development Applications Received per 100,000 Population (Service Level) which can span over a year and differ from the year applications are received. Activity in 2010 was higher with the recovery from the recession with a total of 13,088 units in 3,694 projects submitted, versus 11,095 units in 2,886 projects in 2009.

For the purposes of this report, results of the fourteen OMBI members have been separated into two groups and comparisons between municipalities should only be made within those groups. Those single-tier municipalities such as Toronto deal with a wider range of planning applications within their municipality. Those municipalities grouped as upper-tier are regional municipalities and their results exclude those of their local municipalities that are also involved in the development review, processing and approval process.

Chart 18.4 compares the number of development applications received in 2010 in Toronto to other municipalities. Of the single-tier municipalities, Toronto ranks fifth of eight (third quartile) in terms of having the highest rate of development applications received. Note that the City handles Official Plan Amendments and Rezonings through a single review process, reducing the count of individual applications.

Despite the drop in housing starts in 2008 and 2009, development activity has continued at a strong pace and Toronto’s share of the GTA market has increased. According to CMHC, the City’s share of GTA housing units completed since municipal amalgamation in 1998 is 29.4 per cent. Its share rose to 32.1 per cent in the five years ending in 2010. Toronto’s share of housing completions in 2010 was 39.4 per cent or 4 of every 10 units built in the GTA. In 2011, Toronto’s share rose to 47.1% of all GTA completions or almost half of all units built. The review and recommendations for approval of these units represents considerable staff effort.

188 Planning Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How many community meetings are planning staff attending in Chart 18.5 provides another Toronto? indicator of Planning activity and 500 reflects the number of non- 400 statutory civic engagement 300 community meetings that were attended by City Planning staff. 200 Through these meetings, staff 100 engaged about 13,000 residents 0 and members of the public in 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 # of community 2010 about the choices and 414 437 431 300 256 meetings consequences of new development and infrastructure. Chart 18.5 (City of Toronto) Number of Non-Statutory Civic Engagement Community Meetings Attended by City Planning Staff (Activity Level) After Council recessed for the 2010 Municipal Election there How much does it cost in Toronto to process a development were fewer community application? consultation meetings involving $8,312 9,000 Councillors, which accounted for $7,307 8,000 the 2010 decrease. 7,000

6,000 5,000 Chart 18.6 reflects Toronto’s

4,000 development planning costs per 3,000 development application received. 2,000 1,000

0 As described under chart 18.1 and 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 change $651 $727 on page x, changes in accounting in acct. policy policies accounted for $727 of the $cost $5,113 $5,896 $6,437 $7,661 $6,580 /application of the overall 2010 costs. Excluding the impact of accounting policy changes, 2010 Chart 18.6 (City of Toronto) Development Planning Cost per Development costs per application dropped due Application Received (Efficiency) to the 29% increase in the number

of planning applications received How does Toronto’s cost to process a development in 2010 as noted in Chart 18.3. application compare to other municipalities?

20,000 Chart 18.7 compares Toronto’s 18,000 Median Single Tier Municipalities $6,591 2010 development planning cost 16,000 14,000 per development application to

12,000 other municipalities. Of the single- Median Upper Tier 10,000 Municipalities $1,559 tier municipalities Toronto ranks 8,000 sixth of eight (third quartile) in 6,000 4,000 terms of having the lowest cost

2,000 per application and results are - Musk Niag Halt Durh Wat York T-Bay Ham Sud Bar Wind Tor Lond Ott similar to those of other cities with $cost/ 969 1,310 1,443 1,675 2,035 2,362 3,520 3,590 4,618 6,548 6,634 7,307 14,143 17,504 application large urban centres.

Chart 18.7 (OMBI 2010) Development Planning Cost per Development Application Received (Efficiency)

Single-tier municipalities are segregated from upper-tier or regional municipalities and comparisons should only be made within the two groups. The costs of Regional municipalities do not include those of local municipalities within those regions that are also involved in the development review process.

189

2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

The measure of cost per development application, discussed on the previous page, does not take into consideration the scale, scope and complexity of development applications. Many of Toronto’s applications deal with re-development which inherently can be more complex, requiring additional staff time, and costs to ensure the applications meet all requirements.

Another challenge is that the measure relates application intake to costs in that calendar year, but the actual work to process the applications may continue long after the year of application intake. Those applications may require costs required for area studies, policy development, urban design and community outreach. Consequently, the pace of application submission can vary significantly from one year to the next, leading to dramatic changes in the result for this measure but not necessarily reflecting Planning’s workload. A three- or five-year moving average would provide a more relevant perspective.

2011 Achievements or 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following initiatives have and are intended to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Toronto’s Planning Services:

2011 Achievements:

• undertook major planning and building approvals of large projects, including Honeydale/Metro lands, Alder Place Etobicoke Centre, Toronto East General Hospital, and Humber River Regional Hospital • engaged approximately 13,000 residents and members of the public about the choices and consequences of new development, area studies and environmental assessments in Toronto, including over 300 neighbourhood workshops and non-statutory community consultation meetings • reviewed applications for alterations to Heritage Buildings for a growing inventory, including major heritage applications; e.g. Canada Malting Silos, Fort York Visitor's Centre, King- Edward Hotel (King St. Campus), 7 Austin Terrace, 500 Lakeshore Blvd., and 85 Laird Blvd • undertook/developed key Urban Design initiatives, including: launching of an online Urban Design Streetscape Manual (Winner of City Manager's Toronto Public Service Award), conducted the Weston 2021 Design Initiative, and organized the biennial 2011 Toronto Urban Design Awards • completed the 2011 Annual Employment Survey, 2010 Employment Survey analysis and Living in the Centres Survey • participated in the development of the regional transportation plan (Metrolinx) and planning analysis support for numerous transportation and transit projects and environmental assessments • improved business practices including development and rollout of streamlined IBMS processes in support of the Development Application Review process and continued to enhance public access to planning process information through Application Status Web pages • led the City's management of waterfront capital projects in West Don Lands, East Bayfront and Central Waterfront, including the ongoing construction of Mill Street, Bayview/ RiverStreets and Don River Park, the completion of Sherbourne Park North and the construction start of George Brown College • developed lower cost alternatives for the Fort York Pedestrian Bridge to be integrated with the Ordinance lands master planning underway through Toronto Build

190 Planning Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

• led City due diligence processes for the sale and lease of City owned lands in East Bayfront, which will result in significant private development

2012 Planned Initiatives:

• consult and collaborate with the development industry and other City Divisions to improve the Development Application Review process • support community engagement in and access to the planning of the City e.g. enhanced web capabilities • Zoning By-law Project implementation and defence of OMB appeals • complete 5-year review of the Official Plan (Planning Act) • complete the Municipal Comprehensive Review as required by the Growth Plan • complete OMB hearings on Waterfront Secondary Plan and continue progress on Waterfront initiatives • implement legislative changes under the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act • undertake Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown Planning Study in support of the Eglinton- Scarborough Crosstown LRT implementation • support implementation of Toronto York Spadina Subway Extension • undertake major revitalization initiatives/major studies including Lawrence Allen Secondary Plan, Weston 2021, Scarborough Transportation Corridor Phase 4 Lands, and the Pan Am Athletes village • undertake significant growth studies including PATH Master Plan, Mimico 2020, Yonge Street North Area Study, and Kingston Road Revitalization Study Implementation Plan • further advance the implementation of waterfront development, including completion of Underpass Park and accelerated construction of the Athletes Village buildings in the West Don Land; construction start of Queen's Quay Revitalization; and completion of construction of George Brown College in East Bayfront • secure City approvals for the enhanced corporate governance required by Waterfront Toronto to enable revenue generation • report on findings and next steps on the Port Lands Acceleration Initiative

Factors Influencing Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality found in the charts included in this report are influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

• application variables: type, mix, and complexity (in terms of scope and magnitude) of applications received • government form: level of municipal governance (i.e. single-tier vs. upper- or two-tier) will impact the review process. Some applications may require dual review while other applications may only require single-tier review as upper-tier governments do not process some types of applications • organizational structure: differences among the municipalities can affect the process of reviewing applications by departments outside of planning (i.e. infrastructure) • public consultation: cost to process a given application can be affected by Council’s decisions regarding the opportunities for public participation in the planning process • growth management: activities impact workloads and costs of service

191

PPoolliiccee SSeerrvviicceess

Toronto Police Service

Divisional Specialized Corporate Administrative Policing Operations Command Command

Under the Police Services Act, municipalities are responsible for the provision of effective police services to satisfy the needs of their communities. Municipalities are also required to provide the administration and infrastructure necessary to support such services. For their part, police agencies must create and implement strategies, policies and business models that meet the specific needs and priorities of their local communities.

Police services include, at a minimum: • crime prevention • law enforcement • victims’ assistance • maintenance of public order • emergency response services

Crime Rates

For the purposes of this report, the incident-based methodology is used for the reporting of Toronto’s crime rates to allow for comparisons to other municipalities.

192 Police Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison Chart of Toronto’s to Other & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results Municipalities (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 Service Level Indicators / Number of Police Staff How many police officers Number of Police Increased 1 19.1 are there? Officers per 100,000 19.2 Population - (Service Number of Police Higher rate of Police Level) Officers increased Officers compared to pg. others 196 (service level indicator) (service level indicator) How many civilians and Number of Civilians and Stable 1 19.1 other staff are there in Other Staff per 100,000 19.2 Police Services? Population - (Service Number of civilian staff Highest rate of Level) was stable civilians and other pg. staff compared to 196 (service level indicator) others

(service Level indicator) How many total staff Number of Total Police Stable 1 19.1 (police officers and Staff (Officers and 19.2 civilians) are there? Civilians) per 100,000 Number of total police Higher rate of total Population - (Service staff remained stable police staffing pg. Level) compared to others 196 (service level indicator) (service level indicator) Community Impact Measures / Crime Rates What is the total crime Reported Number of Decreased 2 19.3 rate? Total (Non-Traffic) 19.4 Criminal Code Incidents Total crime rate down by Low total crime rate per 100,000 Population -6.9% in 2010 compared to others pg. -(Community Impact) 197 How has the total crime Annual Percentage 2 19.5 rate changed in Toronto, Change in Rate of Total compared to other (Non-Traffic) Criminal See above Large rate of 2010 pg. municipalities? Code Incidents - decrease in total 197 (Community Impact) crimes compared to others How is the severity of Total Crime Severity Decreased 3 19.6 Toronto's total crime Index-(Community 19.7 changing? Impact) Severity of total crime High level of severity decreased for total crime pg. compared to others 198 What is the violent crime Reported Number of Decreased 4 19.8 rate? Violent – Criminal Code 19.9 Incidents per 100,000 Violent crime rate down Higher rate of Population -(Community by -4.5% in 2010 violent crime pg. Impact) compared to others 199

193 Police Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison Chart of Toronto’s to Other & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results Municipalities (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 How has the violent Annual Percentage 2 19.10 crime rate changed in Change in Rate of Toronto compared to Violent Crime- See above Large rate of 2010 pg. other municipalities? (Community Impact) decrease in 199 violent crime compared to others

What is the violent crime Violent Crime Severity Decreased 4 19.11 severity index? Index-(Community 19.12 Impact) Severity of violent crime Higher level of decreased severity for violent pg. crime compared to 200 others

What is the property Reported Number of Decreased 2 19.13 crime rate? Property – Criminal 19.14 Code Incidents per Property crime rate Low rate of property 100,000 Population - down by -7.5% in 2010 crime compared to pg. (Community Impact) others 201

What is the youth crime Number of Youths Decreased 1 19.16 rate? Cleared by Charge or 19.17 Cleared Otherwise, per Youth crime decreased Lowest rate of 100,000 Youth by -8.7% in 2010 youth crime pg. Population -(Community compared to others 202 Impact) How has the youth crime Annual Percentage 3 19.18 rate changed in Toronto Change in Rate of compared to other Youths Cleared by See above Small rate of 2010 pg. municipalities? Charge or Cleared decrease in youth 202 Otherwise per 100,000 crime compared to Youth Population - others (Community Impact) Customer Service Measures - Clearance Rates What percentage of the Clearance Rate - Total Stable 4 19.19 total crimes committed (Non-Traffic) Criminal 19.20 are solved/cleared? Code Incidents – Clearance rate for total Lower clearance rate (Customer Service) crime was stable for total crime pg. compared to others 203 What percentage of the Clearance Rate - Increased 4 19.21 violent crimes committed Violent Crime – 19.22 are solved/cleared? (Customer Service) Clearance rate for Lower clearance rate violent crime increased for violent crime pg. compared to others 203

194 Police Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison Chart of Toronto’s to Other & Page Ref. 2010 vs. 2009 Results Municipalities (OMBI) By Quartile for 2010 Efficiency Measures What is the workload of Number of Criminal Decreased 4 19.23 Criminal Code incidents Code Incidents (Non- 19.24 for each police officer? Traffic) per Police Number of Criminal Lower rate of Criminal Officer – (Efficiency) Code incidents/ Code incidents pg. workload per officer /workload per officer 204 decreased compared to others Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results)

1- Increased 7- Favourable 3 - 1st quartile 1- 1st quartile 2 - Stable 1- Stable 0 - 2nd quartile 5 - 2nd quartile 0 -Decreased. 1 -Unfavour. 0 - 3rd quartile 2- 3rd quartile 0 - 4th quartile 5- 4th quartile

100% stable or 78% favourable or 100% above 46% above increased stable median median

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26 These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of 14 municipalities.

195 Police Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How many police staff is there in Toronto? 300 The primary method of comparing

250 service levels for police services within a municipality over time 200 and between municipalities is to 150 examine the number of staff.

100 Chart 19.1 provides Toronto's 50 total number of police staff and 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 the rate of officers, civilians and Total Police Staff 7,268 7,299 7,314 7,373 7,580 7,713 7,730 7,830 7,877 all police staff per 100,000 All Police Staff per 100K pop'n 277.6 276.1 273.9 273.4 278.2 282.5 282.3 284.1 284.1 population. Over the longer term Civilians per 100K pop'n 77.3 77.3 77.3 77.0 76.3 81.0 81.4 82.0 81.8 Officers per 100K pop'n 200.3 198.8 196.7 196.4 201.9 201.5 200.9 202.1 202.3 the number of officers has been increasing for initiatives such as Chart 19.1(City of Toronto) Police Staffing per 100,000 Population (Service Level) anti-gang, provincial courts, and safer communities. How do Toronto’s police staffing levels compare to other municipalities? In 2010, there was a slight 300 5,000 Median 215.2 staff (Officers & Civilians) increase in the total number of 4,500 civilian staff, (although less than

250 4,000 3,500 the rate of population increase), 200 while the number of Officers 3,000 150 2,500 increased with the addition of \ staffing Police 2,000

per opulation 100.000 more Transit Officers to enhance 100 1,500 the safety of Toronto's transit 1,000 50 system 500 0 0 T- Wind Tor Sud Bar Niag Lond Ott Ham Durh Wat York Halt Musk Bay Chart 19.2 compares Toronto’s km. square (density) per population Civilians & Oth. 70.2 81.8 77.8 73.0 69.5 71.9 58.3 61.9 52.9 52.9 50.9 49.0 51.0 9.5 2010 budgeted number of police Officers 215.7 202.3 191.6 163.0 161.7 157.7 160.5 149.7 150.0 140.2 133.2 134.9 124.8 127.0 and civilian staff per 100,000 Total Staff 285.9 284.1 269.5 236.0 231.2 229.6 218.8 211.6 202.9 193.1 184.1 183.9 175.8 136.5 persons to other municipalities. Pop'n density 1,493. 4,373. 332.30 43.80 1,400. 234.10 863.40 328.20 468.60 245.10 393.40 598.00 507.70 16.50 This has been plotted as bars Chart 19.2 (OMBI 2010) Police Staffing Levels per 100,000 Population & Population relative to the left axis. Population Density (Service Level) density has also been plotted as a line graph relative to the right axis.

In terms of having the highest police staffing levels, Toronto ranks: • second of fourteen (first quartile) for all police staff • second of fourteen (first quartile) for officers • first of fourteen (first quartile) for civilians and other staff

Toronto's high staffing levels are attributed to it being an international city requiring specialized services at elevated levels that may not be available or necessary in other municipalities. These include the Emergency Task Force, Public Order Unit, Emergency Measures, intelligence units targeting terrorist groups, providing security for visiting dignitaries, targeting hate crime, Sex Crime Unit, Fugitive Squad, Mounted Unit, Marine Unit and the Forensic Identification Unit.

The additional commuters, visitors and businesses requiring police services are not taken into account in population-based measures, such as the staffing levels shown in the chart above or crime rates. In general, for all the comparisons made between the municipal police services, it is important to remember that differences in size of commuter/tourist populations, commercial sectors, geography, scale of police operations and the priorities of the individual police services will all affect municipal police services.

196 Police Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How has Toronto’s total (non- traffic) crime rate changed? Crime rates are used to measure

7,000 the extent and nature of criminal activity brought to the attention 6,000 of the police within a 5,000 municipality. Unreported crime is 4,000 not captured.

3,000 Chart 19.3 provides Toronto’s 2,000 total (non-traffic) crime rate per 1,000 100,000. It excludes Criminal 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Code driving offences such as Total Crime Rate per impaired driving or criminal 6,318 6,410 6,362 5,952 5,304 5,214 5,264 4,986 4,669 4,551 4,243 100K Pop'n negligence causing death.

Chart 19.3 (City of Toronto) Reported Number of Total (Non-Traffic) Criminal Code Incidents per 100,000 Persons (Community Impact) Toronto’s 2010 total (non-traffic) crime rate decreased by -6.9 per How does Toronto’s total (non-traffic) crime rate compare to cent with decreases experienced other municipalities? in all crime categories. 10,000 9,000 Chart 19.4 compares Toronto's 8,000 7,000 Median 5,065 2010 total (non-traffic) crime rate 6,000 to other municipalities. Toronto 5,000 ranks sixth of fourteen 4,000 municipalities (second quartile) 3,000 in terms of having the lowest 2,000 1,000 total crime rate. 0 York Halt Durh Musk Ott Tor Wat Niag Ham Bar Sud Wind Lond T-Bay rate per 100k 2488.1 3,072 3,616 3,949 4,095 4,243 4,748 5,442 5,680 5,909 5,913 6383.9 7,284 8,868 Chart 19.5 compares Toronto to other municipalities for the Chart 19.4 (OMBI 2010) Reported Number of Total (Non-Traffic) Criminal Code percentage change in the 2010 Incidents per 100,000 Population (Community Impact) total crime rate. Toronto ranks

sixth of fourteen municipalities What was the 2010 change in the total (non-traffic) crime rate in (second quartile) in terms of Toronto, compared to other municipalities? having the greatest rate of

decline or smallest rate of 20% increase in 2010. 15%

10% Crime rates should ideally be

5% examined over a longer period of

0% time (five to ten years) to

examine trends. -5%

-10% Many factors influence the crime

-15% Median -5.9% decrease rates in municipalities reflected

-20% here, including: Musk Wind Durh Lond Wat Tor York Ott T-Bay Ham Bar Niag Halt Sud • the public’s willingness to % change -15.3% -9.1% -8.8% -8.7% -8.7% -6.9% -6.0% -5.7% -3.6% -3.0% -2.0% 1.3% 4.0% 7.1% report crimes Chart 19.5 (OMBI 2010) Annual % Change in Rate of Total (Non-Traffic) Criminal • changes in legislation and Code Incidents (Community Impact) policies • the impact of police enforcement practices and special operations • demographic, social, and economic changes

197 Police Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How is the severity of Toronto's total crime changing? The crime severity index is included in this report for both 120 total crime and violent crime. 100 The crime severity index differs from traditional crime rate 80 methods by taking into account 60 not only the change in volume of a particular crime, but the 40 relative seriousness of that crime 20 in relation to other crimes. Traditional crime rates are 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 simply a count of all criminal Total Crime 96.4 97.2 96.3 95.5 85.3 89.2 92.1 87.2 81.8 79.3 74.0 incidents reported to the police Severity Index in relation to the local population.

Chart 19.6 (City of Toronto) Total Crime Severity Index Chart 19.6 identifies Toronto's total crime severity index from How does the severity of total crime in Toronto compare to other 2000 to 2010 and shows a municipalities? consistent declining/improving

120 trend, including the 2010 change. 100 Median 69.8 80 Chart 19.7 compares Toronto's 2010 total crime severity index to 60 other municipalities and Toronto 40 ranks eighth of thirteen (third quartile) in terms of having the 20 lowest total crime severity index. 0 Halt York Durh Bar Ott Wat Niag Tor Ham Sud Wind Lond T-Bay Total Crime 37.5 43.2 51.3 60.1 61.3 67.6 69.8 74.0 82.3 84.2 85.3 92.8 113.2 Severity Index

Chart 19.7 (OMBI 2010) Total Crime Severity Index

198 Police Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How has Toronto’s violent crime rate changed? Chart 19.8 provides Toronto’s 1,800 rate of the number of violent 1,600 1,400 Criminal Code incidents 1,200 reported, per 100,000 1,000 population. In 2010, the violent 800 crime rate decreased by -4.5 per 600 400 cent, consistent with the 200 decreasing longer term trend. 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Violent Crime Rate/ A violent incident is an offence 1,642 1,697 1,603 1,449 1,342 1,369 1,367 1,363 1,306 1,271 1,215 100K Pop'n that involves the use or threat of force against a person. This Chart 19.8(City of Toronto) Reported Number of Violent Criminal Code Incidents per includes homicide, attempted 100,000 Persons (Community Impact) murder, sexual assault, non- sexual assault, other sexual How does Toronto’s violent crime rate compare to other offences, abduction, and municipalities? robbery. Unreported crime is not 2,000 captured.

1,600 Median 992 Chart 19.9 compares Toronto’s

1,200 2010 violent crime rate to other municipalities. Toronto ranks

800 eleventh of fourteen municipalities (fourth quartile) in 400 terms of having the lowest violent crime rate 0 Halt York Ott Musk Durh Wat Niag Bar Sud Lond Tor Wind Ham T-Bay rate per 100k 534 581 600 770 773 964 980 1,004 1,159 1,192 1,215 1,294 1,353 1,729 Chart 19.10 compares Toronto to other municipalities for the Chart 19.9 (OMBI 2010) Reported Number of Violent Criminal Code Incidents per 100,000 Population (Community Impact) percentage change in the 2010 violent crime rate. Toronto ranks What was the change in the violent crime rate in Toronto fifth of fourteen municipalities compared to other municipalities? (second quartile) in terms of the 8% greatest rate of decline or 6% smallest rate of increase. 4% Crime rates should ideally be 2% examined over a longer period of 0% time (five to 10 years) to -2% examine trends. -4% Median -1.15 % increase

-6% -8% Wind Ott Durh T-Bay Tor York Musk Sud Bar Niag Halt Ham Wat Lond % change -7.1% -6.9% -6.2% -5.1% -4.5% -2.5% -1.2% -1.1% 0.3% 3.1% 3.3% 4.0% 5.2% 5.5%

Chart 19.10 (OMBI 2010) Annual % Change in Rate of Violent Crime Incidents (Community Impact)

199 Police Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How is the severity of Toronto's violent crime changing? Chart 19.11 identifies Toronto's 150 violent crime severity index from 135 120 2000 to 2010, which takes into 105 account not only the change in 90 the volume of a particular violent 75 crime but the relative 60 45 seriousness of that crime in 30 relation to other violent crimes. 15 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 In Toronto, the violent crime Total Violent Crime 138.7 140.8 136.8 139.6 127.8 141.9 145.1 146.6 139.3 137.4 129.4 severity index has varied much Severity Index more than the traditional violent crime rate (Chart 19.8) but from Chart 19.11 (City of Toronto) Violent Crime Severity Index 2007 to 2010 shows a declining/improving trend. How does the severity of violent crime in Toronto compare to other municipalities? Chart 19.12 compares Toronto's ? 160 2010 violent crime severity index 140 to other municipalities and

120 Median 69.5 Toronto ranks twelfth of thirteen 100 (fourth quartile) in terms of 80 having the lowest violent crime 60 severity index. 40 20 0 Halt York Bar Niag Durh Ott Wat Lond Sud Wind Ham Tor T-Bay Total Crime 31.0 45.8 50.1 56.9 62.9 69.4 69.5 84.5 85.0 89.1 98.8 129.4 141.7 Severity Index

Chart 19.12 (OMBI 2010) Violent Crime Severity Index

200 Police Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How has Toronto’s property crime rate changed? Chart 19.13 provides Toronto’s 4,000 rate of property Criminal Code incidents reported, per 100,000 3,000 population. Toronto’s property 2,000 crime rate has been decreasing over time, with a -7.5 per cent 1,000 decrease experienced in 2010.

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 A property incident involves Property Crime Rate 3,993 4,006 4,023 3,805 3,377 3,320 3,437 3,222 2,963 2,908 2,692 unlawful acts with the intent of per 100,000 Population gaining property and does not involve the use or threat of Chart 19.13 (City of Toronto) Reported Number of Property Criminal Code Incidents violence against an individual. per 100,000 Persons (Community Impact) Property crime includes breaking

and entering, motor vehicle theft, How does Toronto’s property crime rate compare to other over $5,000, theft $5,000 and municipalities? under, having stolen goods, and

5,000 fraud. Unreported crime is not

Median 3,440 captured. 4,000

3,000 Chart 19.14 compares Toronto’s

2010 property crime rate, to 2,000 other municipalities. Toronto

1,000 ranks fourth of fourteen

municipalities (second quartile) 0 York Halt Duh Tor Musk Ott Wat Niag Ham Bar Sud Wind Lond T-Bay in terms of having the lowest rate per 100k 1,730 2,316 2,332 2,692 2,800 2,991 3,191 3,689 3,858 3,882 4,006 4,281 4,788 5,562 property crime rate. Chart 19.14 (OMBI 2010) Reported Number of Property Criminal Code Incidents per 100,000 Population (Community Impact) Chart 19.15 compares Toronto to other municipalities for the What was the change in the property crime rate in Toronto, percentage change in the 2010 compared to other municipalities? property crime rate. Toronto ranks seventh of fourteen 15% municipalities (second quartile), 10% in terms of having the greatest 5% rate of decline or smallest rate of 0% increase.

-5%

-10% Median - 7.3% -15% -20% Musk Lond Wat Durh Wind Ott Tor Niag York Ham T-Bay Bar Halt Sud % change -15.4% -14.9% -13.7% -11.8% -10.2% -9.5% -7.5% -7.1% -7.1% -5.9% -5.3% -1.1% 4.9% 9.0%

Chart 19.15 (OMBI 2010) Annual % Change in Rate of Property Crime Incidents (Community Impact)

201 Police Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How has Toronto’s youth crime rate changed? The Youth Criminal Justice Act 5,000 (YCJA) recognizes that appropriate and effective 4,000 responses to youth crime do not always involve the court system. 3,000 As such, the YCJA encourages the use of out of court measures 2,000 that can adequately hold first-

1,000 time youth offenders accountable for non-violent, less 0 serious criminal offences. This 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 approach to dealing with youths rate per 100k youths 4,189 3,957 3,798 4,055 3,537 4,120 4,472 3,881 3,529 3,122 2,848 outside the court system helps address developmental Chart 19.16 (City of Toronto) Number of Youth Cleared by Charge or Cleared challenges and other needs as Otherwise per 100,000 Youth Population (Community Impact) young people are guided into adulthood. How does Toronto’s youth crime rate compare to other municipalities? The youth (aged 12-17) crime 10,000 rate does not include the number

8,000 of youths who committed crimes Median 4,835 but were not apprehended or

6,000 arrested for their crimes. Therefore, it does not reflect the

4,000 total number of all crimes committed by youths. 2,000 Chart 19.16 summarizes 0 Tor York Musk Halt Ham Wind Durh Ott Niag Wat T-Bay Sud Lond Toronto's youth crime rate per rate per 100k 2,848 3,070 3,222 3,989 4,041 4,323 4,835 5,000 5,129 6,013 7,039 7,125 7,496 100,000 youths. It represents youths who were apprehended Chart 19.17 (OMBI 2010) Number of Youth Cleared by Charge or Cleared Otherwise per 100,000 Youth Pop'n (Community Impact) and either arrested and charged (cleared by charge), or issued a What was the change in the youth crime rate in Toronto, warning or caution without a compared to other municipalities? criminal charge (cleared 30% otherwise). In 2010 Toronto's youth crime rate dropped by -8.7 20% per cent. 10%

0% Chart 19.17 compares Toronto’s -10% 2010 youth crime rate (cleared -20% by charge or cleared otherwise), -30% Median -9.15% to other municipalities. Toronto -40% ranks first of fourteen -50% Musk Wind Ham Wat York Durh Lond Tor Ott Halt Sud Niag Bar T-Bay municipalities (first quartile), with % change -38.0% -26.6% -19.3% -14.2% -13.4% -11.3% -9.6% -8.7% -8.1% -6.5% -5.9% 0.0% 2.5% 22.6% the lowest youth crime rate. Chart 19.18(OMBI 2010) Annual % Change in Rate of Youth Cleared by Charge or Cleared Otherwise (Community Impact)

Chart 19.18 compares Toronto to other municipalities for the percentage change in the 2010 youth crime rate. Toronto ranks eighth of fourteen municipalities (third quartile) in terms of having the greatest rate of decline or smallest rate of increase.

Crime rates should ideally be examined over a longer period of time (five to 10 years) to examine trends.

202 Police Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How has Toronto’s clearance rate for total Criminal Code Clearance rates provide some incidents changed? indication if reported crimes are 50% being solved. Police services generally consider that clearance 40% rates are not a ‘true’ measurement 30% of effectiveness or efficiency.

20% A criminal incident can be considered cleared when a charge 10% is laid, recommended or cleared by 0% other methods. These clearance 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 results are based on the number of % incidents cleared 44.1% 42.5% 42.1% 37.7% 32.5% 40.6% 39.6% 36.5% 38.8% 36.7% 37.4% Criminal Code incidents as opposed Chart 19.19(City of Toronto) Clearance Rate for Total (Non-Traffic) Criminal Code to offences (there can be multiple Incidents (Customer Service) offences for one incident), which the Toronto Police Service typically How does Toronto’s clearance rate for total (non- traffic) reports on in its statistical reports. Criminal Code incidents, compare to other municipalities? 60% These rates are based on the Median 42% Statistics Canada definition of 50% clearance rates and represent the 40% number of crimes cleared in a 30% specific period of time, irrespective 20% of when the crimes occurred. 10% Clearance rates are therefore not in 0% Durh T-Bay York Lond Wat Bar Sud Ott Wind Tor Halt Niag Ham direct correlation to crimes that % clearance rate 48.6% 48.5% 48.1% 45.6% 44.5% 42.2% 41.9% 39.8% 39.8% 37.4% 37.2% 37.2% 31.7% occurred in a particular calendar year. Chart 19.20 (OMBI 2010) Clearance Rate for Total (Non-Traffic) Criminal Code Incidents (Customer Service) Chart 19.19 reflects Toronto’s clearance rate for total crime and How has Toronto’s clearance rate for violent crime changed? shows a stable result in 2010 100% relative to 2009.

80% Chart 19.20 compares Toronto's 60% 2010 clearance rate of total non- traffic Criminal Code incidents to 40% other Ontario municipalities. Toronto

20% ranks tenth of thirteen municipalities (fourth quartile) in terms of having 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 the highest clearance rate. % incidents cleared 52.8% 64.2% 62.2% 59.1% 59.4% 58.5% 60.1% Chart 19.21 summarizes Toronto’s Chart 19.21(City of Toronto) Clearance Rate for Violent Criminal Code Incidents clearance rates for violent crime and (Customer Service) shows an improvement in 2010.

How does Toronto’s clearance rate for violent crime, compare to Chart 19.22 compares Toronto's other municipalities? 2010 clearance rate for violent crime incidents to other 100% Median 74.1% 80% municipalities. Toronto ranks twelfth of thirteen (fourth quartile) in terms 60% of the highest clearance rate. 40%

20% The public's willingness to report 0% information that can assist with T-Bay York Duh Bar Sud Wind Lond Wat Halt Niag Ott Tor Ham % clearance rate 79.2% 78.8% 78.6% 77.6% 77.3% 77.2% 74.1% 71.9% 71.1% 66.9% 64.6% 60.1% 55.1% solving violent crimes can be a significant factor influencing these

Chart 19.22 (OMBI 2010) Clearance Rate for Violent Criminal Code Incidents results. (Customer Service)

203 Police Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How many Criminal Code incidents are there for each police officer in Toronto? The number of Criminal Code incidents (non-traffic) there are 40 in a municipality per police officer provides some indication 30 of an officer’s workload. It is, however, important to note that it

20 does not capture all of the reactive aspects of policing such as traffic and drug enforcement. 10 Nor does it incorporate proactive policing activities such as crime 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 prevention initiatives or the provision of assistance to victims # CC incidents/officer 31.0 30.0 27.0 27.0 26.0 24.0 23.2 22.5 21.0 of crime.

Chart 19.23 (City of Toronto) Number of Non-Traffic Criminal Code Incidents per Chart 19.23, provides the Police Officer (Efficiency/Workload) number of (non-traffic) Criminal Code incidents there were in How does the number of Criminal Code incidents per officer in Toronto per police officer. There Toronto compare to other municipalities? has been a downward trend over

60 this period that is consistent with the decrease in the total crime 50 Median 32.9 rate noted under Chart 19.3.

40 Chart 19.24 compares Toronto's

30 2010 result to other municipalities for the number of 20 (non-traffic) Criminal Code incidents per police officer. 10 Toronto ranks thirteen of 0 fourteen municipalities (fourth T- Lond Ham Bar Sud Wat Niag Wind Musk Ott Durh Halt Tor York Bay quartile) in terms of having the CC inc./Officer 49.0 45.6 37.9 36.5 36.3 35.7 34.5 31.3 31.1 27.4 25.8 24.8 21.0 18.4 highest number of Criminal Code

Chart 19.24 (OMBI 2010) Number of Criminal Code Incidents (Non-Traffic) per Police incidents in the municipality per Officer (Efficiency/ Workload) police officer.

Factors such as the existence of specialized units or different deployment models can have an impact on these results. For example, some jurisdictions such as Toronto have a collective agreement requirement that results in a minimum of two-officer patrol cars during certain time periods. In these cases, there could be two officers responding to a criminal incident whereas in another jurisdiction only one officer might respond.

204 Police Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

2011 Achievements and 2012 Planned Initiatives/Objectives

The following initiatives are intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Toronto's police service.

2011 Initiatives Completed/Achievements

• restructured the organization to both flatten and increase spans of control, resulting in the elimination of the Human Resources Command and the Executive Command and the creation of a new Corporate Command • experienced a -4.5% reduction in the City's 7 major crime indicators in 2011, which are used as a high level barometer of crime within the City, o murders decreased by -22.2% o sexual assaults increased by +2.6% o assaults decreased by -2.4% o robberies increased by +0.9% o break and enters decreased by -10.3% o auto thefts decreased by -8.1% o thefts over $5,000 decreased by -11.7%

2012 Objectives

• focus on child & youth safety o increase safety in and around schools and promote student trust and confidence in police o provide youth with crime prevention and safety information, and encourage reporting • focus on violence against women o improve the provision of support, follow-up information, and referrals to victims o increase reporting by victims • focus on people with distinct needs o increase trust and confidence between the police and groups such as seniors, aboriginal people, newcomers to toronto, homeless people and those with mental illness o increase the number of referrals to victim services, ensuring that all victims of violence, including the families and friends of victims if appropriate, have access to victim services and support • target violence, organized crime, and gangs o reduce violent crime, especially shootings, and illegal gun activity, specifically through a decrease in the number of shootings and the rate of violent crime and an increase in the number of firearms seized o reduce the availability and impact of drug activity on neighbourhoods • deliver inclusive police services o increase the community perception of professionalism during contact with police and decrease the proportion of community who believe that Toronto police officers target members of minority or ethnic groups for enforcement o increase the number of uniform and civilian applicants who are women and/or a visible minority • address community safety issues o improve the service’s capacity to plan for, prevent, mitigate, respond to, and/or recover from emergency incidents

205

2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

o improve the service’s ability to analyze crimes committed using technology (computer assisted crimes), particularly frauds and identity theft • ensure pedestrian and traffic safety o decrease the number of road-related injuries to pedestrians, cyclists and drivers

Factors Influencing the Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality can be influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

• non-residents: daily inflow and outflow of commuters and tourists, attendees at cultural, entertainment and sporting events or seasonal residents (e.g. post-secondary students) who require police services and are not captured in population-based measures • business/commercial and industrial sectors: size of these sectors, which require police services but are not factored into population-based measures • specialized facilities: airports, casinos, etc. that can require additional policing • public support: public’s willingness to report crimes and to provide information that assists police services in the solving of crimes • demographic trends: social and economic changes in the population

206 RRooaadd SSeerrvviicceess

Transportation Services

Road & Sidewalk Transportation Public Right-of-Way Maintenance Operations & Safety Management

Transportation Operations Winter Maintenance Parking Permits Investgations and Studies

Traffic Control and Construction (Private Repair Incident Management Parties) Permits

Transportation Electrical Plant Cleaning Development Review Installation & Maintenance

Patrol/Complaint Construction Traffic Street Events Investigation Management

Sign Fabrication & Utility Cut Repair Installation and Pavement Markigs Boxes shaded reflect the activities covered Red Light Camera Infrastructure Operations and in this report management Transportation Safety & Data

Pedestrian & Cycling Infrastructure and Strategies

Toronto's Transportation Services division is responsible for maintaining the City's transportation infrastructure in a state of good repair for the purposes of public safety and the efficient movement of people, goods and services. This infrastructure includes:

• roads • bridges • culverts • sidewalks • boulevards • signage • traffic signals

The division is responsible for all aspects of traffic operations, roadway regulation, street maintenance and cleaning, transportation infrastructure management, road, sidewalk and boulevard use, as well as snow plowing, salting and removal.

The focus of the costing data in this report is with respect to maintenance of road surfaces and winter control of roads.

207

Road Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service Level Indicators How long is Toronto's Number of Lane KM per Stable 4 20.1 road network? 1,000 Population – 20.2 (Service Level) lane km of roads was Lowest rate of lane km unchanged of roads relative to pg. population, compared to 210 (service level indicator) others (service level indicator) (related to high population density) Community Impact Measures How many vehicle Vehicle Collision Rate Increase 4 20.3 collisions occur? per Million Vehicle km 20.4 or per Lane km – Collision rate increased Higher collision rate (Community Impact) compared to others pg. 211 How congested are major Road Congestion on Increased 4 20.5 roads? Major Roads (Vehicle km Traveled per Lane Road congestion Higher rate of pg. km) – (Community increased congestion on Toronto’s 211 Impact) roads compared to others Are roads being Percentage of Winter Maximum 1 20.9 maintained to standard in Event Responses 20.10 the winter? Meeting New Municipal Best possible result- Best possible result- Winter Level of Service 100% of winter event 100% of winter event pg. – (Community Impact) responses met standard responses met standard 213 Customer Service Measures What is the pavement Percentage of Paved Increased 1 20.6 condition of the roads? Lane Kms. With 20.7 Pavement Condition Percentage of pavement Highest percentage of Rated Good/Very Good rated good to very good pavement rated good to pg. – (Customer Service) increased very good compared to 212 others What is the condition of % of Bridges and Stable 2 20.8 bridges and culverts? Culverts with Condition Rated as Good to Very % of bridges rated in At median for pg. Good – (Customer good to very good percentage of bridges & 212 Service) condition remained culverts rated good to stable at 70.3% very good, compared to others Efficiency Measures How much does it cost to Operating Costs for Decreased 4 20.11 plough, sand and salt Winter Maintenance of 20.12 roads in the winter? Roadways per Lane KM Cost of winter Higher cost of winter Maintained in Winter – maintenance decreased maintenance compared pg. (Efficiency) to others 214 How much does it cost to Operating Costs for Increased 4 20.13 maintain the road Paved Roads (Hard 20.14 surface? Top) per Lane KM – Cost of paved road Highest cost of paved 20.15

(Efficiency) maintenance increased road maintenance of pg. (excluding utility cuts and single-tier municipalities 215 acct. policy changes) 208 Road Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results)

0 -Increased 3 - Favourable 0 - 1st quartile 2 - 1st quartile 1 - Stable 1 - Stable 0 - 2nd quartile 1 - 2nd quartile 0 - Decreased. 3 - Unfavour. 0 - 3rd quartile 0 - 3rd quartile 1 - 4th quartile 4 - 4th quartile 100% stable or 57% favourable increased or stable 0% above 43% above median median

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages –20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of 15 municipalities.

209 Road Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How many lane kilometres of roads are there in Toronto? One method of comparing 6 service levels is to examine 5 the equivalent lane 4 3 kilometres of the road 2 network, which factors in 1 0 differences in roads with 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 respect to the number of lane km 5.18 5.12 5.07 5.02 4.97 4.93 4.92 4.88 4.88 5.37 5.34 per 1,000 pop lanes and width of those Total lanes. For example, a four- 13,291 13,291 13,291 13,291 13,291 13,291 13,317 13,335 13,357 14,808 14,808 lane km lane road of standard lane

Note: starting in 2010, Toronto changed its method of measuring the length of rods from lane km. to equivalent lane km. For width (3.65 m) over one comparative purposes the 2009 result previously reported of 13,372 lane km (4.85 lane km per 1,000 population) has been restated to be based on equivalent lane km so that it is consistent with the 2010 methodology. Results of 2008 and prior years continue to be based kilometre is four equivalent on lane km. and therefore are not comparable to 2009 and subsequent years; Chart 20.1 (City of Toronto) Equivalent Lane Kilometres of Roads per 1,000 lane kilometres. Population (Service Level) Chart 20.1 illustrates How does the relative size of Toronto’s road network compare to Toronto's total number and other municipalities? rate of lane km of roads per 30 5,000 1,000 population. The total Median Upper Tier Median Single Tier Municipalitiies 3.36 km Municipalities 12.30 km 4,500 size of Toronto’s road 4,000 network has remained

3,500 relatively unchanged, but as 20 3,000 the annual population has 2,500 grown, the lane km. per 2,000 1,000 population has pop'n per pop'n per sq. km

10 - 1,500 decreased, contributing to increased traffic congestion. Lane km per 1,000 Pop'n 1,000 Density 500 0 0 Chart 20.2 compares the T- Musk Niag Durh York Wat Halt Sud Calg Ott Ham Wind Bar Lond Tor Bay relative size of Toronto’s Lane km 23.4 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.1 1.9 22.6 17.2 13.8 12.8 12.3 10.8 9.6 9.5 5.3 road network in 2010 on a Population 16.5 234.1 245.1 581.4 393.4 507.7 43.8 332.3 1263.6 328.2 468.6 1493.1 1400.2 863.4 4373.4 Density per 1,000 population basis,

Chart 20.2 (OMBI 2010) Lane Kilometres of Roads per 1,000 Population (Service to other Ontario Level) and Population Density municipalities, which are plotted as bars relative to the left axis. The single tier and upper tier or regional municipalities have been grouped separately on Chart 20.2 as well as some of the subsequent charts to reflect different service delivery responsibilities for different classes of roads.

The first group are upper-tier or regional municipalities that usually have responsibility for major road types such as arterial and collector roads, but don’t have responsibility for local roads, which are the responsibility of lower-tier municipalities. The second group, which includes Toronto, are single-tier municipalities who have responsibility for all road types.

Toronto ranks ninth of nine municipalities (fourth quartile) among the single-tier municipalities, in terms of having the highest number of lane km of roads per 1,000 population.

Population density (population per square kilometre) and the geographical size of municipalities are major influencing factors in the results for this measure. Municipalities with larger geographical areas and lower population densities will tend to have proportionately more roads.

Population density has been plotted in Chart 20.2 as a line graph relative to the right axis. Toronto is the most densely populated of OMBI municipalities, which accounts for its lower rate of lane kilometres of roads.

210 Road Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

What is the rate of vehicle collisions in Toronto? 6.00 A major objective for 5.00 municipalities is for road 4.00 3.00 networks to provide a high level 2.00 of safety for vehicles, occupants, 1.00 cyclists and pedestrians that use 0.00 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 them. Collision Rate 5.47 5.51 5.43 4.14 3.52 3.91 3.27 3.70 3.72 3.39 3.46 per Lane km Total # collisions 72,631 73,174 72,100 55,083 46,767 52,008 43,528 49,322 49,717 50,263 51,327 Chart 20.3 reflects Toronto's total 2003 and subsequent years collisions exclude those on laneways, unknown and private property (approx 0.3 per lane km ) number of collisions and the rate For comparative purposes the 2009 result previously reported of 3.76 collisions per lane km has been restated to be based on equivalent lane km so that it is consistent with the 2010 methodology. Results of 2008 and prior years continue to be based on lane km. and therefore are not comparable of vehicle collisions per to 2009 and subsequent years. equivalent lane kilometre of Chart 20.3 (City of Toronto) Number of Vehicle Collisions per Lane km. of Roads road. (Community Impact) Results indicate that there has How does the vehicle collision rate in Toronto compare to other been a general decline in municipalities? collisions over the longer term 5.00 but the number of collisions 4.50 Median Upper Tier Median Single Tier Municipalities Municipalities 1.33 1.79 increased by +2.1% in 2010 and 4.00 3.50 the number of injuries associated with these collisions 3.00 2.50 involving drivers, passengers, 2.00 pedestrians and cyclists, 1.50 increased by +10.6 percent 1.00 0.50 0.00 Chart 20.4 summarizes Niag Halt Musk Durh York Wat T-Bay Ham Bar Sud Wind Ott Tor Calg information on the 2010 annual coll/ mill. Veh. km 1.20 1.24 1.27 1.38 1.58 2.45 0.83 0.91 1.31 1.73 1.84 2.49 3.60 4.16 rate of vehicle collisions per

Chart 20.4 (OMBI 2010) Vehicle Collision Rate/Collisions per Million Vehicle km million vehicle kilometres (Community Impact) traveled for Toronto and other municipalities. On the basis of How congested are Toronto’s major roads compared to other the lowest collision rate, Toronto municipalities? ranks seventh of eight single-tier 5,000 municipalities (fourth quartile). 4,500 4,000 Median 1,445 (000's) Traffic congestion, discussed 3,500 below, is likely a factor in 3,000 Toronto's higher rate of 2,500 2,000 collisions, given that Toronto 1,500 roads are the third most 1,000 congested of the OMBI 500 municipalities. 0 Musk Bar Calg Niag Ott Sud Wat Durh Ham York Halt Wind Tor Lond T-Bay kms (000's) 593 1,155 1,276 1,322 1,354 1,389 1,443 1,445 1,580 1,841 1,929 1,993 2,087 2,363 4,338

Chart 20.5 (OMBI 2010) Congestion Vehicle km (000's) Traveled per Lane km on Major Roads (Community Impact)

Chart 20.5 compares the 2010 level of congestion on Toronto's main roads to other municipalities. It shows the number of times (in thousands) a vehicle travels over each lane kilometre of road. In terms of having the least congested roads Toronto ranks thirteen of fifteen municipalities (fourth quartile), meaning Toronto roads are heavily congested. Toronto congestion rate also increased by +7.2% in 2010. The number of vehicles on the roads can be affected by population density, the type of roads (e.g. arterial, collector or local roads, and in some cases, expressways) and average commute distances.

211 Road Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

What is the pavement condition of Toronto’s roads? 100% The state of repair of the City's infrastructure is extremely important 80% in delivering effective services.

60% Chart 20.6 summarizes the pavement condition of Toronto’s 40% roads, providing the percentage of 20% the road system where the pavement quality is rated as good 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 to very good. % Roads Rated 77.3% 78.3% 78.1% 80.9% 82.1% 89.2% 89.2% 89.6% 87.6% 90.0% 91.7% Good to Very Good Over the longer term there has been a significant improvement in Chart 20.6 (City of Toronto) % of Lane Km. of Roads With Pavement Condition Rated pavement condition because of as Good to Very Good (Customer Service) Toronto’s asset management programs and strategies to How does the pavement condition of Toronto’s roads compare to maintain roads in a good state of other municipalities? repair.

100% Median Upper Tier Municipalities 54.6% Median Single Tier Municipalities 53.0% 90% Chart 20.7 compares Toronto's 80% 2010 percentage of roads rated in 70% good to very good condition, to 60% 50% other municipalities. Upper and 40% single -tier municipalities are 30% grouped separately because of 20% differences in the road types they 10% 0% have responsibility for maintaining. York Halt Niag Wat Durh Musk Tor Ott Calg Bar Ham Lond Sud Wind T-Bay % Roads rated 81.6% 75.8% 57.9% 51.2% 44.9% 44.5% 91.7% 81.5% 78.2% 64.0% 53.0% 53.0% 51.3% 49.3% 46.0% Good to Very Good Toronto ranks first of the fifteen upper and single-tier municipalities (first quartile) in terms of having the Chart 20.7(OMBI 2010) % of Lane Km. of Roads With Pavement Condition Rated as Good to Very Good (Customer Service) best pavement condition of its roads. How does the condition of Toronto’s bridges and culverts compare to other municipalities? Chart 20.8 compares Toronto's 2010 percentage of bridges and

100% Median Upper Tier Municipalities 72.5% culverts rated in good to very good condition, to other municipalities. 90% Median Single Tier Municipalities 70.3% 80% 70% Toronto rate of 70.3% was 60% unchanged from 2009 and ranks 50% fifth of nine (at the median) of the 40% single tier municipalities 30% 20% 10% 0% York Durh Halt Musk Wat Niag Bar Lond T-Bay Sud Tor Ott Ham Calg Wind % Bridges rated 91.2% 83.7% 77.3% 67.6% 66.5% 52.0% 82.6% 81.1% 77.6% 77.0% 70.3% 69.5% 67.2% 60.4% 45.1% Good to Very Good

Chart 20.8 (OMBI 2010) % of Bridges and Culverts with Condition Rated as Good to Very Good (Customer Service)

212 Road Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Are Toronto’s roads maintained to standard in the winter? The maintenance of roads during 100% the winter is important to provide 80% safe driving conditions and maintain the flow of traffic. 60% 40% Toronto’s winter maintenance standards are high and are 20% summarized below. Chart 20.9 0% indicates the number of winter 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % winter maintenance event responses in Toronto and the 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% standards met percentage of time service # winter events 36 34 36 69 64 45 33 123 113 65 45 standards were met during those winter events. For all years these Chart 20.9 (City of Toronto) Percentage of Winter Event Responses Meeting standards were met 100 per cent of Standard (Community Impact) the time.

Chart 20.10 compares Toronto’s How does Toronto’s adherence to winter maintenance standards 2010 percentage of winter compare to other municipalities? maintenance responses meeting Median 100% standard, to other municipalities.

100% These standards comply with the

Provincial mandated 'Minimum 80% Maintenance Standards for

60% Highways (O. Reg. 293/02)' or may

be exceeded by a municipality to

40% achieve local objectives. Toronto

and many other municipalities have 20% achieved 100 per cent compliance,

0% thereby placing the City of Toronto Tor Calg Durh Halt Ham Musk Niag Sud T-Bay Wat Wind York Ott Lond Bar % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 98.7% 98.3% 98.2% in the first quartile.

Chart 20.10 (OMBI 2010) % of Winter Event Responses Meeting Standard Toronto also clears windrows (snow (Community Impact) left by ploughs at end of driveways) where mechanically possible for residential single-family properties.

The following are the City's current winter maintenance standards:

Road Category Pavement Start Ploughing Net Snow Time to Condition after After Accumulation Accumulation Complete Sanding/Salting (cm) for Removal Removal Expressways Bare Pavement 2.5 to 5.0 cm and still 3 days 20 to 30 cm snowing Arterials/Streetcar routes Bare Pavement 5.0 cm and still snowing 20 to 30 cm 2 weeks Collectors/bus Centre Bare 5.0 to 8.0 cm 20 to 30 cm 2 weeks routes/streets with hills Local streets Safe & Passable 8.0 cm 30+ cm 2 weeks Dead ends/cul de sacs Safe & Passable 8.0 cm 20 to 30 cm 2 weeks Laneways De-ice as necessary Plowing and/or to maintain passable removal, subject to 30+ cm 3 weeks conditions localized laneway conditions

213 Road Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How much does it cost Toronto for winter control of roads? Chart 20.10 summarizes Toronto's winter maintenance $9,000 costs on a per lane km basis. $8,000 $5,024 $7,000 $6,000 These costs only relate to $4,720 $5,000 road maintenance and $4,000 $3,000 exclude costs related to $2,000 $1,000 sidewalk winter maintenance. $0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Impact of changes in acct. policy $70 $389 Starting in 2009, changes in Op. cost of wint.contr.mntc $4,546 $4,509 $3,907 $5,319 $5,034 $5,427 $3,880 $5,465 $7,864 $4,954 $4,331 accounting policies were /lane km # winter events 36 34 36 69 64 45 33 123 113 65 45 instituted by all municipalities as described on page 26. The Note: starting in 2010 Toronto changed its method of measuring the length of rods from lane km. to equivalent lane km. For comparative purposes the 2009 result previously reported of $5,563 per lane km has been restated to be based on equivalent lane km so that it is consistent with the 2010 impact of these 2010 methodology. Results of 2008 and prior years continue to be based on lane km. and therefore are not comparable to 2009 and subsequent years; accounting policy changes amounted to $389 per Chart 20.11 (City of Toronto) Cost for Winter Control Maintenance of Roads per Lane equivalent km of road, and is Kilometre. (Community Impact) plotted as a stacked column to isolate it from the 2010 How do Toronto’s winter control costs compare to other result using the previous municipalities? costing methodology used in $8,000 2008 and prior years. Median Median Single Tier Municipalities $7,000 Upper Tier Municipalities $3,218 $2,783 Winter maintenance costs can $6,000 vary significantly by year $5,000 according to weather

$4,000 conditions and the type, severity and number of winter $3,000 events, which are also shown $2,000 on the chart.

$1,000 . $0 Musk Wat Niag Durh Halt York Wind T-Bay Calg Ham Sud Bar Lond Tor Ott $lane km $1,893 $2,491 $3,186 $3,250 $3,878 $4,115 $1,660 $1,872 $2,508 $2,510 $2,783 $3,352 $3,411 $4,720 $5,197

Chart 20.12 (OMBI 2010) Cost for Winter Maintenance of Roadways per Lane Km (Community Impact)

The 2010 costs decreased because of fewer and less severe winter conditions compared to 2009. Severe winters conditions require more frequent application of de-icing materials to combat slippery and freezing road conditions and the mobilization of more equipment for snow removal operations.

Chart 20.12 reflects Toronto’s 2010 winter maintenance costs in relation to other municipalities. Single tier and upper tier or regional municipalities have been grouped separately because they are responsible for maintaining different road types. Toronto ranks eighth of nine (fourth quartile) of the single-tier municipalities.

Toronto also clears windrows at the ends of driveways on residential properties in parts of the City (about 262,000 properties) where this is mechanically possible. This is a service that perhaps only one or two other municipalities in Canada provide and contributes to Toronto's higher costs. Other factors contributing to Toronto’s higher costs include narrow streets and on-street parking in sections of Toronto that affects the efficiency of plowing and can require snow removal, congestion on roads in Toronto that slows the speed at which plows, and salters can travel during storm events, and Toronto’s enhanced standards noted previously.

214 Road Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How much does it cost to maintain Toronto's road surfaces? Chart 20.13 provides Toronto’s operating costs per

$9,000 $7,745 $6,990 lane kilometre, for maintaining $8,000 $7,000 paved roads (i.e. patching, $6,000 $5,000 surface repairs, utility cut $4,000 $3,000 repairs, sweeping, etc). $2,000 $1,000 $0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Impact of changes in acct. policy $2,854 $1,909 There are two factors Op.Cost - paved (hard top) roads $3,880 $5,107 $4,497 $3,917 $4,114 $4,254 $4,968 $5,689 $5,252 $4,891 $5,081 contributing to the 2010 per lane kilometre increase: Note: starting in 2010 Toronto changed its method of measuring the length of rods from lane km. to equivalent lane km. For comparative purposes the 2009 result previously reported of $8,577 per lane km has been restated to be based on equivalent lane km so that it is consistent with the 2010 methodology. Results of 2008 • starting in 2009, changes and prior years continue to be based on lane km. and therefore are not comparable to 2009 and subsequent years. in accounting policies Chart 20.13 (City of Toronto) Operating Cost of Paved Roads per Lane Kilometre were instituted by all (Efficiency) municipalities as $5,000 described on page 26. $4,000 The impact of these $3,000 accounting policy changes $2,000 in 2010 amounted to an $1,000 $0 increase of $1,909 per 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Op.Cost-excluding acct policy change and utility cuts for lane km, plotted as a $3,226 $3,613 $3,306 $3,268 $3,168 $3,532 $4,053 $3,720 $4,058 $3,442 $3,678 roads per lane kilometre stacked column to isolate Note: starting in 2010 Toronto changed its method of measuring the length of rods from lane km. to equivalent lane km. For comparative purposes the 2009 result it from the 2010 result previously reported of $3,811 per lane km has been restated to be based on equivalent lane km so that it is consistent with the 2010 methodology. Results of 2008 and prior years continue to be based on lane km. and therefore are not comparable to 2009 and subsequent years. using the previous costing Chart 20.14 (City of Toronto) Operating Cost of Paved Roads per Lane Kilometre methodology used in 2008 Excluding Impact of Utility Cuts and Accounting Policy Change (Efficiency) and prior years • a -$0.6 million decrease in How does Toronto’s cost of maintaining road surfaces compare the cost of permanently to other municipalities? restoring utility cuts after 30,000 100% Median Median installation and Upper Tier Municipalities Single Tier Municipalities 90% 25,000 replacement of utility $2,997 $2,515 80% conduits, which can vary 70% 20,000 significantly by year, but is 60% recovered from the utility 15,000 50% good companies 40% $cost per lane kilometre 10,000 30% Chart 20.14 excludes both the 20% 5,000 impact of the utility cuts 10% of roads% with pavement rated good to very described above and the 0 0% Wat Musk Niag York Durh Halt Ott Wind T-Bay Calg Sud Ham Bar Lond Tor impact of the accounting $ lane km $1,114 $1,414 $1,839 $4,156 $7,033 $27,962 $1,201 $1,433 $1,729 $1,877 $2,515 $3,739 $4,093 $4,144 $6,990 % good/very good 51.2% 44.5% 57.9% 81.6% 44.9% 75.8% 81.5% 49.3% 46.0% 78.2% 51.3% 53.0% 64.0% 53.0% 91.7% policy changes. On this basis, costs increased by Chart 20.15 (OMBI 2010) Operating Costs for Paved (Hard Top) Roads per Lane Km. approximately 6.8% in 2010 (Efficiency) and Percentage of Roads Rated Good to Very Good (Community Impact) due to additional road patrol maintenance.

Chart 20.15 compares Toronto’s operating cost for paved roads per lane km to other municipalities, and are plotted as bars relative to the left axis. It should be noted that this does not include amortization of capital. Toronto ranks ninth of nine (fourth quartile) of the single-tier municipalities. The percentage of roads where the pavement quality has been rated as good to very good, is also plotted as a line graph relative to the right axis, to provide additional context. While Toronto has the highest costs, it also the highest pavement quality rating as discussed under chart 20.7.

215

2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Other factors contributing to Toronto's higher costs on Chart 20.13 include:

• traffic congestion and the amount of work done by utility companies on Toronto roads is significant, thereby, accelerating road deterioration rates and requiring more frequent road maintenance at an additional cost. • costs incurred for the permanent restoration of utility cuts, although recovered from the utility companies, increases Toronto’s gross costs - this is a more significant activity in Toronto than in other municipalities. • When road maintenance work is required in Toronto, expensive traffic management protocols, such as night work, are followed to ensure motorists are not adversely affected during the period of road maintenance/repair

2011 Achievements and 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following achievements and initiatives are expected to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of transportation and road operations in Toronto:

2011 Initiatives Completed/Achievements:

• successfully managed over 600 street events, including Pride Festival, Honda Indy, Caribbean Festival, Marathons, and many other road closures for special events • launched 24/48 hour, on-line service for temporary on-street parking permits • completed rehabilitation projects totalling over $70.0 million as part of the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund (ISF) program, including work on roads and sidewalks to reduce the City’s backlog • successfully addressed over 94% of the 80,000 service requests coming through the new 311 service within service standard • completed 111 neighbourhood projects to enhance, beautify and green Toronto’s streets • continued to roll-out the $1billion, 25,600 unit coordinated street furniture program with Council approval for an upgraded and more lucrative info-to-go pillar • developed a spills response plan to clean up minor spills on roadways

2012 Initiatives Planned

• update the current snow disposal plan to ensure that adequate planning and snow storage/melting capacity is in place to deal with major emergent snowfalls (in accordance with the Auditor General's recommendations stemming from an overall favourable review of Transportation Service's winter maintenance program). • consolidate the issuance of Utility Cut Permits. • implement strategies to ensure timelines associated with 311 Service Requests are met. • reduce the number of yards used by the division. • implement any appropriate recommendations from the Services Efficiency Study. • introduce separated bike lanes and improve bike and pedestrian safety • continue to review operations in order to achieve efficiencies on how services are delivered. Continue to maintain 5,355 kilometers of road, 7,100 kilometers of sidewalks, 539 bridges, and over 100 kilometers of bike lanes in a safe and reliable state

216 Road Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

• continue to install, maintain, operate and enhance the traffic control systems in the City. These systems include almost 2,200 signalized intersections, 73 expressway and arterial road monitoring cameras, 6 main changeable message signs, 77 red light cameras and over 200 automatic traffic detecting stations, to address the mobility needs of all road users • continue to invest and improve the public realm including the roll out of 5,133 pieces of harmonized street furniture pieces. To date, 6,043 street furniture pieces have been located on Toronto's streets. • continue to administer approximately 600 street events on the City’s right of ways ranging from small block parties organized by resident volunteers to major professionally organized events such as the various charity events on expressways and major roads, the Pride Festival and Parade, Honda Indy, Toronto Caribbean Carnival/Caribana and Santa Clause parades

Factors Influencing the Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality included in this report can be influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

• the mix of roads being maintained (e.g. arterial, collector, local roads and laneways) • winter conditions • preventive maintenance practices (timing, frequency, amounts, and type of preventive maintenance strategies) • the condition of roads at the time that responsibility for any of them, was assumed from the province • traffic volumes, the degree of congestion and the composition of vehicles that use the road system (cars, trucks, transit vehicles) • the extent of utility cut repairs • differing service standards for accumulation of snow and ice, before sanding, salting, plowing and snow removal operations commence, and the time period before completion • differences in standby charges to allow for timely response to winter events • variations in weather conditions between municipalities (high snowfall, winter conditions) • the number of winter event vehicle hours required for storm events which is an indication of the degree of effort involved to combat these events

217

SSoocciiaall AAssssiissttaannccee SSeerrvviicceess

Toronto Employment and Social Services

Employment Financial Social Services Services Supports

Manage Initial Eligibility Administer Applications for a Develop and deliver City Determination for range of City Social employment services Financial Assistance SupportPrograms

Provide Administer Funds to help Develop and implement IndividualizedFinancial the Elderly and Disabled employment plans to Assistance Eligibility and Purchase Critical Medical support City, Sectoral, Case Management Supplies Commercial and Neighbourhood Redevelopment Initiatives Deliver and Administer Social Assistance Design, Manage and Financial Benefits Deliver Skills Training, Employment Preparation,Work Experience and Job Search Deliver and Administer Programs Employment Assistance Financial Benefits Provide Individualized Employment CaseManagement

Toronto's Employment and Social Services provides employment services, financial benefits and social supports to underemployed and unemployed residents including Ontario Works (OW), a mandatory province-wide program.

Employment services include opportunities for residents to engage in a variety of activities that may lead to jobs or increase their employment prospects. Employment services include job search supports, education and training, paid and unpaid job placements, and access to other programs that enhance job readiness.

Financial assistance may include funds to cover food, shelter, clothing and other household items, the cost of prescribed medications, other benefits such as dental services for children, eyeglasses and medical transportation. It can also include assistance with employment-related expenses and child care costs.

Social supports include access or referral to other services like child care, mental health services and housing supports, as well as community and neighbourhood services like recreation and libraries.

218 Social Assistance Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service / Activity Level Indicators How many individuals or Monthly Social Increased 1 21.1 families receive social Assistance Case Load 21.2 assistance? per 100,000 Social Assistance case Highest rate of Social Households (service/ load increased Assistance pg. activity level) case load compared to 221 (service/activity level others indicator) (service/activity level related to worsening global indicator) and local economic conditions large urban centres such as Toronto usually have the highest concentration of people living in poverty Community Impact Measures What is the average Average Time on Social Stable 4 21.3 length of time that people Assistance (Months) 21.4 receive social Average time period on Highest length of time assistance? Social Assistance was on Social Assistance pg. stable compared to others 222

What proportion of cases Percentage of Social Decreased 4 21.5 receive social assistance Assistance Cases on 21.6 for less than one year? Assistance less than % of cases less than Lowest % of cases one year 12 months decreased receiving social pg. assistance less than 12 222 months compared to others What proportion of Percentage of Increased 4 21.7 participants in social Participants in Social 21.8 assistance programs also Assistance Programs Proportion of cases with Lowest % of cases with have employment with Employment employment income employment income pg. income? Income increased compared to others 223 (but decrease compared to pre-recession level) Customer Service Measures How long does it take to Social Assistance Decreased 1 21.9 inform a client that they Response Time to 21.10 are eligible for social Client Eligibility (Days) Response time has Response time is assistance? shortened/was faster shorter/faster compared pg. to others 224 Efficiency Measures What is the monthly Monthly Social Increased 3 21.11 administrative cost to Assistance 21.12 support a social Administration Cost per Administration cost per Higher administration pg. assistance case? Case case increased cost per case compared 225 to others

219 Social Assistance Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 What is the average Monthly Social Stable 4 21.13 monthly benefit cost per Assistance Benefit Cost 21.14 social assistance case? per Case Benefits cost per case Highest benefits cost pg. was stable per case compared to 226 others

(higher housing costs in Toronto is the key factor) Service Performance Service/ Performance Overall Results /Activity Level Measures Activity Level Measures Indicators (Results) Indicators (Results) (Resources) (Resources)

0 - Increased 2 - Favourable 1- 1st quartile 1 - 1st quartile 0 - Stable 2 - Stable 0- 2nd quartile 0 - 2nd quartile 0 -Decreased. 2 - Unfavour. 0- 3rd quartile 1- 3rd quartile 0- 4th quartile 4- 4th quartile

67% favourable 100% above 17% above or stable median median

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages –20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of 12 municipalities.

220 Social Assistance Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How many individuals or families are receiving social assistance in Toronto? 10,000 Municipalities are responsible for

8,000 delivering Ontario Works (OW) in accordance with provincial 6,000 regulations and rules. 4,000 2,000 One way to examine service 0 levels is to identify the case load 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 levels in relation to the number Total Caseload 69,654 62,751 67,602 66,494 67,124 70,806 73,645 72,859 72,713 81,978 88,422 Caseload per of households there are in a 7,371 6,449 6,856 6,649 6,626 6,901 6,922 6,784 6,720 7,563 8,106 100,000 HH municipality. A case can involve either an individual or a family.

Chart 21.1 (City of Toronto) Monthly Social Assistance Case Load per 100,000 Households (Service Level) Chart 21.1 provides Toronto's total number and rate of social How does the number of individuals or families receiving social assistance cases per 100,000 assistance in Toronto, compare to other municipalities? households. The 2010 increase 9,000 in total cases was +7.9% and at 8,000 the end of 2010 approximately Median 4,692 7,000 9.3% of Toronto's residents were 6,000 in receipt of social assistance.

5,000 This pattern of increasing 4,000 caseloads continued into 2011 3,000 and related to worsening global 2,000 and local economic conditions. 1,000 0 Tor Lond Ham Wind Niag Sud Wat Ott Durh Musk York Halt . #cases 8,106 6,767 6,532 6,378 5,581 4,781 4,602 4,344 4,295 3,675 1,902 1,223

Chart 21.2 (OMBI 2010) Monthly Social Assistance Case Load per 100,000 Households .

Many individuals who lose their jobs are not eligible to receive Employment Insurance (EI )benefits (less than 25% are eligible), because of the significant numbers of people who work part-time or in contract jobs. For those ineligible to receive EI benefits or who were eligible but have exhausted their EI benefits who need financial assistance, their only recourse is Social Assistance.

Chart 21.2 compares Toronto's 2010 rate of social assistance cases to other municipalities and shows Toronto has the highest service/activity level of social services cases among the OMBI municipalities, ranking first of thirteen (first quartile).

As with other large urban centres, Toronto has a disproportionate number of social assistance recipients in comparison to its surrounding jurisdictions directly related to the proportion of the population that is poor.

Approximately 85 per cent of Toronto’s caseload consists of the five most financially vulnerable groups in our society: single parents, persons with disabilities who are not eligible for Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits, aboriginal persons, recent immigrants, and unemployed or underemployed people over the age of 45.

221 Social Assistance Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

What is the average length of time (months) that people receive A person eligible to receive social social assistance in Toronto? assistance is also entitled to 30 receive employment services and 25 supports. These programs provide 20 opportunities for participants to 15 engage in a variety of activities 10 that can lead to jobs or increase 5 employment prospects, and help 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 them become more self-sufficient. # Months 23.8 26.6 22.0 22.3 20.9 20.8 20.6 19.4 19.3 The period of time that people receive social assistance provides Chart 21.3 (City of Toronto) Average Time (Months) that Individuals or Families one indication of success of Receive Social Assistance (Community Impact) employment services.

How does the average length of time (months) in Toronto that Chart 21.3 provides information on people receive social assistance compare to other the average number of months municipalities? that individuals or families in 25 Median 13.4 months Toronto received social assistance 20 and shows a small decrease in 15 2010.Chart 21.4 compares

10 Toronto's 2010 result to other

5 municipalities and results show that Toronto has the longest/ 0 Halt Musk York Niag Wat Sud Durh Ham Lond Wind Ott Tor highest average time period on # Months 9.4 9.6 12.2 12.6 12.8 13.3 13.5 14.1 14.6 16.0 16.8 19.3 social assistance, ranking twelfth of twelve municipalities (fourth Chart 21.4 (OMBI 2010) Average Time (Months) that Individuals or Families Receive Social Assistance (Community Impact) quartile).

Examining the proportion of cases What proportion of cases receive social assistance for less than that received social assistance for one year in Toronto? less than one year provides 60% another perspective. Chart 21.5 45% shows this percentage decreased in 2010, meaning a higher 30% proportion received social 15% assistance for a period greater than one year. This was due to a 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 large influx of new cases added % 47.1% 48.5% 50.0% 42.0% during the recession in 2009 (less Chart 21.5 (City of Toronto) Percentage of Cases Receiving Social Assistance for than one year at that point) who Less than 1 Year (Community Impact) did not find employment in 2010 and thus those cases became How does the proportion of cases in Toronto receive social greater than one year in 2010. assistance less than one year compare to other municipalities? 80% Chart 21.6 compares Toronto's Median 59.4% 60% 2010 result to other municipalities, with Toronto ranking twelfth of 40% twelve municipalities (fourth

20% quartile) with the lowest proportion of cases receiving that assistance 0% Halt Musk Sud York Niag Ott Wat Ham Lond Wind Durh Tor for less than 12 months. % 70.6% 69.5% 67.1% 63.0% 61.5% 59.9% 58.9% 55.3% 55.2% 51.0% 50.4% 42.0%

Chart 21.6 (OMBI 2010) Percentage of Cases Receiving Social Assistance for Less than 1 Year (Community Impact)

222 Social Assistance Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

What proportion of participants in Toronto’s social assistance programs also have employment income? Social assistance clients receive 10% a range of employment services and support that can be 8% accessed through 15 directly operated Employment Resource 6% Centres located across the city and staffed by trained career 4% and employment information

2% specialists.

0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 While everyone's situation is % 9.1% 8.8% 7.0% 7.5% different, many people work and are still eligible for some social assistance. Chart 21.7 (City of Toronto) Percentage of Social Assistance Cases with Employment Income (Community Impact) Chart 21.7 shows the proportion

of Toronto's social assistance How does the proportion of social assistance cases with caseload that while in receipt of employment income in Toronto compare to other municipalities? social assistance also declare 25% receipt of earned income. Median 10.2% 20%

15%

10%

0% Musk Ott Niag Halt Lond Wat York Wind Durh Ham Sud Tor % 15.6% 11.5% 11.2% 10.3% 10.2% 10.2% 10.1% 9.6% 8.9% 8.9% 8.5% 7.5%

Chart 21.8 (OMBI 2010) Percentage of Social Assistance Cases with Employment Income (Community Impact)

In 2010 the percentage of participants with employment income increased from 2009.This has more to do with changes to other provincial programs. Most cases that receive assistance while declaring earnings are families because the eligibility thresholds are so low for singles. Several years ago the province introduced the Ontario Child Benefit (OCB) for low-income families. To ensure low income families not in receipt of social assistance are no worse off than those on assistance, the province has lowered the child portion of the benefits with every increase to OCB. Even though a family's earnings may remain stable, when the OCB increases, social assistance thresholds are lowered thus increasing the number of families with earnings who are made automatically ineligible. Over time, this lowers the overall % of the caseload with earnings.

Chart 21.8 compares Toronto's 2010 result to other municipalities and Toronto ranks twelfth of twelve municipalities (fourth quartile) with the lowest proportion of social assistance cases with employment income.

223 Social Assistance Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How long does it take in Toronto to inform a client if they are eligible for social assistance? At any of the City's community- 7 based employment centres, 6 individuals can apply for social assistance. Clients are first 5 assessed to determine whether 4 they are in financial need and 3 eligible to receive social 2 assistance and are then 1 subsequently informed of their 0 eligibility. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 # Days 6.7 5.9 6.4 5.5 4.6 4.8 4.8 7.4 5.2 In 2010, Employment and Social Services on average assessed Chart 21.9 (City of Toronto) Social Assistance Response Time (Days) to Client nearly 6,000 individuals and Eligibility (Customer Service) families per month for initial eligibility to receive assistance. How does the length of time it takes in Toronto to inform a client if they are eligible for social assistance, compare to other Chart 21.9 provides Toronto’s municipalities? average response time in days,

12 to client eligibility requests, Median 6.2 days which is the period from the 9 point that clients request assistance, to the time that a 6 decision is rendered.

3 From 2002 to 2006 there was an

0 improving trend with shorter Niag Ott Tor Musk Durh Lond Wat Ham York Halt Sud Wind response times, which stabilized # days 5.0 5.0 5.2 5.6 5.7 5.8 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.5 7.5 12.0 between 2006 and 2008. In 2009 the large 13 per cent increase in Chart 21.10(OMBI 2010) Social Assistance Response Time (Days) to Client Eligibility (Customer Service) the average monthly social assistance caseload caused by the economic slowdown (see Chart 21.1), resulted in longer response times to clients, but response times were shortened in 2010.

Chart 21.10 compares Toronto’s 2010 social assistance response time for client eligibility, to other municipalities and Toronto ranks third of twelve (first quartile), in terms of having the shortest response time.

224 Social Assistance Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

What is the administrative cost in Toronto to support a social Social assistance costs have two assistance case? components:

$270 $245 $240 $223 • administrative costs to deliver $210 and administer the program $180 • benefits paid to social $150 assistance clients $120

$90 $60 Chart 21.11 provides Toronto's $30 average monthly administrative $0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 cost per case. These costs include Impact of changes working with clients to determine $10 $13 in acct. policy their most effective OW program $admin/case $215 $206 $203 $216 $230 $213 $232 option(s), as well as quality assurance, fraud prevention and Chart 21.11 (City of Toronto) Average Monthly Administrative Cost per Social control activities. Assistance Case (Efficiency) Starting in 2009, changes in How does Toronto’s administrative cost per social assistance accounting policies were instituted case, compare to other municipalities? by all Ontario municipalities as $300 described on page 26. The 2010 Median $216 $250 impact of these accounting policy changes amounted to an increase $200 of $13 per case, which is plotted as $150 a stacked column to isolate it from the 2010 result using the previous $100 costing methodology used in 2008

$50 and prior years.

$0 Niag Wind Ham Lond Wat York Sud Durh Tor Halt Ott Musk $Admin\Case $152 $160 $171 $181 $203 $213 $220 $227 $245 $251 $251 $262

Chart 21.12 (OMBI 2010) Average Monthly Administrative Cost per Social Assistance Case (Efficiency)

Toronto's 2010 administrative cost per case increased by +10.0% due to:

• the 2009 labour disruption which resulted in lower than normal expenses in that year; • the fact TESS only hires staff after the caseload is achieved, meaning that staff hirings to meet the significant caseload increases that began in 2009 would not see the full corresponding staffing increases until 2010 • higher premises costs.

Chart 21.12 compares Toronto's 2010 monthly administration cost per case to other municipalities. Results show that Toronto ranks ninth of twelve municipalities (third quartile) in terms of having the lowest administrative costs per case. Key factors that can influence administration costs in municipalities include different models of service delivery, the service provided, demographics, client employability, available community supports and differentiated strategies for servicing the significant increase in caseload in the aftermath of the 2008 recession.

225 Social Assistance Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

What is the average monthly benefit cost in Toronto per social assistance case? The second component of social $1,000 assistance costs are the funds (benefits) paid to clients to enable $800 them to participate in activities that will help them to become self- $600 sufficient.

$400 These benefit rates are determined $200 by the province and include funds to cover food, shelter, clothing and $0 other household items. 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Monthly $Benefits $714 $736 $739 $738 $767 $797 $794 /Case Chart 21.13 provides Toronto's average monthly benefit cost per Chart 21.13 (City of Toronto) Average Monthly Benefits per Social Assistance Case social assistance case. Costs in 2010 were stable in relation to How does Toronto’s average monthly benefit cost per social 2009. assistance case, compare to other municipalities?

$900 Median monthly benefits/case $721 $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 Sud Musk Durh Niag Lond Ott Halt York Wat Ham Wind Tor Monthly $Benefits $621 $652 $684 $702 $707 $718 $724 $731 $731 $760 $764 $794 /Case

Chart 21.14 (OMBI 2010) Average Monthly Benefits Cost per Social Assistance Case

Chart 21.14 compares Toronto’s 2010 monthly benefit cost per social assistance case to other municipalities. In terms of having the lowest monthly benefit cost per case, Toronto ranks twelfth of twelve municipalities (fourth quartile). The primary factor behind the higher benefit costs is that shelter/housing costs tend to be higher in Toronto than in other municipalities, thus a greater percentage of clients are reaching the maximum of the shelter component of their benefits when compared to other municipalities.

Municipal results for this measure can also be influenced by the mix of single and family case, as families receive larger amounts of benefits.

226 Social Assistance Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

2011 Achievements and 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following achievements and initiatives have and will help to improve the effectiveness of Toronto’s Employment and Social Services operations.

2011 Initiatives Completed/Achievements

• assisted over 30,000 people to obtain employment • managed an Ontario Works (OW) average monthly caseload of 100,300 • assessed approximately 71,200 residents for financial assistance and provided over 161,000 individual OW cases with employment/financial assistance under the Ontario Works Act • supported 25,500 social assistance recipients to attend education/upgrading programs • sponsored and conducted 60 job fairs that connected 11,700 residents with potential employers • provided service to approximately 52,700 residents at Employment Centres and supported approximately 631,000 in persons visits by Torontonians to service locations across the city • processed 16,600 on-line applications for Ontario Works through Web Access to Your Services (WAYS)

2012 Planned Initiatives

• manage an average monthly caseload of 106,000 • provide consultation and support to approximately 214,200 client visits at Employment Centres (EC) across the City, and continue the implementation of an EC model that supports necessary services and supports for unemployed residents • enhance access to ODSP for homeless/vulnerable people, connecting the homeless with ongoing medical support, and linking homeless people to other service providers through the Homeless to ODSP Project Engagement (HOPE). • ongoing implementation of employment plans to support 13 designated initiatives • assist unemployed and underemployed city residents to prepare for and obtain sustainable employment by increasing the number of: o residents who transition to employment o people who access employment services through the City’s employment centres o partnerships with employers o placement opportunities provided through a range of City initiatives (Job Incentive Program, Investing In Neighbourhoods etc.) o people who access education and training programs • implement the City Services Benefit Card subject to a successful vendor process • develop a City Workforce Development Strategy with recommendations for implementation for consideration by Economic Development Committee and City Council.

227 Social Assistance Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Factors Influencing the Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality included here can be influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

• employability: significant numbers of clients with one or more barriers to employment, including health barriers, lack of education and language skills, literacy levels, and lack of Canadian work experience • urban form: client access to programs can vary due to geographical, technological, cultural or other limitations • economic conditions: differing local labour market conditions and the types of employment available • demographics: family size and caseload mix, the availability of interpreters when English is not the first language • service delivery: different service delivery models and the services provided, the availability of community supports and where social services offices are located in municipalities in relation to clients

228

SSoocciiaall HHoouussiinngg SSeerrvviicceess

Shelter Support and Housing Administration

Homelessness and Social Housing City Emergency Housing First Management System Human Services Solutions

Manage Social Provide Emergency Emergency Human Housing Provider Shelter and Housing Services Response Operating Subsidies Support

Homeless & Housing Manage Rent Emergency Human Support in the Subsidies & Housing Services Preparation Community Allowances

Manage Affordable Boxes shaded Housing and Other Non- Subsidized Programs reflect the activities covered in this report Manage Centralized Waiting List

Responsibility for the funding and administration of social housing programs was transferred from the Province of Ontario to Toronto in May 2002. The Social Housing section of the Shelter, Support and Housing Administration Division provides administration and direct funding to all City of Toronto social housing providers including:

• the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) owned by the City of Toronto and governed by a Board of Directors appointed by City Council • community-based non-profits - owned and operated by community-based non-profit corporations, associated with churches, seniors’ organizations and ethno-cultural groups • co-operative non-profit projects developed -owned and managed by its members • private rent supplement buildings - where a private or non- profit landlord sets aside units for households requiring rent-geared-to-income; the City pays the landlord the difference between geared-to-income rent and the market rent for the unit

All social housing providers are responsible for managing their own properties, providing day-to-day property management and tenant relations services.

229

Social Housing Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service / Activity Level Indicators How many social housing Number of Social Stable 1 22.1 units are? Housing Units per 1,000 22.2 Households - (Service Number of Social Highest rate of Social pg. Level) Housing units was Housing Units stable compared to others 231

(service level indicator) (service level indicator) Community Impact Measures How much of a wait is Percentage of Social Decreased 4 22.3 there for a social housing Housing Waiting List 22.4 unit? Placed Annually - Percentage of waiting Lower percentage of pg. (Service Level) list placed decreased waiting list placed compared to others 232 (demand for units exeeds supply) Efficiency Measures What is the Social Housing Increased 1 22.5 administration cost of Administration Costs 22.7 social housing? per Social Housing Unit- Administrative cost per Lower administration (Efficiency) unit increased cost per unit compared pg. to others 233

What is the annual cost Social Housing Subsidy Increased 2 22.5 of direct funding Costs per Social 22.6 (subsidy) paid to social Housing Unit - Subsidy cost per unit Low subsidy cost per housing providers? (Efficiency) increased unit compared to others pg. 233 (one time funding from senior orders of government) Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results)

0- Increased 0- Favourable 1 - 1st quartile 1 - 1st quartile 1- Stable 0 - Stable 0 - 2nd quartile 1- 2nd quartile 0-Decreased. 2 -Unfavour. 0 - 3rd quartile 0 - 3rd quartile 0 - 4th quartile 1 - 4th quartile

100% stable or 0% favourable or 100% above 67% above increased stable median median

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of 13 municipalities.

230 Social Housing Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How many social housing units are there in Toronto? 90 The number of social housing 75 units in a municipality is the 60 primary indicator of service 45 levels. 30 15 Chart 22.1 provides information 0 on Toronto's total number and 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 rate of social housing units per Social Housing Units 86.8 86.7 87.8 84.6 84.9 84.3 82.7 82.2 per 1,000 HH 1,000 households. It shows an Total # of Social 86,811 87,872 90,103 90,027 91,157 91,243 89,640 89,636 increasing trend from 2003 to Housing Units 2005, due to the provincial Note: 2009 results previously reported of 90,998 units and 83.9 units/1,000 households, were restated to be consistent with the methodology transfer of units to the city for used in 2010. social housing administration. Chart 22.1 (City of Toronto) Number of Social Housing Units per 1,000 Households (Service Level) The number of Social Housing

units was stable in 2010, but the How does the number of social housing units in Toronto, City will continue to lose social compare to other municipalities? housing units in its portfolio as 90 federal operating agreements

75 expire.

Median 43.0 60 Chart 22.2 compares Toronto’s

45 2010 result, to other

municipalities for the number of 30 social housing units per 1,000

15 households.

0 Tor Ham Sud Ott Wind Wat Lond Niag Durh Halt Musk York Toronto ranks first of twelve # units 82.2 68.4 61.7 58.1 56.2 43.0 42.9 39.1 31.5 24.8 23.4 20.2 municipalities (first quartile) with Chart 22.2 (OMBI 2010) Number of Social Housing Units per 1,000 Households the highest number of social (Service Level) housing units.

In relation to other municipalities, Toronto's population growth together with the draw of individuals to the City requiring health and social support services, is likely the reason a higher number of social housing units were developed in Toronto to assist the many individuals in need of housing to stabilize their lives.

231 Social Housing Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How much of a wait is there for a social housing unit in Toronto? For individuals and families 10% eligible for Social Housing, the 8% period of time they must wait to get access to this housing is 6% important.

4% Chart 22.3 provides information 2% on the percentage of Toronto’s social housing waiting list that 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 was placed in housing each % waiting list placed 7.3% 8.9% 6.6% 7.3% 6.6% 7.3% 7.1% 5.6% year.

Chart 22.3(City of Toronto) Percentage of Social Housing Waiting List Placed Results have been low over this Annually - (Community Impact) period and declined further in 2010 as the waiting list How does the wait for a social housing unit in Toronto, compare continued to grow. If the 2010 to other municipalities? placement rate of 5.9 per cent 80% was to continue in subsequent years, it would take 60% Median 15.2% approximately 18 years for all those on the 2010 waiting list to 40% gain access to a unit. As a large number of Toronto residents

20% face ongoing financial hardship requiring subsidized rent

0% assistance, and with a lack of Wind Sud Wat Lond Ham Ott Halt Niag Musk Durh Tor York % placed 47.3% 36.6% 26.9% 25.2% 19.5% 16.7% 13.6% 12.1% 10.9% 8.6% 5.6% 4.2% new social housing units, the placement of applicants from the

Chart 22.4 (OMBI 2010) Percentage of Social Housing Waiting List Placed Annually social housing waiting list into (Community Impact) social housing will continue to be low.

Chart 22.4 compares Toronto’s 2010 rate of placement from the waiting list, to other Ontario municipalities. Toronto ranks eleventh of twelve municipalities (fourth quartile) in terms of having the shortest waiting period.

Despite the relatively higher number of social housing units in Toronto, (Chart 22.2) results indicate that demand for these units far exceeds the supply. This was particularly the case in 2010 when the effects of recessionary job losses, among other factors, contributed to an increase in new applications to the centralized social housing waiting list.)

232 Social Housing Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

What is Toronto's total cost of both administration and direct The Social Housing portfolio, funding paid to social housing providers? has two main cost components $7,000 for municipalities: $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 • administration of the portfolio $3,000 • $2,000 direct funding (subsidy) paid $1,000 to all social housing $0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 providers who have total cost/ unit $5,541 $5,388 $5,611 $5,596 $5,408 $5,705 $5,986 $6,356 responsibility for managing admin cost/unit $88 $101 $108 $98 $105 $116 $124 $139 their own properties, subsidy cost /unit $5,453 $5,287 $5,503 $5,498 $5,303 $5,589 $5,862 $6,217 providing day-to-day property 2009 results for costs per unit previously reported of $6,553 (total), $122 (admin) and $6,431 (subsidy) were restated based on a revised figure for the number of units and to adjust for an amended subsidy amount regarding the SHRRP program management and tenant Costs of maintaining the waiting list management that is done by Housing Connections, so the subsidy amount paid by the City for this relations services. funtion has been re-classified from subsidy to administration for the purposes of comparing to other municipalities.

Chart 22.5 (City of Toronto) Total Social Housing Costs (Administration and Subsidy) Chart 22.5 provides a summary per Social Housing Unit (Efficiency) of Toronto’s annual social housing costs per unit. It shows How do Toronto's social housing administration costs, compare an increase in both the subsidy to other municipalities? and administrative cost per unit $200 in 2010. $175 $150 $125 In 2010, the increase in subsidy $100 costs is due primarily to an $75 $50 increase in one time funding $25 $0 from the provincial and federal Toronto OMBI Median governments under the Social $unit $139 $218 Housing Repair and Renovation Program (SHRRP), that is Chart 22.6 (OMBI 2010) Annual Social Housing Administration Cost per Social Housing Unit (Efficiency) flowed to housing providers.

How does Toronto compare to other municipalities for the cost Chart 22.6 compares Toronto’s of direct funding (subsidy) paid to social housing providers? 2010 administrative cost per social housing unit, to the $8,000 Median $6,448 median result of the twelve $7,000 OMBI municipalities. Toronto’s $6,000 $5,000 administrative cost per unit is $4,000 well below the OMBI median, $3,000 and is the second lowest of the $2,000 OMBI municipalities. $1,000 $0 Lond Wind Niag Ham Tor Sud Ott Halt Musk Wat Durh York Chart 22.7 compares Toronto’s $unit $4,779 $4,917 $5,872 $6,023 $6,217 $6,270 $6,626 $6,670 $6,780 $7,080 $7,189 $7,364 2010 direct funding (subsidy) cost per social housing unit to Chart 22.7 (OMBI 2010) Total Social Housing Subsidy Costs per Social Housing other municipalities. Toronto Unit (Efficiency) ranks fifth of twelve municipalities (second quartile), in terms of having the lowest subsidy costs.

233

2009 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

In 2010 Toronto’s social housing subsidy costs are lower than a number of other municipalities but this may be as a result of the temporary provincial and funding available to municipalities under the SHRRP program. Historically, Toronto's subsidy costs have been higher than other municipalities in the rest of the province for the following reasons:

• part of the social housing subsidy is a mortgage subsidy and the original capital costs of land and construction were usually higher in Toronto than elsewhere, thus the required mortgage and associated annual mortgage costs require increased subsidy costs • Toronto has a disproportionate amount of old public housing stock. This stock is 100 per cent rent geared to income (RGI). Toronto's higher proportion of RGI units in the portfolio as a whole, and the highest level of market rents in the province , means higher rent geared to income subsidy costs. RGI subsidy also increases if tenant income decreases. • funding levels established in the GTA for the former provincial housing providers are different from those of other areas in the province. On average, GTA levels are higher per unit than other large urban areas and also higher per unit than small urban and rural areas. • Toronto has a much higher level of alternative providers that provide housing to the homeless and hard to house. These providers are funded at a much higher level than other providers. • in 2008, and 2009 the City of Toronto provided additional capital funding subsidy to a number of housing providers

2011 Achievements and 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following initiatives are expected to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Social Housing Services in Toronto:

2011 Initiatives Completed/Achievements:

• continued to deliver the Social Housing Renovation and Retrofit Program (SHRRP )funded by the Federal and Provincial governments, to repair and renovate social housing infrastructure. Upgrades such as mechanical systems, will contribute to operating efficiencies in a number of social housing providers. • continued to deliver the Renewable Energy Initiative (REI) program of SHRRP. The funding will enable social housing providers to make investments to reduce their energy costs by installing renewable energy technologies for heating, cooling or generating electricity • continued to provide support to social housing providers to strengthen their capacity to deliver and maintain social housing communities through the continuance of social housing provider training in management and administration, governance and asset management. • administered the provincial Short-term Rent Support Program (STRSP), which is a time-limited program to be administered between 2011 and 2013 to help address housing affordability issues faced by households in need. The City of Toronto was approved an allocation of $21M to deliver the program.

2012 Initiatives Planned

• review of the Social Housing Waiting List and related housing access services to improve customer service • continue to provide support to social housing providers to strengthen their capacity to deliver and maintain social housing communities through the continuance of social housing provider training in management and administration, governance and asset management • continue to deliver the Social Housing Renovation and Retrofit Program funded by the federal and Provincial governments, to repair and renovate social housing infrastructure 234 Social Housing Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

• continue to deliver the Renewable Energy Initiative (REI) program of SHRRP, investing in renewable energy technologies to reduce energy costs. • continue to administer the Short-term Rent Support Program (STRSP) providing economic relief to vulnerable households in Toronto who are struggling with housing affordability • The federal and provincial governments have committed over $480.6 million to Ontario through the Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) program over the next three years. Up to $108 million has been allocated to Toronto for initiatives under four program components – housing allowances, home repair, funding construction of new rental housing, and affordable home ownership. The City's participation in the program will reduce pressure on public expenditures by helping to keep vulnerable low-income renters and home owners housed and reduce dependence on more expensive emergency service systems.

Factors Influencing the Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality included in this report can be influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

• housing stock: age and supply (both private and municipal), and adequacy of capital reserves to maintain them • demographic and economic conditions: may increase waiting list pressure, i.e. loss of local industry, rapid growth, percentage of Special Priority Policy applicants • wait list management: frequency of the service manager updating the waiting list and cancelling applicants no longer actively seeking RGI housing • portfolio mix: older federal units are generally less costly than units built under subsequent provincial programs (fewer assisted units, lower land costs) • geographic conditions: construction and land costs, higher snow removal costs in northern areas of the province, rental market availability, utility costs and usage profiles • tenant mix: seniors communities are usually less costly to operate than families and singles

235

SSoolliidd WWaassttee MMaannaaggeemmeenntt SSeerrvviicceess

Solid Waste Management Services

Solid Waste Solid Waste Transfer, Collection Processing & Disposal

Curbside collection Material Receiving Material Processing Material Transport Residual Disposal

Green Lane Multi- Residential Green Bin Green Bin Green Bin Transport (Landfill) Operation Collection Receiving Processing & Disposal

Small Commercial Yard Waste Yard Waste Yard Waste Former Landfill Site Waste Collection Receiving Processing Transport Care

Recyclables Recyclables Recyclables Litter Collection Receiving Processing Transport

Customer Drop-off Durable Goods Durable Goods Durable Goods At Depots Receiving Processing Transport

Munic.Hazardous or Community Residual Receiving Special Waste Residual Transport Environment Days Processing

Munic.Hazardous or Munic.Hazardous or Bins and Tags Special Waste Special Waste Receiving Transport

The City's Solid Waste Management Services division is responsible for the handling, transfer, and disposal of garbage, as well as the diversion of blue box materials, organics, and yard waste in order to reduce reliance on landfill sites, and lessen the impact on the environment.

A variety of other programs are also offered and coordinated to help citizens and businesses reduce the waste they generate and meet the municipal goal of reducing or diverting the amount of waste disposed in landfill sites. This is achieved through programs such as:

• blue box (bottles, cans, paper, etc.) • green bin (food waste) • household hazardous waste • composting initiatives (leaf and yard waste)

In Toronto and some other municipalities commercial customers are also served through waste diversion programs such as food waste collection and the yellow bag program. With the yellow bag program, businesses must buy bags from the municipality to be eligible for waste collection.

236 Solid Waste Management Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Community Impact Measures How much solid waste is Percentage of Solid Increased 2 23.1 recycled/diverted away Waste Diverted - 23.2 from landfill sites? Residential Overall diversion rate Overall diversion rate at (Community Impact) increased median compared to pg. others 238 (impacted by significance of apartments in Toronto) How much waste from Percentage of Waste Increased 1 23.1 houses is recycled/ Diverted – Single Unit 23.3 diverted away from homes/houses Diversion rate for single Highest diversion rate landfill sites? (Curbside) – unit houses/homes for houses compared to pg. (Community Impact) (curbside) increased others 238 How much waste from Percentage of Waste Increased 3 23.1 apartments is recycled/ Diverted – Multi- 23.4 diverted away from Residential – Multi-residential Low multi-residential landfill sites? (Community Impact) diversion rate increased diversion rate compared pg. to others 238 Customer Service Measures How many garbage Number of Solid Waste Decreased 3 23.5 collection complaints are Complaints per 1,000 23.6 received? Households Rate of complaints Slightly higher (Customer Service) decreased rate of complaints pg. compared to others 239 Efficiency Measures How much does it cost to Operating Costs for Increased 3 23.7 collect a tonne of Residential Garbage 23.8 garbage? Collection per Tonne – Cost of waste collection Slightly higher cost of (Efficiency) for all housing types solid waste collection pg. increased for all housing types 240 compared to others How much does it cost to Operating Costs for Stable 4 23.9 dispose of a tonne of Solid Waste Disposal 23.10 garbage? (All Streams) per Tonne Cost of solid waste Higher cost of solid pg. 241 – (Efficiency) disposal was stable waste disposal compared to others How much does it cost to Net Operating Costs for Decreased 4 23.11 recycle a tonne of solid Residential Solid Waste 23.12

waste? Diversion per Tonne – Net cost of solid waste Higher cost of solid pg. (Efficiency) diversion decreased waste diversion 242 compared to others (related to high diversion rate for houses & green bin program) Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results) 5 - Favourable 1 - 1st quartile n/a 1 - Stable n/a 1 - 2nd quartile 1 - Unfavour. 3 - 3rd quartile . 2 - 4th quartile 86% favourable or 29% above stable median For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of 15 municipalities. 237 Solid Waste Management Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How much of Toronto’s solid waste is diverted away from landfill Diversion rates are an important sites? measure to determine progress

70% towards the goal of diverting 60% solid waste away from landfill 50% sites. Chart 23.1 provides 40% 30% Toronto’s residential diversion 20% rates, by housing component. 10% 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Div%-curbside/houses 32% 35% 38% 43% 49% 53% 58% 59% 59% 60% 63% From 2000 to 2006 diversion Div%- multi-res 9% 10% 11% 12% 12% 13% 13% 13% 15% 16% 18% rates climbed in single unit Div%- Overall combined 25% 27% 28% 32% 36% 40% 42% 43% 44% 44% 47% homes/houses with new diversion programs, but Chart 23.1 (City of Toronto) Percentage of Residential Solid Waste Diverted stabilized from 2007-2009. The (Community Impact) 2010 diversion rate increased with the introduction of volume How does Toronto’s combined residential diversion rate based user rates for garbage compare to other municipalities? bins, which provided an 60% Median - Overall 46.8% incentive to recycle/ divert more 50% waste. In the multi-residential/ 40% apartment sector (where 30% recycling tends not to be 20% convenient for residents) new 10% 0% programs were introduced in Halt Durh Wat Musk York Bar Ham Tor Sud Lond Niag Wind Ott T-Bay Calg 2009 that has resulted in Div. % 55.2% 51.6% 51.0% 50.2% 49.8% 48.5% 48.0% 46.8% 45.0% 40.9% 40.7% 39.0% 38.8% 31.3% 29.1% improved diversion in 2010.

Chart 23.2 (OMBI 2010) Percentage of Residential Waste Diverted (Community Impact) Chart 23.2 compares Toronto’s 2010 overall combined diversion How does Toronto’s diversion rate for houses compare to other rate (both single unit municipalities? homes/houses and multi- residential building) to other 80% Median- multi-residential 45.4% 60% municipalities. Toronto ranks eighth of fifteen (third quartile) in 40% terms of having the highest 20% diversion rate, primarily 0% Tor Durh Halt Bar Sud Ott Lond Calg Winn because, unlike other % Div. Houses 62.9% 59.0% 58.7% 51.7% 45.4% 42.0% 40.9% 22.7% 15.8% municipalities, apartments (with their low diversion rates) Chart 23.3 (OMBI 2010) Percentage of Residential Waste Diverted for Houses comprise 48 per cent of the total (Curbside)- (Community Impact) housing stock in Toronto.

How does Toronto’s diversion rate for multi-residential housing, Chart 23.3 shows that in compare to other municipalities? comparison to other 25% municipalities, Toronto had the Median- multi-residential 18.5% 20% highest/best diversion rate of the OMBI municipalities in 2010 for 15% 10% single family homes/houses. Chart 23.4, compares Toronto’s 5% 2010 multi-residential 0% Bar Ott Tor Durh (apartments) diversion rate to % Div. Multi-res 21.0% 19.2% 17.8% 13.4% other municipalities. Toronto ranks third out of four Chart 23.4 (OMBI 2010) Percentage of Residential Waste Diverted for Multi- rd Residential/Apartments- (Community Impact) municipalities (3 quartile) in terms of having the highest diversion rate. 238 Solid Waste Management Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How many complaints does Toronto receive about solid waste The level of complaints from collection? residents is one method of 50 assessing the quality of service provided. Chart 23.5 provides the 40 rate of complaints in Toronto per 1,000 households concerning the 30 collection of solid waste and 20 recycled materials.

10 Typically, there are increases in 0 complaint rates in years when new 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 initiatives have been introduced. # complaints per 31 29 33 39 41 47 37 26 28 34 22 1,000 HH In 2010, the complaint rate fell to its Chart 23.5 (City of Toronto) Number of Complaints Received in a Year Concerning the lowest levels in the eleven year Collection of Solid Waste and Recycled Material per 1,000 Households (Customer Service) period as residents adjusted to the new programs. How does Toronto’s solid waste complaint rate compare to other municipalities? Chart 23.6 compares Toronto's 40 2010 rate of garbage collection complaints to the median of OMBI municipalities. Toronto ranks eighth 30 of fourteen (third quartile) in terms of having the lowest complaint rate. 20

Results can be influenced by 10 different interpretations of a complaint versus an enquiry. 0 OMBI Median Tor # Complaints 21.3 21.6

Chart 23.6 (OMBI 2010) Number of Complaints Received in a Year Concerning the Collection of Solid Waste and Recycled Material per 1,000 Households

239 Solid Waste Management Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How much does it cost to collect one tonne of garbage in Toronto? In solid waste management there are three main activities where $120 900 $106.53 efficiency can be compared on a $105 800 cost per tonne basis: $90 $86.63 700 • solid waste collection 600 • $75 solid waste disposal 500 • solid waste diversion $60 400 $45 300 Chart 23.7 provides Toronto’s cost Costof solid waste collectionper tonne

$30 200 of solid waste collection per tonne, $15 100 which are plotted as bars relative to $0 0 the left axis. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Impact of change in acct. policy -$1.69 $12.06 $ per tonne $50.06 $49.51 $57.05 $61.47 $67.25 $69.92 $70.61 $83.43 $88.99 $88.32 $94.47 The tonnes of waste (in thousands) tonnes (000's) 824.7 783.6 702.1 653.1 619.9 562.0 524.9 505.0 493.8 445.3 496.0 collected over this 11-year period The 2009 figure previously reported of $78.89/tonne was restated to $86.63 to correct an allocation error between waste collection and are also provided as a line graph diversion activities. The 2010 figure has also been revised from $100.35 in the OMBI Joint Report to revise cost allocations within SWM activities. relative to the right axis. It shows a Chart 23.7 (City of Toronto) Operating Cost of Solid Waste Collection per Tonne decrease of 40 per cent or 329,000 (Efficiency) and Tonnes of Solid Waste Collected tonnes, over this period arising from the success of the City’s diversion How does Toronto’s cost of garbage collection compare to other programs. As a result, the longer municipalities? term trend has seen the cost per

$400 tonne increase each year as fixed costs are spread over smaller $350 volumes. $300 Median $103 $250 Starting in 2009, changes in

$200 accounting policies were instituted by all Ontario municipalities as $150 described on page 26. The impact $100 of these accounting policy changes $50 in 2010 amounted to almost $12

$0 per tonne and has been plotted as Ott Durh Lond Wind Niag Bar Halt Tor Wat Sud Calg T-Bay Ham Musk a stacked column to isolate it from $tonne 71.62 77.53 90.96 92.86 93.97 99.50 104.90 106.53 106.82 107.71 157.04 165.80 216.75 369.10 other costs. Excluding the impact of Chart 23.8 (OMBI 2010) Cost for Residential Solid Waste Collection per Tonne the accounting policy change, 2010 (Efficiency) costs increased over 2009 when costs were lower as a result of the 6- week strike.

Chart 23.8 compares Toronto’s 2010 solid waste collection costs to other municipalities. Toronto ranks eighth of fourteen (third quartile), in terms of having the lowest cost per tonne.

Toronto’s collection operations are provided through a combination of municipal staff and contracted services. Overall costs in relation to other municipalities are lowered by the significance of multi-residential collection (bulk-lift), which is much less expensive than curbside collection. Toronto's curbside collection costs can be higher relative to other municipalities due in part to factors such as on-street parking, one-way streets and heavy traffic volumes that impact collection efficiency.

240 Solid Waste Management Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How much does it cost Toronto to dispose of one tonne of garbage? Chart 23.9 summarizes Toronto’s

2,000 cost of solid waste disposal per $160 $111 $139 $140 1,800 tonne, plotted as bars relative to

$120 1,600 $100 1,400 the left axis. Tonnes disposed (in $80 1,200 thousands) are also plotted as a $60 $127 $131 1,000 line graph relative to the right $40 800 axis. disposalper tonne $20 600 Costof solid waste

400 $0 -$16 -$20 200 Starting in 2009, changes in -$40 - 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Tonneswaste of disposed (000s) accounting policies were change in acct. policy -$16 $8 instituted by all Ontario $/tonne $33 $40 $41 $70 $74 $78 $89 $110 $119 $127 $131 tonnes (000's) 1,859 1,810 1,656 1,164 984 857 775 670 668 586 560 municipalities as described on The 2010 figure has been revised from $102 in the OMBI Joint Report to revise cost allocations within SWM activities. page 26. The 2010 impact of these accounting policy changes Chart 23.9 (City of Toronto) Cost of Solid Waste Disposal per Tonne (Efficiency) and amounted to an increase of Tonnes of Solid Waste Disposed $8 per tonne and has been

plotted as a stacked column to How does Toronto’s cost of solid waste disposal, compare to isolate it from other costs. other municipalities?

$225 From 2002 to 2009 the disposal

$200 cost per tonne increased steadily

$175 due to:

$150 • the closure of the Keele

Valley landfill in 2002 $125 • the higher cost of $100 Median $64 transporting waste to

$75 Michigan (contract expired in

$50 2010) for disposal

$25 • The 2007 acquisition of the

Green Lane Landfill site $0 Lond T-Bay Niag Ott Wat Calg Wind Sud Halt Bar York Ham Tor Durh Musk located 200 km from Toronto $tonne 19 29 33 35 56 63 63 64 75 96 102 108 139 142 192 and higher fuel surcharges Chart 23.10 (OMBI 2010) Cost for Solid Waste Disposal per Tonne (Efficiency) that are part of contract with haulers

Another factor in Toronto's increasing cost trend has been the significant decline in the volume of waste disposed by-70 per cent between 2000 and 2010 or almost 1.3 million tonnes, due to enhanced diversion programs and the reduction of commercial waste, which has gone to other service providers. As a result fixed costs are spread over lower volumes. Excluding the impact of accounting policy changes costs in 2010 were stable.

Chart 23.10 compares Toronto’s 2010 solid waste disposal costs per tonne, to other municipalities Toronto ranks 13th of 15 (fourth quartile) in terms of having the lowest cost of solid waste disposal This arises from increased costs associated with transporting and disposing waste to the Green Lane landfill site as opposed to many other municipalities that have local landfill sites.

241 Solid Waste Management Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How much does it cost in Toronto to divert one tonne of Chart 23.11 shows Toronto’s cost garbage away from landfill? of solid waste diversion per tonne, from 2000 to 2010. This is

$307 $400 $334 70% contrasted against the City’s

$350 60% overall/combined diversion rate $300 50% $250 40% (houses and multi-residential $200 30% $150 $303 $282 apartments) and the diversion $100 20% $50 10% rate for houses only, which are Costof solid waste diversionper tonne $0 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 reflected as line graphs relative Impact of change $31 $25 to the right axis. in acct. policy

$cost/tonne $120 $140 $135 $170 $156 $184 $206 $202 $230 $303 $282 residentialof % solidwaste diverted Div%-houses 32% 35% 38% 43% 49% 53% 58% 59% 59% 60% 63% Traditional recyclables such as Div%-combined 25% 27% 28% 32% 36% 40% 42% 43% 44% 45% 47% paper and containers have lower The 2009 figure previously reported of $343/tonne was restated to $334 to correct an allocation error between waste collection and diversion collection and processing costs activities. The 2010 figure has also been revised from $359 in the OMBI Joint Report to revise cost allocations within SWM activities. and high market values Chart 23.11 (City of Toronto) Net Operating Cost of Solid Waste Diversion per (revenues from the sale of Tonne (Efficiency) and Percentage of Residential Solid Waste Diverted (Community diverted materials is offset Impact) against costs for this measure).

How does Toronto’s cost of solid waste diversion, compare to In recent years, enhanced other municipalities? diversion programs such as the $400 green bin program have

$350 increased diversion rates, but Median $147 $300 they also are more costly to

$250 collect and process, and

$200 processed materials have much

$150 lower market values. Generally,

$100 as diversion rates rise, so will

$50 diversion costs on a per tonne

$0 basis, as has been the T-Bay York Ham Lond Wind Wat Bar Halt Durh Sud Niag Calg Ott Tor Musk experience in Toronto. $ tonne 88 89 107 109 119 134 138 147 162 166 171 199 216 307 343 Chart 23.12 (OMBI 2010) Net Cost of Solid Waste Diversion per Tonne (Efficiency)

Starting in 2009, changes in accounting policies were instituted by all Ontario municipalities as described on page 26. The 2010 impact of these accounting policy changes amounted to an increase of $25/tonne and has been plotted as a stacked column to isolate it from other costs. The key factor behind the reduced net costs in 2010 was a significant increase in revenues from the sale of recycled materials due to improved commodity prices after the recession.

Chart 23.12 compares Toronto’s 2010 diversion costs per tonne to other municipalities. Toronto ranks fourteenth of fifteen municipalities (fourth quartile) with the second highest costs. However, these diversion programs have also resulted in Toronto having the highest diversion rates for single-family homes/houses (Chart 23.3). Organics (green bin) materials also comprise a larger proportion of Toronto's diverted materials and these tend to be more costly to process into compost than other types of recyclables.

Toronto’s green bin program also differs from many others in that it accepts diapers, sanitary products and plastic bags (with the organics). The acceptance of these additional items and subsequent removal of plastic materials from the green bins means that Toronto requires a longer process with greater associated costs and should be considered when comparing to other municipalities with programs that do not accept these materials.

242 Solid Waste Management Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

2011 Achievements and 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following initiatives have and are expected to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of solid waste management services in Toronto:

2011 Initiatives Completed/Achievements:

• increased the residential diversion in 2011 to 49 per cent from 47 per cent o multi-residential rose to 20 per cent from 18 per cent o the participation rates in diversion programs was 96% for the blue bin program and 87 per cent for the green bin program o reduced the use of plastic bags in retail stores by 53 per cent o reduced the volume of residual waste disposed in Landfill sites by 50% since 2001 o increased diversion of electronic waste • awarded the contracting out of daytime residential curbside collection in the area west of Yonge ( to commence in August 2012) with an estimated annual saving of $11 million • awarded a Request for Proposal to contract with a Material Recovery Facility vendor to process up to 140,000 tonnes per year of single stream material • continued construction of the Disco Road organics processing facility and emergency repairs to the Dufferin organics processing facility • completed the construction of a Leaf & Yard waste receiving and transfer facility • completed renovations at a number of transfer stations and yards

2012 Initiatives Planned:

• expand the Green Bin program to include apartments & condominiums and non-residential locations such as schools, institutions and charities • build additional Source Separated Organics processing capacity that will allow for expansion, and provide long term stability for the Green Bin program • establish reusable goods drop-off centres to provide residents with one-stop location for reusable goods • invest in a Mechanical and Biological Treatment Facility to enable more effective separation of organics, recycling and residual waste and to extend the life of the Green Lane Landfill site • construct the leachate and landfill gas collection system for a new cell at the Green Lane Landfill site • implement contracting out of residential curbside collection in District 2 to achieve savings and an equal split of 50% in-house and contracted services with no impact on service levels and standards

Factors Influencing the Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality included in this report can be influenced to varying degrees by factors such as: • governance: single-tier vs. upper-tier vs. mixed municipal systems • program design: based on urban/rural mix of single-family homes, multi-unit residential buildings, commercial, industrial, seasonal homes and tourists, age of infrastructure, proximity to collection sites, processing sites and sellable markets • participation: the rate of public participation in recycling activities • service levels: frequency of collection, bag limits, single stream waste collection vs. co-collection programs, hours of operations and the number and types of materials collected • education: how municipalities promote, manage and enforce their garbage collection, disposal, recycling and diversion programs and services • disposal method: location of landfill site (local or outside municipality) or use of incineration

243

SSppoorrttss && RReeccrreeaattiioonn SSeerrvviicceess

Sports and recreation services provide physical and social activities for all ages that are important contributing factors to mental and physical well-being. Municipally managed sports and recreation facilities and programming play a key role in supporting a healthy quality of life for residents.

Sports and recreation activities are provided at facilities such as:

• community centres • indoor and outdoor pools

• indoor and outdoor artificial ice rinks • schools • sports fields • tennis courts

Programming can be provided and managed either directly by municipal staff, or indirectly through other groups, such as community sport and recreation associations that are supported by the municipality through access to facilities, and/or operating grants.

The three main types of programming offered are:

• registered programs – where residents register to participate in structured activities such as swimming lessons, dance or fitness classes, or day camps • drop-in programs – where residents participate in unstructured sport and recreation activities such as leisure swimming or skating, fitness centres, or gym sports • permitted programs – where residents and/or community organizations obtain permits or short-term rental of sports and recreation facilities such as sports fields, meeting rooms, and arenas (e.g. hockey league renting ice)

244

SSppoorrttss && RReeccrreeaattiioonn SSeerrvviicceess

Boxes shaded reflect the activities covered in this report Parks, Forestry & Recreation

Community Recreation Parks Urban Forestry

Recreational & Recreational & Drop-In & Leisure Rec Community Capacity Permitted Parks & Rec Registered Rec Facilities Planning & Facilities Operations, Programs Building Activities Programs Development Maintenance & Support

Leisure Arts & General Permitted Activities - Instructional Arts & Youth Outreach Skil Hill Operations Interest Parks General Interest

Permitted Activities - Instructional Fitness & Leisure Skating Volunteerism Facility Operations Recreation Sports

Leisure Fitness & Recreation Support Welcome Policy Instructional Skating Sports (planning)

Community Afterschool Recreation Golf Stadium Operations Engagement Care (ARC)

Outdoor Rink Adapted and Integrated Leisure Swim Diversity Operations Programs

Special Events Camps

Instructional Aquatics

245

Sports & Recreation Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service Level Indicators How many indoor pools Number of Operational Stable 2 24.1 are available? Indoor Pool Locations 24.2 (with municipal Number of indoor pool High rate of indoor pool influence) per 100,000 locations was stable locations compared to pg. Population (Service others 249 Level) (service level indicator) (service level indicator)

How many indoor ice Number of Operational Decreased 4 24.3 pads (rinks) are Indoor Ice Pads (with 24.4 available? Municipal Influence) per Number of indoor ice Lowest rate of indoor 100,000 Population rinks/pads decreased ice rinks/pads compared pg. (Service Level) to others 250 (service level indicator) (service level indicator)

(population density is a factor) How many large sports Number of Large Increased 3 24.5 and recreation Operational Sports and 24.6 community centres are Recreation Community Number of large sports Low rate of large sports available? Centres (with Municipal & recreation community & recreation community pg. Influence) per 100,000 centres increased centres compared to 251 Population (Service others Level) (service level indicator) (service level indicator)

(population density is a factor) How many small sports Number of Small Increased 3 24.5 and recreation Operational Sports and 24.6 community centres are Recreation Community Number of small sports Low rate of small sports available? Centres (with Municipal & recreation community & recreation community pg. Influence) per 100,000 centres increased centres compared to 251 Population (Service others Level) (service level indicator) (service level indicator)

(population density is a factor) How old are the sports Percentage of Sports 3 24.7 and recreation and Recreation Centres community centres? (with Municipal Low proportion of pg. Influence), under 25 N/A sports & recreation 252 years of age (Service centres less than 25 Level) years old compared to others

(service level indicator)

(population density is a factor)

246

Sports & Recreation Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 How old are the indoor Percentage of Indoor 4 24.8 pools? Pool Locations (with Municipal Influence), N/A Lower proportion of pg. under 25 years of age indoor pools less than 252 (Service Level) 25 years old compared to others

(service level indicator) How old are the indoor Percentage of Indoor 4 24.9 ice pads/rinks? Ice Pads (with Municipal Influence), under 25 N/A Lowest proportion of pg. years of age (Service indoor ice pads less 252 Level) than 25 years old compared to others

(service level indicator) How much registered Overall Participant Increased 3 24.10 sports and recreation Capacity for Directly 24.11

programming is offered? Provided Registered Registered Low rate of registered pg. Programs (Service programming offered programming offered 253 Level) increased over 2009 compared to others (year of strike) (service level indicator) (service level indicator) Community Impact Measures How much registered Number of Participant Increased 3 24.10 sports and recreation Visits per Capita – 24.11

programming is being Directly Provided Amount of registered Low rate of registered pg. used? Registered Programs programming used programming used per 253 (Community Impact) increased over 2009 capita compared to (year of strike) others What percentage of Annual Number of Increased 2 24.14 residents register for at Unique Users for 24.15 least one sports and Directly Provided Percentage of Low percentage of pg. recreation program? Registered Programs as population using population using 255 a Percentage of registered programs registered programs Population (Community increased over 2009 compared to others Impact) (year of strike) How frequently do Percentage of Toronto Stable 24.16 Toronto residents use Survey Respondents N/A pg. City of Toronto Using Toronto Stable level of 256 Community Centres? Community Centres Community Centre (Community Impact) usage in 2011 Customer Service Measures What percentage of the Utilization Rate of Increased 2 24.12 capacity of registered Available Capacity for 24.13

programs is being used? Directly Provided Percentage of capacity High rate of capacity pg. Registered Programs used for registered used for registered 254 (Customer Service) programs increased sports & recreation programs compared to others

247 Sports & Recreation Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 How satisfied are users Percentage of Toronto Stable 24.17 of City of Toronto Survey Respondents N/A pg. Community Centres? Satisfied With Use of Stable but high level of 256 Community Centres satisfaction with (Customer Service) community centres in 2011 Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results)

3- Increased 3- Favourable 0- 1st quartile 0 - 1st quartile 1 - Stable 2 - Stable 1 - 2nd quartile 1 - 2nd quartile 1 -Decreased 0 -Unfavour. 4 - 3rd quartile 2 - 3rd quartile 3 - 4th quartile 0 - 4th quartile

80% 100% favourable 13% above 33% above favourable or or stable median median stable

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of eight municipalities.

248

Sports & Recreation Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How many indoor pools are there in Toronto? Comparing the number of sports 3.5 and recreation facilities in 3.0 municipalities can provide an 2.5 indication on one aspect of 2.0 service levels. 1.5 1.0 Chart 24.1 provides Toronto's 0.5 total number and rate of owned 0.0 and/or operated indoor pool 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 locations per 100,000 # pool locations/ 3.16 2.93 2.9 2.83 2.84 2.74 2.77 2.75 2.52 2.43 2.42 100K pop'n population. The number of pool Total # locations decreased by two 81 76 76 75 76 74 75 75 69 67 67 pool locations (School Board locations) in 2009 but was stable at 67 locations in Chart 24.1 (City of Toronto) Number of Indoor Pool Locations per 100,000 Population 2010. (Service Level) Chart 24.2 compares Toronto's How does the number of indoor pools in Toronto, compare to 2010 results to other other municipalities? municipalities for the number of (owned and/or managed) indoor 4.0 5,000 Median 2.21 pool locations per 100,000

3.5 4,500

population that are plotted as 4,000 3.0 bars relative to the left axis. 3,500 2.5 3,000 Toronto ranks fourth of eight 2.0 2,500 pop'n per pop'n per sq. km

municipalities (second quartile) 1.5 2,000 - Population 100,000 1,500 in terms of providing the highest

Pool Locations Indoor per 1.0 Density number of indoor pool locations 1,000 0.5 per 100,000 population. 500 0.0 0 Ham Sud T-Bay Tor Bar Ott Wind Lond # pools/ 3.41 3.15 2.75 2.42 2.00 1.96 1.37 1.10 100K pop'n

Pop'n density 469 44 332 4,373 1,400 328 1,493 863

Chart 24.2 (OMBI 2010) Number of Indoor Pool Locations per 100,000 Population (Service Level) and Population Density

Population density can be a factor in determining the number of sports and recreation facilities that may be required to meet municipal service needs. Fewer sports and recreation facilities may be required in densely populated areas because of proximity and ease of access, while other less densely populated municipalities may require proportionately more facilities based on a reasonable travel distance for their residents.

Population density (residents per square kilometre) is plotted as a line graph relative to the left axis on Chart 24.2, confirming that Toronto is far more densely populated than any other municipality. Toronto ranks higher in its results for the number of indoor pools than it does for other types of recreation infrastructure such as ice pads and sports and recreation community centres (Charts 24.4 and 24.5).

In addition, Toronto has 58 city outdoor pool locations that are not included in this report. In comparison, the combined number of outdoor pools for all other reporting municipalities is 42 who serve a combined population of over 2.4 million, yet with much lower population densities than the City of Toronto.

249 Sports & Recreation Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How many indoor ice pads (rinks) are there in Toronto? Chart 24.3 illustrates the total 3.0 number and rate of indoor ice 2.5 pads or rinks, in Toronto per 2.0 100,000 population. 1.5 In 2010, Toronto's result 1.0 decreased, as Lakeshore Lions 0.5 Arena was replaced by the 0.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 MasterCard Centre of # ice pads/ 2.46 2.43 2.4 2.38 2.36 2.26 2.26 2.23 2.23 2.36 2.31 Excellence in the Fall of 2009. 100,000 pop'n Total # ice pads 63 63 63 63 63 61 61 61 61 65 64 Chart 24.4 compares 2010 information for Toronto to other Chart 24.3 (City of Toronto) Number of Indoor Ice Pads per 100,000 Population municipalities on the number of (Service Level) indoor ice pads/rinks (owned

and/or managed) per 100,000 How does the number of indoor ice pads (rinks) in Toronto, persons. These are plotted as compare to other municipalities? bars relative to the left axis.

10 5,000 Toronto ranks eighth of eight 9 Median 5.29 4,500 8 4,000 municipalities (fourth quartile),

7 3,500 with the lowest number of indoor

6 3,000 ice pads per 100,000 population.

5 2,500

pop'n per sq. km

4 2,000 -

3 1,500 Population 100,000 per Pads Ice Indoor 2 1,000 Density 1 500 0 0 T- Sud Lond Bar Ott Ham Wind Tor Bay # ice pads/100,000 pop'n 9.44 7.33 6.02 5.34 5.23 4.92 4.56 2.31 Pop'n density 44 332 863 1,400 328 469 1,493 4,373

Chart 24.4 (OMBI 2010) Number of Indoor Ice Pads per 100,000 Population (Service Level) and Population Density

As previously noted, population density is a significant factor in the number of sports and recreation facilities, such as ice pads, located in municipalities. Population density has been plotted as a line graph relative to the right axis in Chart 24.4.

Fewer ice pads may be required in densely populated areas because of proximity and ease of access, while other less densely populated municipalities may require proportionately more ice pads based on reasonable travel distances for their residents. The diversity of a municipality’s population can also impact the demand for different types of ice use such as learning to skate or playing hockey.

In addition Toronto has 63 outdoor artificial (refrigerated) ice rinks (not included in measure), and these appear to be more prevalent in Toronto than in the other reporting municipalities (which have a combined a total of seven outdoor ice pads).

There are also 36 indoor ice pads available in Toronto from other service providers however, if all of the outdoor artificial ice rinks as well as indoor ice pads of other service providers were also taken into account, Toronto would still rank eighth in this population based measure.

250

Sports & Recreation Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How many sports and recreation community centres exist in Chart 24.5 provides Toronto's Toronto? total number and rate of large 6.00 (more than 10,000 sq. ft) and small (less than 10,000 sq. ft) 5.00 sports and recreation centres. In 2010, two small centres were 4.00 added, and 5 additional large centres were included in the 3.00 facility listing.

2.00 Toronto also has ten facilities, which are operated as 1.00 Association of Community Centres that are multi-purpose 0.00 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 facilities which may provide # Small Com. Ctr. 48 48 50 51 50 49 50 51 51 51 53 recreation opportunities to # Large Com. Ctr. 80 81 82 82 83 83 83 83 83 83 88 residents and organizations. # Total Com.Ctr. per 100,000 Pop'n 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.1 # Small Com. Ctr. per 100,000 Pop'n 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 # Large Com. Ctr. per 100,000 Pop'n 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.2 Chart 24.6 compares Toronto's 2010 results to other municipalities for the number of Chart 24.5 (City of Toronto) Number of Large and Small Sports and Recreation sports and recreation community Community Centres per 100,000 Population (Service Level) centres per 100,000 population.

These are plotted as bars How does the number of sports and recreation community relative to the left axis. In order centres in Toronto, compare to other municipalities? to be included in this measure,

the municipality must have some

60 5,000 Median - Total Community Centres 8.7 control or influence over the population per square km. (density)populationkm.square per

4,500 programming offered at the 50 4,000 centre. Toronto uses dedicated 3,500 40 and shared space with school 3,000 boards to provide recreation 30 2,500 programming at 29 school sites, 100,000 per 2,000 20 in addition to satellite locations 1,500 1,000 across the City. of Number centres community 10 500

0 0 In terms of having the largest T- Sud Ott Ham Bar Wind Tor Lond Bay number of community centres

# Small CCs/100,000 pop'n 42.2 13.8 10.5 5.3 1.3 1.4 1.9 2.2 per 100,000 population, Toronto

# Large CCs/100,000 pop'n 5.0 0.9 2.5 3.4 5.3 4.1 3.2 2.2 ranks fifth of eight municipalities # all CCs/100,000 pop'n 47.2 14.7 13.0 8.7 6.7 5.5 5.1 4.4 (third quartile) for large Pop Density 44 332 328 469 1,400 1,493 4,373 863 community centres and sixth of

Chart 24.6 (OMBI 2010) Number of Large and Small Sports and Recreation eight municipalities (third Community Centres per 100,000 Population (Service Level) & Population Density quartile) for small community centres.

It is generally more expensive to operate multiple small community centres than one larger one of an equivalent size. Toronto’s small sport and recreation centres are distributed city-wide. These locations focus their programming on their local communities.

As noted previously, population density is a significant factor in the number of sports and recreation facilities such as community centres located in municipalities. Population density is plotted as a line graph relative to the right axis in Chart 24.6.Toronto is far more densely populated than the other municipalities.

251 Sports & Recreation Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How old are the sports and recreation community centres in The age of sports and recreation Toronto in comparison to other municipalities? facilities in municipalities 100% provides an indication of service

80% levels and differences in operating costs. Older facilities 60% will require additional operating 40% and capital expenditures to maintain them in a good state of 20% repair, or they may require 0% replacement in the near future. Bar Lond Sud T-Bay Tor Ott Ham Wind >50 yrs 10.0% 25.0% 1.3% 12.5% 25.5% 45.4% 39.1% 8.3% Results for the three major types 25-49 yrs 20.0% 31.3% 72.0% 62.5% 53.2% 37.0% 43.5% 75.0% 15-24 yrs 20.0% 12.5% 13.3% 18.8% 9.2% 10.9% 10.9% 0.0% of sports and recreation 1-14 yrs 50.0% 31.3% 13.3% 6.3% 12.1% 6.7% 6.5% 16.7% infrastructure illustrated on this page are sorted from left to right on the basis of those that have Chart 24.7 (OMBI 2010) Percentage Age Breakdown of Municipally Owned/Managed the largest proportion of their Sports and Recreation Community Centres (Service Level) infrastructure under 25 years of

age (the two bottom sections of How old are the indoor pools in Toronto in comparison to other each stacked bar) municipalities?

100% Chart 24.7 provides an overview

80% as of 2010, of the aging of large

and small sports and recreation 60% community centres in Toronto

40% and other municipalities. Toronto

ranks fifth of eight municipalities 20% (third quartile) in terms of having 0% Lond Bar Sud Ott Wind Ham Tor T-Bay the newest centres, with 21 per

>50 yrs 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 5.6% 17.9% 0.0% cent of the centres under 25

25-49 yrs 0.0% 33.3% 40.0% 44.4% 66.7% 72.2% 68.7% 100.0% years of age. 15-24 yrs 25.0% 0.0% 60.0% 27.8% 0.0% 11.1% 7.5% 0.0% 1-14 yrs 50.0% 66.7% 0.0% 11.1% 33.3% 11.1% 6.0% 0.0% Chart 24.8 reflects the aging of

Chart 24.8 (OMBI 2010) Percentage Breakdown by Age of Municipally indoor pools in Toronto and Owned/Managed Indoor Pools (Service Level) other municipalities. Toronto ranks seventh of eight How old are the indoor ice pads/rinks in Toronto in comparison municipalities (fourth quartile) in to other municipalities? terms of having the newest pools, with only 14 per cent of 100% the pools under 25 years of age. 80% 60% Chart 24.9 provides a 2010 aging of indoor ice pads/rinks in 40% Toronto and other municipalities. 20% Toronto ranks eighth of eight 0% Bar Wind Ham T-Bay Lond Ott Sud Tor municipalities (fourth quartile) in >50 yrs 0.0% 10.0% 11.5% 12.5% 22.7% 29.2% 6.7% 29.7% terms of having the newest ice 25-49 yrs 37.5% 30.0% 46.2% 62.5% 54.5% 50.0% 73.3% 64.1% rinks, with only 6 per cent of the 15-24 yrs 12.5% 20.0% 26.9% 25.0% 0.0% 10.4% 20.0% 0.0% ice pads under 25 years of age. 1-14 yrs 50.0% 40.0% 15.4% 0.0% 22.7% 10.4% 0.0% 6.3%

Chart 24.9 (OMBI 2010) Percentage Breakdown by Age of Municipally Owned/Managed Indoor Ice Pads (Service Level)

252

Sports & Recreation Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How much registered sports and recreation programming is offered to and used by residents in Toronto? Recreation opportunities available in a community 2.5 includes a combination of programs directly provided (by 2.0 municipal staff) and those 1.5 programs that are indirectly provided by other recreation 1.0 providers delivering programming such as 0.5 community sports groups.

0.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Municipalities tailor their sports Registered Visits - Offered/Capita 2.07 1.97 2.03 2.14 2.07 2.08 2.16 2.07 2.13 1.89 2.06 and recreation programming to Registered Visits - Utilized/Capita 1.35 1.31 1.34 1.42 1.46 1.49 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.35 1.53 meet resident needs by blending Total Registered Visits 3,472,511 3,388,404 3,505,749 3,748,714 3,899,730 4,019,933 4,178,084 4,242,633 4,251,319 3,717,589 4,250,578 the mix of registered, drop-in and permitted programs offered Chart 24.10 (City of Toronto) Directly Provided Registered Programs Participant Spaces Offered (Service Level) and Utilized (Community Impact) per Capita Registered sports and recreation programming provided directly How does Toronto’s level of registered sports and recreation by the municipality is the most programming, compare to other municipalities? comparable area of 4.0 Median Offered 2.12 programming between 3.5 municipalities. Examining the Median Utilized 1.50 3.0 amount of registered participant

2.5 spaces offered (spaces available

2.0 in programs multiplied by the

1.5 number of classes in each session) provides an indication 1.0 0.5 of service levels. Comparing how residents utilize or 0.0 Ott Wind T-Bay Bar Tor Lond Sud Ham participate (visits) in the Registered Visits - Offered/Capita 3.58 2.69 2.39 2.18 2.06 1.40 1.36 1.26 programs provides an indication Registered Visits - Utilzed/Capita 2.34 1.47 2.34 1.58 1.53 1.00 0.96 0.96 of residents’ involvement.

Chart 24.11 (OMBI 2010) Directly Provided Registered Programs Participant Spaces, Offered (Service Level) and Utilized per Capita (Community Impact)

. Chart 24.10 provides Toronto’s results for the amount of participant spaces “offered” per capita in registered sports and recreation programming to the public and compares it to the amount actually used or “utilized” per capita by residents. Registered program visits represent a portion of overall visits for recreation programming opportunities.

Toronto saw an increase of fourteen percent in total registered program visits in 2010 but 2009, was an unusual year with no programming during the six week strike in the summer of 2009. In comparison to 2008, the number of visits in 2010 was similar ands it is expected to remain relatively stable in 2011.

Chart 24.11 compares Toronto’s 2010 results to other municipalities for the amount of participant spaces “directly offered” in registered sports and recreation programming to the public and the amount actually used (“utilized”) by residents on a per capita basis.

On the basis of the highest number of participant visits, Toronto ranks fifth of eight (third quartile) for participant spaces offered (capacity) and fifth of eight (third quartile) for participant spaces used (visits).

253 Sports & Recreation Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

What percentage of Toronto’s capacity in registered programs is used? These and previous charts about 100% directly provided registered programs, represent only one 80% component of sports and recreation programming in 60% Toronto and other municipalities. Drop-in (unregistered) programs 40% and permits by community organizations provide the 20% balance of visits for recreation programs. 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Each municipality builds a % capacity used 65.4% 66.2% 65.8% 66.1% 70.4% 71.7% 71.6% 75.1% 72.9% 71.4% 74.3% schedule of recreation opportunities based on the Chart 24.12 (City of Toronto) Percentage Capacity Used - Directly Provided identified needs and interests of Registered Programs (Customer Service) its residents with the resources

available to them, thus the How does Toronto’s capacity utilization for registered programs, proportion of registered compare to other municipalities? programming may vary by

120% municipality Median 71.95%

100% One measure of assessing if the

schedule of registered sports 80% and recreation programming is

responsive to resident demand 60% is the percentage of program

40% capacity that is actually being

used.

20%

Chart 24.12 summarizes 0% T-Bay Ham Tor Bar Lond Sud Ott Wind Toronto’s results for the

% capacity used 98.0% 76.0% 74.3% 72.5% 71.4% 70.9% 65.2% 54.5% percentage of available

participant spaces (capacity) in

Chart 24.13 (OMBI 2010) Percent Capacity Used - Directly Provided Registered registered programs that were Programs (Customer Service) used (actual participant visits) by residents. . Staff continue to look for ways to facilitate resident participation such as Internet registration introduced in the summer of 2004, which increased the utilization rate. The spike in 2007 resulted from a reduction in program offerings/capacity due to cost containment measures in the fall season, while participant visits increased during the same period. In 2009, results were impacted by six week strike during the summer season when programming was not offered. In 2010, the growth in participant visits exceeded the rate of growth in available program capacity, which resulted in increased program utilization.

Chart 24.13 compares Toronto’s 2010 rate of capacity utilization for registered programs to other municipalities. On the basis of the highest utilization of available capacity, Toronto ranks third of eight (second quartile). As demand for programs increases, the most popular times fill quickly. Then staff may offer non-prime time (less desirable) programming at City owned facilities to provide additional opportunities, as well as permitting additional use of school board and other facilities to fulfill customer demand, as existing space is not available during the prime time period.

254

Sports & Recreation Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

What percentage of Toronto’s residents, register for at least one Although it represents only a sports and recreation program? portion of sports and recreation services, one way to measure 7% the success of municipalities in 6% reaching residents through 5% directly provided registered 4% sports and recreation programs, is to examine how many citizens 3% are using the programs. 2% 1% Chart 24.14.depicts the 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 percentage of residents in % residents 6.1% 6.1% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 5.9% 5.9% 5.8% 5.7% 5.0% 5.5% Toronto who registered for at least one sports and recreation program. Individuals who Chart 24.14 (City of Toronto) Percent of Residents Registering for at Least One registered for more than one Sports & Recreation Program (Community Impact) program are only counted once.

Toronto’s 2010 result showed 5.5 percent of the population How does Toronto’s percentage of residents registering for at used registered recreation least one sports and recreation program, compare to other programs, which is an municipalities? improvement over 2009 (which

18% was lower due to the six week

16% strike in the summer of 2009), Median 8.15% 14% however there were fewer

12% unique participants in 2010

10% compared to the last full year of

8% data from 2008 (The decrease

6% was about 2.3% in unique

4% registrants.)

0% Chart 24.15 compares Toronto's Ott Bar Wind Sud Lond Tor Ham T-Bay % residents 15.7% 11.5% 9.1% 8.8% 7.5% 5.5% 4.9% 3.3% 2010 percentage of residents registered in sports and recreation programming to other Chart 24.15 (OMBI 2010) Percent of Residents Registering for at Least One Sports & Recreation Program (Community Impact) municipalities.

Toronto ranks sixth of eight (third quartile) in terms of having the highest percentage of the population using registered programs.

In Toronto, there are many private and non-profit organizations that offer recreation opportunities that residents may opt to use in lieu of municipal services.

Directly offered registered programming is the only area of recreation programming in Toronto that records participant and attendance information for individuals. Participation by specific individuals in directly provided drop in and permitted programs as well as all indirectly provided programming is not recorded in Toronto or by any of the other OMBI partner municipalities and is therefore not available for performance measurement or comparison.

255 Sports & Recreation Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Municipal results for this measure can be influenced by the amount, variety and timing of registered programming offered by municipalities.

How many Torontonians are using City Community Centres?

100% An objective of municipalities is to promote community activities 80% and active participation at

60% community centres through registered, drop-in or permitted 40% programs.

20% Chart 24.16 reflects 2001 to 0% 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2011 results of the Focus % who use at least Ontario Fall Survey Toronto 91.0% 95.0% 92.0% 91.0% 90.0% 93.0% 90.0% 91.0% 89.0% once / year Area. The survey results show Source - Focus Ontario Fall 2011 Survey - 2011 results based on 500 people surveyed the percentage of Toronto survey respondents who used Chart 24.16 (City of Toronto) Percentage of Toronto Survey Respondents Using City Community Centres at least of Toronto Community Centres at Least Once in the Year (Community Impact) once in the year. In 2011, approximately 89% of those How satisfied are visitors to Toronto Community Centres? surveyed, made use of Toronto's 100% Community Centres. 90% 80% 70% Chart 24.17 is also based on the 60% 50% Focus Ontario Fall 2011 Survey 40% and reflects the degree of 30% satisfaction of respondents who 20% 10% used Toronto's Community 0% 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Centres. Of the respondents, 94

Other 7% 9% 9% 9% 8% 7% 9% 8% 9% per cent were somewhat or very Somewhat Satisfied 53% 53% 53% 49% 49% 56% 50% 51% 48% satisfied with City of Toronto Very Satisfied 40% 38% 38% 42% 43% 37% 41% 41% 45% Community Centres. Satisfaction

Source - Focus Ontario Fall 2011 Survey - 2011 results based on 500 people surveyed levels have remained above 90% for the past 10 years. Chart 24.17 (City of Toronto 2010) Percentage of Toronto Survey Respondents Satisfied With Use of Community Centres (Customer Service)

256

Sports & Recreation Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

2011 Achievements or 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following achievements and initiatives have and will help to improve the effectiveness of Toronto’s Sports and Recreation Services.

2011 Achievements

• opened and operated Warden Hilltop Community Centre in the Summer of 2011 • completed 33 consultation sessions for public, stakeholders and focus groups & received 2,700 online surveys for a combined total of 4,400 comments regarding Recreation Services. • continued to provide Open Houses during Parks and Recreation Month across all Districts, for the general public and residents • provided over 5,000 newcomers (including children, youth and adults) with recreation programs and services free of charge, through the Toronto Newcomer Initiative • started the Community Recreation Business Transformation project to improve the reporting of programs by providing accurate and consistent information, to start through the reviewing of Aquatic, Summer Camp and Skating program categories

2012 Initiatives Planned

• implement Part-Time Recreation Worker Wage Harmonization Award. • introduce Pilot Program for Aquatic Preschool Program revisions for instructional swimming to provide a more enjoyable, learning experience for participants • finalize the recommendations in the multi-year Recreation Service Plan, to guide decision- making in the management of and administration of all recreation programs and leisure services across Toronto • complete work on and begin operation of the Regent Park Pool by Summer 2012 • proceed with work on the following facility capital development projects: Warden Woods Community Centre, Canadian Tire Community Centre and Milliken Park Community Recreation Centre. • support the Ontario Summer Games in Summer 2012 by providing Recreation facilities for practice, training sites and event hosting • review the Youth Outreach Worker activities

Factors Influencing the Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality included in this report can be influenced to varying degrees by factors such as: • recreation facilities: number of facilities, mix of facility types and age of facilities • programming: variety of recreation program types offered, number and extent of age groups with targeted programming; frequency and times of program offerings; class length; mix of instructional vs. drop-in vs. permitted programming • transportation: access and the number of program locations • collective agreements: differences in wage rates and staffing structures • socio-economic: needs of different ethnic groups within the community; changes in legislation, such as the impact of Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) on the cost of providing service • utilization rates: user fees influence the decisions of residents to register and how often; availability of qualified and trained staff can impact program offerings

257

TTaaxxaattiioonn SSeerrvviicceess

Revenue Services

Tax, Utility & Revenue Property Tax Billing Utility Billing Parking Tickets Parking Client Accounting and Services Collection

Property Tax & Payment Parking Ticket Tax/Utility Account Payment in Lieu of Water Billings Processing and Processing Administration Tax Billing Collections

Property Revenue Services Assessment Solid Waste Billings Arrears Collection Counter Operations Reviews

Rebate and Deferral Water Meter Revenue Services Revenue Programs Reading Operations Contact Centre Accounting

Municipal Land Appeals Processing Transfer Tax Boxes shaded reflect the activities covered in this Apportionements of Refund Processing Property Tax report

Taxation services involve issuing property tax bills, processing payments and Boxes shaded collecting outstanding amounts. reflect the activities covered in this report Property taxes in Ontario consist of: • a municipal portion that is used to fund services and programs delivered by the municipality such as emergency services, social programs, roads, culture and recreational programs, libraries, planning and development, and public transit • an education portion that is used to fund education across Ontario

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), an independent corporation, is responsible for determining the Current Value Assessment (CVA) and tax class for all properties in Ontario.

Each year, MPAC delivers an annual assessment roll to each municipality containing assessed values for all properties within the municipality. These assessed values form the basis for levying property taxes within the municipality.

Each municipality uses the municipal property tax rates established by their Municipal Council, and the education tax rates established by the province and multiply them against the assessed values to determine and issue property tax bills to property owners.

Property tax rates vary by property class, which include: • residential customers (including single family dwellings, semi-detached, townhouses, low- rise apartments and condominiums) • multi-residential customers (apartment buildings consisting of seven or more rental units) • commercial and industrial property owners • farmland • pipelines • managed forests

258

Taxation Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Customer Service Measures What percentage of Percentage of Accounts Decreased 4 25.1 taxpayers take (All Classes) enrolled in 25.2 advantage of pre- a Pre-Authorized Enrolment in pre- Lowest rate of accounts authorized payment Payment Plan - authorized payment enrolled in pre- pg. plans? (Customer Service) plans decreased authorized payment plan 260 compared to others

(high number of payment dates in Toronto is a factor) Efficiency Measures How successful is the Current Year’s Tax Decreased 2 25.3 City in collecting property Arrears as a 25.4 taxes billed in the current Percentage of Current Current year’s tax Percentage of current year? Year Levy – (Efficiency) arrears decreased year’s tax arrears at pg. median compared to 261 others How successful is the Percentage of Prior Decreased 1 25.3 City in collecting property Year’s Tax Arrears as a 25.4 taxes outstanding from Percentage of Current Prior year’s tax arrears Lower percentage of prior years? Year Levy – (Efficiency) decreased prior year’s tax arrears pg. compared to others 261

What does it cost to Cost to Maintain Decreased 4 25.5 administer a tax Taxation Accounts per 25.6 account? Account Serviced – Cost per account Highest cost per tax (Efficiency) maintained decreased account maintained pg. compared to others 262

(higher service levels/programs is a factor) Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results)

n/a 3- Favourable n/a 1 - 1st quartile 0 - Stable 1 - 2nd quartile 1 -Unfavour. 0 - 3rd quartile 2 - 4th quartile

75% favourable 50% above or stable median

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages –20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of nine municipalities.

259 Taxation Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

What percentage of Toronto taxpayers take advantage of the pre- authorized payment plan? Pre-authorized property tax 40% payment programs (PAP) allow taxpayers to have tax instalments withdrawn directly 30% from their bank account and paid to the municipality to ensure that 20% tax payments are received in full and on time. 10% This service is convenient for 0% taxpayers and makes it more 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 efficient for municipalities in % enrolled 21.9% 25.4% 27.3% 26.0% 28.1% 27.9% 24.3% handling and processing tax

Chart 25.1 (City of Toronto) Percent of All Tax Accounts Enrolled in Pre-Authorized payments. Payment Plans (Customer Service) Chart 25.1 reflects the How does Toronto’s rate of enrolment in its pre-authorized percentage of Toronto’s tax payment plan compare to other municipalities? accounts enrolled in the PAP 60% program and shows a longer Median 33.4% term increasing trend. The total 50% number of tax accounts 40% increased in 2010 by approximately 13,000 thereby 30% affecting (reducing) Toronto's 20% percentage of accounts enrolled. 10% .

0% Calg Ham Sud Ott Wind Bar T-Bay Lond Tor % enrolled 57.1% 40.8% 37.0% 34.7% 33.4% 33.2% 30.1% 26.9% 24.3%

Chart 25.2 (OMBI 2010) Percent of All Tax Accounts Enrolled in Pre-Authorized Payment Plans (Customer Service)

Figure 25.2 compares Toronto’s 2010 rate of enrolment in PAP program to other municipalities and Toronto ranks ninth of nine (fourth quartile) in terms of having the highest enrolment rate.

Toronto’s lower ranking for this measure may be due to the fact that Toronto has the greatest number of regular payment due dates (six), while other municipalities have from two to four. Experience has shown that the fewer the number of due dates (and the larger the cheques that must be written), the greater the participation in PAP programs where the payee can spread their payments out over a longer period of time. Reducing the number of due dates in Toronto could have the potential to increase PAP enrolment and improve efficiency.

260

Taxation Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How successful is Toronto in collecting property taxes? 3.0% Once municipalities issue annual 2.5% property tax bills, staff follow up 2.0% on those accounts that have not 1.5% submitted payments by the 1.0% specified due dates. 0.5% 0.0% One method of evaluating the 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 success of municipalities in % current years arrears 2.6% 2.5% 2.3% 2.5% 2.8% 2.6% collecting property taxes is to % prior years arrears 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 1.2% 1.1% examine the rate of tax arrears (taxes receivable or outstanding) Chart 25.3 (City of Toronto) Current and Prior Year's Tax Arrears as a Percent of as a percentage of the property Current Year's Tax Levy (Efficiency) taxes billed. The objective is to have a low rate of arrears for: How does Toronto's rate of collecting property taxes compare to other municipalities? • current year’s arrears, which 7% Median - current year 2.6% for 2010 was the amount of 6% 2010 property taxes 5% Median - prior year 2.9% outstanding as a percentage

4% of the 2010 taxes billed.

3% • prior years arrears, which for

2010 was the amount of 2% 2009 and prior year’s taxes 1% outstanding as a percentage 0% Calg Lond Tor Ott Bar Ham Sud T-Bay Wind of the 2010 taxes billed. % Current Years Arrears 2.2% 2.6% 2.6% 1.8% 4.7% 4.1% 2.3% 2.1% 5.6%

% Prior Years Arrears 0.4% 1.1% 1.1% 1.7% 2.9% 3.1% 3.3% 4.9% 5.2%

Chart 25.4 (OMBI 2010) Current and Prior Year's Tax Arrears as a Percent of Current Year's Tax Levy (Efficiency)

Chart 25.3 summarizes Toronto’s rate of current and prior years' tax arrears. In 2010 there was a decrease in both the current year's tax arrears and the prior year's tax arrears outstanding primarily due to improving economic conditions.

Figure 25.4 compares Toronto’s 2010 rate of current and prior years' property tax arrears to other municipalities. In terms of the lowest rate of tax arrears, Toronto ranks fifth of nine (at median) for the rate of current year’s tax arrears and second of nine (first quartile) for tax arrears of prior years

261 Taxation Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

What does it cost in Toronto to administer a tax account? In Toronto, there are over $22.65 $24 $21.10 694,000 property tax accounts $20 that staff maintain and support. $16 This involves processes such as: $12 • $8 applying assessed values received from MPAC $4 • issuing tax bills and $0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 processing payments Impact of change $2.26 $1.02 • responding to enquiries in acct. policy $cost per • following up on outstanding $18.27 $18.95 $19.67 $21.41 $20.39 $20.08 tax account property taxes receivable

Chart 25.5 (City of Toronto) Cost per Property Tax Account Maintained/Serviced • making adjustments to (Efficiency) accounts based on ownership changes, How does Toronto’s cost to administer a tax account compare to successful appeals, rebates, other municipalities? etc.

$24 Chart 25.5 reflects Toronto’s Median $14.25 $20 annual cost to maintain and $16 service a tax account. . $12

$8 $4

$0 Calg Wind T-Bay Bar Ham Lond Sud Ott Tor $cost per $9.52 $9.91 $10.78 $10.97 $14.25 $14.54 $15.14 $15.32 $21.10 tax account

Chart 25.6 (OMBI 2010) Cost per Property Tax Account Maintained/Serviced (Efficiency)

Starting in 2009, changes in accounting policies were instituted by all Ontario municipalities as described on page 26. The 2010 impact of these accounting policy changes amounted to an increase of $1.02 per account maintained, which has been plotted as a stacked column to isolate it from the 2010 result using the previous costing methodology used in 2008 and prior years. Excluding the impact of the accounting policy changes, Toronto's 2010 costs decreased, which was accomplished by accommodating approximately 13,000 new tax accounts at existing staff levels. ( Chart 25.6 compares Toronto’s 2010 cost per tax account maintained to other municipalities. Toronto ranks ninth of nine (fourth quartile) with the highest cost per account maintained.

Toronto’s higher costs are likely due to higher service levels/programs such as cancellation of tax increases for low income seniors and the disabled, tax deferral for low income seniors and disabled and rebates programs (veterans' organizations, ethno-cultural groups, vacancy and registered charities).

Toronto has a full team dedicated to defending the City's assessment base to ensure that property assessment information is complete and accurate. It should be noted that Toronto has the highest commercial/industrial base of the OMBI municipalities and these properties/accounts are significantly more time consuming to administer. Commercial/industrial properties are generally more complicated in relation to their appeals, tax and rebate calculations and overall general administration, thus increasing Toronto’s overall costs to maintain a tax account.

262

Taxation Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

2011 Achievements or 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following initiatives are expected to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Toronto's Taxation Services:

2011 Achievements

• installed updated payment processing equipment and software to process over 1.2 million cheques per year for tax, utility and parking ticket payments

2012 Planned Initiatives

• implement integrated cashiering software for counter operations to receive and record payments • in consultation with Corporate I&T, document systems requirements and software and hardware needs for the City’s current Tax Management and Collection System, and explore options to implement a new technology platform to ensure the continued sustainability of the City’s tax billing system, and the system’s ability to expand and incorporate new requirements and web-based services, with implementation anticipated for 2013 • develop a strategy to improve and enhance customer service delivery associated with property tax and utility billings and parking tags payments. This strategy will examine current resource levels, and how new I/T solutions can be utilized to improve customer service response times, service satisfaction and operational efficiency • acquire and implement an integrated cashiering software solution for cash handling operations for property tax, utility, and parking ticket counter operations, acquire and install associated point-of-sale cashiering hardware, and establish necessary interfaces between cashiering software and City networks and internal systems, for planned implementation in 2012. • include an insert with the property tax bill allowing residents to include a voluntary contribution with their property tax payment. Donations can be made to the City's general revenues, or to one of 12 identified City divisions or programs. Voluntary contributions can be made in any amount from $1 to $50,000, and tax receipts will be issued in the donor's name.

Factors Influencing the Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality included in this report can be influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

• degree/types of collection procedures: acknowledging the expectations of Council in collection efforts, and any mandated policies or procedures • economic condition: municipal unemployment rate, cost of living, rate of growth in property assessments etc. • variety and level of programs offered to the tax payer: number and complexity of tax rebates, deferral and/or tax cancellation programs, ‘Business Improvement Area’ initiatives, etc. • degree to which tax billing systems are automated: some municipalities develop and maintain their own ‘in-house’ systems to calculate and issue billings, some municipalities use provincially-developed systems or external consultants to calculate taxes and still others employ a mixture of these approaches

263 Taxation Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

• range and number and/or flexibility of payment instalment dates: types of payment options such as pre-authorized payment plans (PAP) (where payments are withdrawn electronically), or internet-based payment options and the extent and effectiveness of advertising for these programs • number of payment-in-lieu of tax accounts administered by the municipality: accounts may require specialized or manual bill calculations, or negotiated payments, resulting in higher costs to service a small number of accounts

264 TTrraannssiitt SSeerrvviicceess

Toronto Transit Commission

Conventional Transit Wheel-Trans

Fleet Fleet Management Management

Fuel and Energy Fuel and Energy Management Management

Infrastructure Management & & Facilities Administration Management

Management & Administration

Boxes shaded reflect the activities covered in this report

Transit services in the City of Toronto are delivered through the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), which provides and maintains transit infrastructure and service including the operation and maintenance of an integrated transit system and a multi-modal fleet including buses, subways, streetcars and light rail transit.

The TTC is the third largest transit system in North America based on ridership after New York City and Mexico City.

The TTC also provides special door-to-door transit service (Wheel-Trans) for persons with the greatest need for accessible transit as established by eligibility criteria based upon an individual’s level of functional mobility.

The results reported here exclude those of Wheel-Trans.

265

Transit Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Page By Quartile for 2010 Ref. Service Level Indicators How many vehicle hours Transit In-Service Stable 1 26.1 of transit service are (Revenue) Vehicle 26.2

provided? Service Hours per vehicle hours of transit Highest rate of transit pg. 267 Capita (Service Level) provided has remained vehicle hours per capita stable compared to others

(service level indicator) (service level indicator) Community Impact Measures How many transit Number of Conventional Increased 1 26.3 passenger trips are taken Transit Trips per Capita 26.4

by an average person in in Service Area Transit usage has Highest rate of transit pg. 268 a year? (Community Impact) increased usage by residents compared to others Efficiency Measures What does it cost to Transit Cost per In- Increased 4 26.5 operate a transit vehicle Service Vehicle Service 26.6

for an hour? Hour (Efficiency) Cost per in-service Higher cost per in- pg. 269 vehicle hour increased service vehicle hour compared to others

(impacted by multi-modal fleet) How well are transit Passenger Trips per In- Increased 1 26.8 vehicles used to move Service Vehicle Hour 26.9

people? (Efficiency) Number of transit trips Higher rate of trips per pg. 270 per in-service vehicle in-service vehicle hour hour (utilization) compared to others increased What does it cost to Operating Costs for Increased 1 26.7 provide one passenger Conventional Transit 26.9

trip? per Regular Service Cost to provide a Lower cost to provide a pg. 270 Passenger Trip passenger trip passenger trip (Efficiency) increased compared to others Overall Results Service Level Performance Service Level Performance Indicators Measures Indicators Measures (Resources) (Results) (Resources) (Results)

0- Increase 2- Favourable 1- 1st quartile 3- 1st quartile 1- Stable 0- Stable 0- 2nd quartile 0- 2nd quartile 0-Decrease 2 -Unfavour. 0- 3rd quartile 0- 3rd quartile 0- 4th quartile 1- 4th quartile

100% 50% favourable 100% above 75% above increased or or stable median median stable

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of 11 municipalities.

266 Transit Services

2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How many vehicles hours of transit service are provided in The number of in service transit Toronto? vehicle hours that are available 4 in a year for residents to use, provides an indication of service 3 levels. It can also influence how often residents use public transit. 2

An in service vehicle hour refers 1 to the hours a transit vehicle

0 accepts paying passengers. It 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 does not include other activities In-Svc. Veh. Hrs/Capita 3.08 3.12 3.12 3.11 3.14 3.12 3.16 3.18 3.26 3.45 3.45 Total In-svc. hours 7,894,566 8,097,160 8,186,864 8,237,930 8,400,000 8,426,375 8,554,496 8,677,092 8,921,966 9,516,036 9,569,501 such as school contracts, charters and cross-boundary Chart 26.1 (City of Toronto) In-Service (Revenue) Transit Vehicle Hours per Capita service, or vehicle hours devoted (Service Level) to road tests or maintenance activities. How do Toronto’s in- service transit vehicle hours compare to other municipalities? Chart 26.1 provides Toronto's 3.5 5,000 total number and rate of 4,500 3.0

4,000 in service (accepting 2.5 3,500 passengers) vehicle hours per Median 1.18 2.0 3,000 capita. 2,500 1.5 2,000 pop'n per sq. km sq. per pop'n capita per

- Over this period Toronto’s total 1.0 1,500 service vehicle hours vehicle service - 1,000 in service transit vehicle hours In 0.5 500 Density has grown each year, as has 0.0 0 Tor Ott Ham Lond T-Bay Sud Wind Wat Bar York Durh Toronto’s population. In 2010 Veh. Hrs./capita 3.45 2.35 1.48 1.48 1.38 1.18 1.16 1.14 1.13 1.05 0.66 total in service vehicle hours

Pop'n Density 4,373 286 2,034 856 332 909 1,493 1,514 1,825 598 245 increased slightly by 53,465 hours (0.6%), but with an increased population, results Chart 26.2 (OMBI 2010) In-Service (Revenue) Transit Vehicle Hours per Capita (Service Level) & Population Density were stable on a per capita basis. This increase in recent years prior to 2010 was due to: • the Ridership Growth Strategy (RGS), which improved the quality of both peak and offpeak services between 2004 and 2008, by adding 100 additional peak period buses with 100,000 hours of additional peak period service on 64 routes • an expanded off-peak bus network so that virtually all neighbourhoods in Toronto receive service every 30 minutes or better, all day, every day of the week, and resulted in 85% of the TTC’s daytime routes operating until 1:00 am, with approximately 300,000 additional hours of service on 91 routes. • improvements to service frequency made in 2008 and early 2009, to address observed overcrowding

Chart 26.2 compares Toronto’s 2010 in-service transit vehicle hours per capita, with other Ontario municipalities, which are shown as bars relative to the left axis. Toronto ranks first of 11 municipalities (first quartile), with the highest number of transit vehicle hours per capita. As service levels are primarily set based on observed ridership, the number of trips taken per capita is the largest determinant of the number of in-service hours per capita required to carry passengers (see Chart 26.4 below).

Population density (persons per square kilometre) can have a large impact on the number of passengers attracted to the service and therefore the need for, and extent of transit systems. This is plotted as a line graph relative to the right axis and shows Toronto is far more densely populated than other Ontario municipalities and, as a result Toronto’s transit system is extensive, with approximately 96 per cent of Toronto residents living within 400 metres of at least one of the TTC’s multi-modal services.

267 Transit Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How many passenger trips per person are taken in a year in One of the primary goals of a Toronto? transit system is to maximize 180 resident use of the public transit provided. 150

120 Chart 26.3 provides a summary of the total number and rate of 90 transit trips taken in Toronto per

60 person, which has grown 7.6% on a per capita basis since 2000, 30 in part as a result of the 0 Ridership Growth Strategy. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 # trips/ person 160.0 161.9 158.6 153.2 156.5 159.8 164.4 168.4 170.4 171.0 172.1 Total # of Toronto’s population over this 410.6 420.0 415.5 405.4 418.1 431.2 444.5 459.8 466.7 471.2 477.4 trips (millions) period has grown at an annual rate of approximately 1 per cent. Chart 26.3 (City of Toronto) Number of Transit Passenger Trips per Person Highlights of the changes in (Community Impact) ridership over this period are: • 2001– increased by +2.3 per How does Toronto’s annual transit use per person, cent compare to other municipalities? • 2002- dropped by -1 per cent 180 due to economic slowdown after 9/11 150 • 2003 – decreased by -2.4 per cent due primarily to 120 SARS and the hydro

blackout. 90 • 2004-2007 – Ridership grew 60 Median 31.7 each year by over 3 per cent • 30 2008 – increase of +1.5 per cent due to increased sales 0 Tor Ott Lond Ham Wat T-Bay Sud Wind Bar York Durh of monthly passes (federal #trips/capita 172.1 124.1 58.5 44.4 37.5 31.7 31.2 27.8 19.9 18.3 16.1 income tax credit) and rising automobile vehicle fuel Chart 26.4 (OMBI 2010) Number of Conventional Transit Passenger Trips per Person prices. (Community Impact) • 2009 –total ridership of over 471 million, an increase in ridership of almost 1% primarily due to increases in the system capacity from the Ridership Growth Strategy (Chart 26.1). • 2010- total ridership grew by 1.3% to over 477 million trips

Chart 26.4 compares Toronto’s 2010 transit use (passenger trips) per capita to other municipalities, with Toronto ranking first of eleven (first quartile) with the highest transit usage per capita.

Toronto’s high population density and extensive multi-modal transit system are the primary factors behind high transit use by Toronto residents in relation to other municipalities

268 Transit Services

2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

What does it cost in Toronto to operate a transit vehicle for an hour? In terms of efficiency, it is important to examine two 150 aspects of service delivery:

120 • the cost to make a transit vehicle available (in-service) 90 for one hour in order to accept passengers

• the cost to provide a 60 passenger trip, which takes into consideration actual use 30 of the available transit supply

0 Chart 26.5 provides Toronto's 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Cost per in-service transit cost per in service vehicle $91 $96 $100 $106 $107 $111 $119 $126 $132 $135 $144 vehicle hour hour. CPI adjusted $91 $93 $95 $98 $97 $98 $104 $108 $111 $113 $117 (2000 base) To reflect the impact of inflation, Chart 26.5 (City of Toronto) Transit Cost per In-Service (Revenue) Vehicle Hour Chart 26.5 also provides (Efficiency) Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjusted results which have How does Toronto’s transit cost per vehicle hour, compare to been plotted as a line graph. other municipalities? This adjusts/discounts the actual result for each year by the $175 change in Toronto’s CPI since Median $109 the base year of 2000. $150

$125 Over this period, costs have

continued to rise due to wage $100 increases as a result of

$75 collective agreements, as well as fuel and hydro cost increases. $50

$25 $0 Bar Wind Lond T-Bay Sud Ham Wat York Durh Tor Ott $cost/in-service $84 $98 $99 $99 $103 $109 $124 $126 $138 $144 $162 veh hr.

Chart 26.6 (OMBI 2010) Operating Costs for Conventional Transit per In-Service Vehicle Hour (Efficiency)

Chart 26.6 compares Toronto’s 2010 result to other municipalities for the cost per in-service vehicle hour Toronto ranks tenth of eleven municipalities (fourth quartile) with the second highest cost per in service vehicle hour.

Toronto’s costs are high among OMBI municipalities due to a number of factors that are unique to Toronto such as additional modes of transit (subway, streetcars and light rapid transit) that are more expensive to operate on an hourly basis than buses.

269 Transit Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

What does it cost to provide one passenger trip? The second aspect of efficiency

$3.50 is from the utilization perspective, where the transit $3.00 cost to provide a passenger trip $2.50 is considered. This should not be $2.00 confused with the cost of $1.50 purchasing a transit ticket.

$1.00 $0.50 Chart 26.7 illustrates Toronto’s $0.00 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 transit costs per passenger trip, Operating cost $1.76 $1.84 $1.98 $2.15 $2.16 $2.16 $2.28 $2.38 $2.51 $2.73 $2.88 which has been steadily per passenger trip increasing. The 5.5 per cent CPI Adjusted $1.76 $1.79 $1.88 $1.98 $1.95 $1.92 $2.00 $2.05 $2.11 $2.29 $2.35 (2000 base) increase in the 2010 cost per trip is primarily due to increased Chart 26.7 (City of Toronto) Operating Cost for Conventional Transit per Regular wages and increased costs of Service Trip (Efficiency) fuel, electricity and maintenance.

How well are transit vehicles being utilized to move To reflect the impact of inflation, people? Chart 26.7 also provides 60 Consumer Price Index (CPI)

50 adjusted results, which have been plotted as a line graph. 40 This adjusts/discounts the actual 30 result for each year by the 20 change in Toronto’s CPI since 10 the base year of 2000. 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 # trips/ The degree of passenger 52.0 51.9 50.8 49.2 49.8 51.2 52.0 53.0 52.3 49.5 49.9 in-service hour utilization of the transit vehicles, is a primary factor in the cost per Chart 26.8 (City of Toronto) Passenger Trips per In-Service Vehicle Hour (Efficiency) passenger trip, as higher usage rates allow fixed and variable How do Toronto’s transit costs per passenger trip, costs to be spread over a larger compare to other municipalities? number of riders. $7 60 Median Cost per Trip $3.89 Chart 26.8 provides this

$6 50

utilization data for Toronto $5 40 expressed as the number of $4 passenger trips per vehicle hour. 30 $3 In 2010, Toronto improved its 20

Cost per transit trip $2 utilization of transit vehicles to

service vehicle hour vehicle service $1 10 - 49.9 trips per hour, arising from in per trips passenger of # $0 0 a 1.3 per cent increase in T- Lond Tor Ott Ham Wat Sud Wind Bar Durh York Bay passenger trips (see Chart 26.3), $cost per trip $2.50 $2.88 $3.07 $3.63 $3.78 $3.89 $4.08 $4.32 $4.74 $5.67 $7.28 with only a 0.6 per cent increase trips per 39.5 49.9 52.8 30.0 32.8 26.5 24.0 22.9 17.7 24.3 17.4 in total vehicle hours (see Chart in-service hour 26.1).. Chart 26.9 (OMBI 2010) Cost of Conventional Transit per Passenger Trip and Average Number of Passenger Trips per In-Service Vehicle Hour (Efficiency)

Chart 26.9 compares Toronto’s 2010 transit cost per passenger trip to other Ontario municipalities, which have been plotted as bars relative to the left axis. Toronto ranks second of eleven municipalities (first quartile) in terms of having the lowest cost. The average number of passengers per hour that a transit vehicle is in service (utilization) is also plotted as a line graph relative to the right axis. Toronto has a very high utilization rate ranking second of 11 municipalities (first quartile), which is a key factor in Toronto's low cost per transit trip. 270 Transit Services

2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

2011 Achievements and 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following initiatives are expected to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Transit Services:

2011 Initiatives Completed/Achievements • moved a record ridership of 500.2 million and service levels provided to the public were at an all time high • achieved the TTC's highest-ever single-day ridership carrying 1,746,391 customers on September 30, 2011 • carried the TTC's 28 billionth customers since its inception in 1921 on October 15, 2011 • improved customer service through the continued roll-out of e-alerts with a filtering feature that allows customers to select specific subway lines or surface routes that they prefer to follow, internet trip planner and new next vehicle arrivals notification (text messaging service for all surface vehicles) • operated 35 new 40' diesel buses and 11 new Toronto Rockets trains • continued crowd control measures at the Bloor-Yonge Station • took delivery of the first of four tunnel boring machines for the Spadina subway extension • preliminary construction began on the Ashbridges Bay Maintenance and Storage Facility on Lakeshore Boulevard East • introduced summertime Station Ambassadors at key downtown stations • launched Toronto Rocket subway trains into revenue service • established Customer Liaison Panel and a series of regular town hall meeting to hear directly from TTC customers and the first was in the Council Chamber at Toronto City Hall

2012 Planned Initiatives • improve customer service: o implementation of the Customer Liaison Panel, which is a customer focused committee that will be made up of Commissioners, TTC staff and customers o a series of regular town hall meetings designed to hear from TTC customers about their experiences, concerns and suggestions for improvement. • shifting trips from Wheel-Trans to conventional transit - Wheel-Trans staff will continue to encourage customers to take advantage of conventional fixed route accessible transit service by making it convenient and advantageous for customers to book their trips to accessible subway stations by 2015

Factors Influencing the Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality included in this report can be influenced to varying degrees by factors such as: • size and population density of the service area • socio-economic factors such as income levels, population age, energy prices, etc. impacting transit usage • transit policies such as fare levels, parking rates, park and ride, etc. • service design and delivery (diversity and the number of routes, frequency of service, hours of service, fare structures, etc.) • composition of the fleet and the different modes of transit • the number of transit trips taken by non-residents, since these results are based on the total number of passenger trips in the municipality (by residents and non-residents) divided by the municipality’s population

271

WWaasstteewwaatteerr SSeerrvviicceess

Wastewater Collection and Treatment

Wastewater Wastewater Collection Treatment

Lateral Solids Connections Management

Wastewater Wastewater Collection Treatment System Plants

Wastewater Pumping Stations

Wastewater services encompass the collection of wastewater or sewage from the point it leaves residential or ICI (industrial, commercial, and institutional) properties to the point where it is treated in wastewater treatment plants and returned to Lake Ontario. It also includes the disposal of any residual material.

In Toronto this involves the collection and treatment of wastewater from over 4,400 kilometres of sanitary sewers, and, 1,300 kilometres of combined sewers, which carry both sanitary and stormwater flows. Wastewater is pumped by 82 pumping stations to four wastewater treatment plants where physical and biological treatment processes remove solids, chemicals, and pathogens. Toronto’s wastewater treatment plants have a combined rated capacity of over 1.5 billion litres of wastewater a day.

The safe and effective treatment of wastewater is important to a community’s continued health and well being. Toronto Water must operate under strict regulations and meet or exceed treatment standards set by the Ministry of the Environment to ensure minimal impact on the natural environment.

Funding for these services is provided through municipal water rates, which include a sewer surcharge.

272 Wastewater Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service / Activity Level Indicators How much wastewater is Megalitres of Decreased 3 27.1 treated each year? Wastewater Treated per 27.2 100,000 Population – Volume of wastewater Low rate/volume of (Activity Level) treated has decreased wastewater treated pg. compared to others 274 (activity level indicator) (activity level indicator) How old is the Average Age of Stable 4 27.8 wastewater pipe system? Wastewater Pipe - (Service Level) Average age of Wastewater pipe is pg. wastewater pipe is oldest of OMBI 277 stable at 60 years municipalities (service level indicator) (service level indicator) Community Impact Measures How much wastewater Percentage of Decreased 3 27.3 bypasses full treatment Wastewater estimated 27.4 each year? to have Bypassed Volume of wastewater High rate/volume of Treatment – bypassing treatment wastewater bypassing pg. (Community Impact) decreased treatment compared to 275 others (still well below 1% however) Customer Service Measures How many wastewater Annual Number of Increased 4 27.5 mains (sewers) backup? Wastewater Main 27.6 Backups per 100 Rate of wastewater/ Highest rate of kilometre of Wastewater sewer backups wastewater/ sewer pg. Main (Customer increased backups compared to 276 Service) others Efficiency Measures What does it cost to Operating Cost of Increased 4 27.7 collect wastewater? Wastewater Collection 27.8 per kilometre of Pipe – Cost of wastewater Higher cost of (Efficiency) collection increased wastewater collection pg. compared to others 277 What does it cost to treat Operating Cost of Stable 4 27.9 wastewater and dispose Wastewater 27.10

of the residual material? Treatment/Disposal per Cost of wastewater Higher cost of pg. Megalitre Treated – treatment & disposal wastewater treatment & 278 (Efficiency) was stable disposal compared to others Service/ Performance Service/ Performance Overall Results Activity Level Measures Activity Level Measures Indicators (Results) Indicators (Results) (Resources) (Resources) 0- Increased 1- Favourable 0 - 1st quartile 0- 1st quartile 1- Stable 1- Stable 0 - 2nd quartile 0- 2nd quartile 0-Decreased 2 -Unfavour. 1- 3rd quartile 1- 3rd quartile 1- 4th quartile 3- 4th quartile

100% stable or 50% favourable 0% above 0% above increased or stable median median

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of fifteen municipalities. 273 Wastewater Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How much wastewater is treated each year in Toronto? Chart 27.1 summarizes the 20,000 volume (megalitres) and rate per 16,000 100,000 population of 12,000 wastewater that was treated in Toronto wastewater treatment 8,000 plants. One megalitre is 4,000 equivalent to one million litres. Results have also been 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 expressed on a per 100,000 Megalitres per 17,695 17,803 17,360 16,561 15,731 16,734 16,202 14,501 15,882 16,011 15,286 100K pop'n population basis to account for Total Megalitres 453,987 461,840 454,863 438,269 420,388 451,490 438,108 395,881 435,008 441,230 423,872 population growth and to allow for comparisons to other Chart 27.1(City of Toronto) Megalitres of Wastewater Treated per 100,000 Population municipalities. (Activity Level) In 2010 there was a -3.9 per How does the amount of wastewater treated in Toronto, compare cent decrease in the volume of to other municipalities? wastewater treated. There was 35,000 lower precipitation in 2010, with 787 mm compared to 904 mm in 30,000 Median 17,578 2009 and 1050 mm in 2008. 25,000 Lower precipitation results in less wastewater treated from 20,000 combined sewers, with wet

15,000 weather flow being the primary driver for year to year variations. 10,000

5,000 Chart 27.2 provides Toronto's 2010 rate/volume of wastewater 0 Wind Ham T-Bay Niag Lond Sud Halt Musk Ott Tor Calg Bar Durh York Wat treated per 100,000 persons and Megalitres 32,980 23,351 22,607 20,615 19,868 19,164 17,810 17,578 16,161 15,286 15,097 13,021 12,759 12,202 11,950 compares it to other Ontario municipalities. Toronto ranks Chart 27.2 (OMBI 2010) Megalitres of Wastewater Treated per 100,000 Population (Activity Level) tenth of fifteen (third quartile) in terms of having the highest volumes of wastewater treated.

It should be noted that these volumes relate to wastewater from both the residential and ICI (Industrial, Commercial and Institutional) sectors, as well as stormwater that is collected in the portion (24 per cent) of Toronto’s system that is combined sewers.

274 Wastewater Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How much wastewater bypasses full treatment in Toronto before it is released into Lake Ontario? A major objective of all municipal 1.0% wastewater systems is to protect the environment by minimizing 0.8% the amount of untreated wastewater that is released into 0.6% lakes and rivers.

0.4% Chart 27.3 summarizes Toronto's percentage of wastewater that 0.2% was released into Lake Ontario without full treatment. These are 0.0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 referred to as Secondary By- % bypassed 0.99% 0.53% 0.56% 0.71% 0.22% 0.08% 0.91% 0.13% 0.24% 0.60% 0.39% Pass Events. It should be noted that this wastewater does Chart 27.3(City of Toronto) % of Wastewater Estimated to Have By-Passed Full receive partial (preliminary and Treatment (Community Impact) primary) treatment, including disinfection, before release. How does the amount of wastewater by-passing full treatment in Toronto, compare to other municipalities? Secondary bypass events are 4.5% usually the result of heavy

4.0% precipitation/ runoff events that

3.5% enter the sewers through the 24 per cent portion of Toronto’s 3.0% wastewater system that is 2.5% combined sanitary/storm sewers

2.0% or due to infiltration/inflow into

1.5% the sewer system. Median 0.20% The frequency and intensity of 1.0% these events varies from year to 0.5% year. Secondary bypass

0.0% quantities receive preliminary Bar Calg Durh Musk T-Bay York Lond Wat Niag Tor Halt Ott Sud Wind Ham % by-passed 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.07% 0.20% 0.24% 0.39% 0.46% 0.51% 0.56% 1.15% 4.03% and primary treatment and are chlorinated before discharge to

Chart 27.4 (OMBI 2010) % of Wastewater Estimated to Have By-Passed Treatment the lake. Bypasses are sampled (Community Impact) for E. Coli, suspended solids, CBOD, phosphorus, ammonia and nitrates.

The decrease in Toronto’s 2010 by-pass volumes related primarily to the lower frequency of storm events and their intensity, as well as 13% lower precipitation overall than in 2009.

Chart 27.4 compares 2010 results for the percentage of wastewater by-passing full treatment in Toronto to other municipalities. Toronto ranks tenth of fifteen (third quartile), in terms of having the lowest percentage of wastewater by-passing full treatment. This result is attributable to the combined sanitary/storm sewers that Toronto has, which are less prevalent in other municipalities with newer infrastructure.

275 Wastewater Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How many wastewater mains back-up in Toronto? Chart 27.5 provides the total 10.0 number of wastewater main 8.0 back-ups as well as the rate of back-ups per 100 km of pipe. 6.0 4.0 As noted earlier, 24 per cent of Toronto’s sewer system is 2.0 comprised of combined sanitary 0.0 and storm sewers with 80,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 # back-ups per homes in the older areas of the 6.6 3.5 5.3 4.9 3.9 3.8 4.4 3.8 4.3 5.3 8.0 100km of pipe city having downspouts directly Total # of back-ups 373 201 299 278 220 219 251 219 245 286 444 connected to the combined sewer system. This results in a Chart 27.5 (City of Toronto) Number of Wastewater Main Back Ups per 100 kilometre significant inflow into the local of Wastewater Pipe (Customer Service) and trunk systems during storm events, which can cause How does the rate of wastewater main back-ups in Toronto wastewater to back up through compare to other municipalities? sewer pipes where it can escape

9.0 through floor drains or any other

8.0 low lying plumbing fixtures in

7.0 basements.

6.0

5.0 The increase in the number of back-ups in 2010 is related to 4.0 3.0 high peak period storms, such Median 0.75 2.0 as in June, 2010 which had 25% of the year's precipitation (192 1.0 0.0 mm). Musk T-Bay Lond Durh Halt Wind Ham Bar Ott Sud Calg Tor #backups/100km 0.00 0.39 0.51 0.54 0.56 0.69 0.81 0.93 1.46 3.77 6.42 8.01

Chart 27.6 (OMBI 2010) Number of Wastewater Main BackUps per 100 kilometre of Wastewater Pipe (Customer Service)

Effective November 20, 2007, Toronto implemented a mandatory downspout disconnection program that requires certain homeowners to disconnect their home’s downspout from the City’s combined sewer system where feasible, within three years. This will result in less stormwater in the wastewater system, which will help prevent wastewater from backing up in the future and minimize by-pass events at the treatment plants. Over 35,000 disconnections have been achieved over the last ten years.

Chart 27.6 compares Toronto's 2010 rate of wastewater/sewer backups to other municipalities. Toronto ranks twelfth of twelve municipalities (fourth quartile) with the highest rate of backups.

276 Wastewater Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

What does it cost in Toronto to collect wastewater?

$25,000 Wastewater collection refers to $19,983 the process of collecting $20,000 $15,816 wastewater from the time it exits $15,000 residential and ICI properties to the point it arrives at the $10,000 wastewater treatment plant. $5,000

$0 Chart 27.7 provides Toronto's 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 wastewater collection costs per Impact of change $8,864 $2,799 in acct. policy kilometre of collection pipe. $cost per km of pipe $8,130 $8,292 $8,849 $9,564 $9,723 $10,104 $10,017 $10,204 $9,518 $11,119 $13,017 CPI Adjusted $8,130 $8,039 $8,401 $8,817 $8,815 $8,996 $8,775 $8,773 $8,215 $9,298 $10,615 cost (base 2000) Starting in 2009, changes in accounting policies were Results previously reported for 2008 ($9,780/km) and 2009 (17,711/km) have been restated to be consistent with the instituted by all Ontario costing methodology used in 2010. municipalities as described on

Chart 27.7 (City of Toronto) Operating Cost for Wastewater Collection per kilometre. page 26. The 2010 impact of of Collection Pipe (Efficiency) these accounting policy changes amounted to an increase of How does the cost of wastewater collection in Toronto, compare $2,799 per kilometre of pipe, to other municipalities? which has been plotted as a $60,000 70 stacked column to isolate it from Median cost per km $8,183 and median age of 39 years the 2010 result using the costing $50,000 60 pipe wastewater of (years) age Average

methodology of 2008 and prior 50 years. $40,000 40 $30,000 Excluding the impact of the 30 accounting policy changes,

per km of pipe $20,000 20 Toronto's 2010 collection costs

cost of wastewater collection increased from 2009. Only 57% $10,000 10 of these operating costs were $0 0 Wind Lond Bar T-Bay Halt Calg Durh Ott Sud Musk Tor Ham Niag York direct costs, approximately the $cost per km 4,198 4,831 5,842 7,310 7,404 7,472 7,664 8,701 9,306 10,924 15,816 20,040 33,300 56,398 same as in 2009. There were Average age 43.9 40.0 37.5 54.0 26.6 34.4 19.5 29.1 42.0 40.0 60.2 49.3 31.0 18.3 less corporate program support allocations in 2010 than 2009 Chart 27.8 (OMBI 2010) Operating Cost for Wastewater Collection per kilometre. of and some moderate increases in Collection Pipe (Efficiency) and Average Age of Wastewater Pipe (Service Level) labour costs for field support.

Chart 27.7 also provides Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjusted results, plotted as a line graph. This adjusts/discounts the actual result for each year by the change in Toronto’s CPI since the base year of 2000.

Chart 27.8 compares Toronto's 2010 cost of wastewater collection per kilometre of pipe to other municipalities, plotted as bars relative to the left axis. Toronto ranks eleventh of fourteen municipalities (fourth quartile) in terms of having the lowest cost.

The average age of the wastewater pipe, plotted on Chart 27.8 as a line graph relative to the right axis, can have a significant impact on costs as noted earlier. Toronto has the oldest underground infrastructure of the OMBI municipalities and is a key factor in Toronto’s higher costs.

277 Wastewater Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

What does it cost to treat and dispose of wastewater in Toronto? Wastewater treatment costs $500 $416 include the operation and $450 $435 $400 maintenance of treatment plants $350 to meet or exceed Ministry of $300 $250 Environment regulations and $200 standards. $150 $100 $50 It also includes the disposal of $0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 biosolids (stabilized sludge). Impact of changes $78 $94 in acct. policy This material is primarily the $Cost per megalitre $198 $204 $200 $231 $236 $251 $285 $365 $320 $338 $341 organic solids that have been CPI Adjusted cost $198 $198 $190 $213 $214 $223 $250 $314 $278 $283 $278 (base 2000) removed from the wastewater and further processed so that it Results previously reported for 2008 ($331/megalitre) and 2009 ($401/megalitre) have been restated to be consistent with the costing methodology used in 2010. can, as in the case of the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Chart 27.9 (City of Toronto) Operating Cost for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal per Megalitre (Efficiency) Plant, be beneficially used. The City's Highland Creek Treatment How does Toronto’s cost of wastewater treatment and disposal, Plant disposes its biosolids compare to other municipalities? through incineration.

$900 Chart 27.9 summarizes Toronto’s $800 cost of treating a megalitre (one $700 million litres) of wastewater. Median $369 $600 Lower volumes of treated $500 wastewater (Chart 27.1) have a $400 direct bearing on costs per $300 $200 megalitre. $100 $0 . Ham Ott Calg Lond Wind York T-Bay Sud Niag Halt Wat Tor Durh Bar Musk $cost /megalitre $159 $173 $249 $276 $293 $306 $353 $369 $383 $411 $414 $435 $471 $567 $781

Chart 27.10 (OMBI 2010) Operating Cost for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal per Megalitre (Efficiency)

Chart 27.10 also provides CPI adjusted results plotted as a line graph. This adjusts/discounts the actual result for each year by the change in Toronto’s CPI since the base year of 2000.

Chart 27.10 compares Toronto’s 2010 cost of wastewater treatment and disposal per megalitre, to other municipalities. Toronto ranks twelfth of fifteen municipalities (fourth quartile) in terms of having the lowest costs.

One of the key factors that contribute to Toronto’s higher costs is the age of Toronto's wastewater treatment plants (the oldest has been in operation since 1929), that can be more costly to maintain than newer plants in other municipalities, as well as higher disposal costs for biosolids. The strategies contained in the City's Biosolids and Residuals Master Plan (BRMP) were approved in late 2009 for three of the City’s four wastewater treatment plants.

278 Wastewater Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

2011 Achievements or 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following initiatives have and are expected to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Wastewater Services in Toronto:

2011 Achievements

• annual inspection by the Ministry of Environment at the City's wastewater treatment facilities achieved full compliance rating with no major non-conformance issues identified • conducted numerous Energy Optimization initiatives at various locations to reduce the overall cost of energy and reduce the carbon footprint • created a more efficient model for the daily sampling of water quality (for swimming ) along the Beaches through the use of Lifeguards • Toronto's Bluffer's Park Beach in Scarborough was granted a Blue Flag designation, making it Toronto's eighth beach to achieve world class status. The Blue Flag is a highly respected and internationally recognized eco-label for high quality swimming beaches • rolled out the Mandatory Downspout Disconnection Program • achieved 74% beneficial use of biosolids at the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant • completed the following major capital projects o Coxwell Sanitary Trunk Sewer Bypass o Implemented approximately $128 M of capital improvements to the City's four wastewater treatment plants. This included ongoing projects to improve odour control as well as renewal of aging infrastructure. o Earl Bales Stormwater Project • completed the Wet Weather Flow Master Plan Update Staff Report, approved by City Council in September 2011 • completed the Geomorphology Systems Master Plan Class EA; and Scarborough Waterfront CSO and Stormwater Outfalls Control Class EA • completed two Basement Flooding Investigation Class Environmental Assessment studies – Study Areas 3 (combined sewer area) and 31 (separated sewer area)

2012 Planned Initiatives

• completion of the Don River and Central Waterfront Class EA • completion of Waterfront Sanitary Servicing Master Plan Class EA • ongoing implementation of the Basement Flooding Relief Work Plan, which is a multi-pronged (lot level; storm drainage; and, sewer infrastructure improvements) adaptive management approach to reduce the risk of basement flooding under extreme storm events in 32 chronic basement flooding areas across the City • Waterfront sanitary servicing Master Plan Class Environment Assessment continuation reviewing sanitary servicing for growth along the waterfront to 2031 • Several infrastructure planning projects for TTC impacting both water and wastewater services • Divisional key performance indicators continuation from 2011 and further development • customer service strategic initiative affecting all water and wastewater service programs

279 Wastewater Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Factors Influencing the Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality included in this report can be influenced to varying degrees by factors such as:

• size of the ICI sectors: the respective volume of wastewater generated relative to the total system demand • urban density: proximity of pipes to other utilities increases the cost for infrastructure repair and replacement • age of infrastructure: age and condition of the wastewater treatment and collection and frequency of maintenance costs • treatment plants/processes: number, size, age and complexity of the wastewater treatment plants operated • maintenance policies: frequency of wastewater collection system maintenance activities, collection • system age, condition and type of pipe material • weather conditions: negative impacts associated with more severe and frequent extreme weather events

280 WWaatteerr SSeerrvviicceess

Water Treatment and Supply

Water Water Distribution Treatment

Water Service Pumping Connections Stations

Water Water Distribution Treatment System Plants

Water Transmission Mains

Water Storage Reservoirs

Water services in Toronto refer to the process from the point that source water is pumped from Lake Ontario, to the point that drinking water is delivered to residential, and ICI (industrial, commercial, and institutional) customers. It also includes the provision of water through fire hydrants for fire protection.

The two main activities are:

• treatment of over 1 billion litres of source water from Lake Ontario, each day at four water treatment plants to ensure the quality of drinking water meets or exceeds regulatory requirements

• distribution of drinking water via 470,200 connections to industrial, commercial, institutional and household water users/ customers. In Toronto this is accomplished with 18 water pumping stations, 102 pumps, 510 kilometres of trunk watermain, 10 underground storage reservoirs, four elevated storage tanks, 52,900 valves, and 5,015 kilometres of distribution water mains. If these watermains were laid end-to-end, they would exceed the entire distance from Newfoundland to British Columbia.

Funding for these activities is provided through municipal water rates.

281

Water Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service/Activity Level Indicators How much drinking water Megalitres of Water Decreased 2 28.1 is treated each year? Treated per 100,000 28.2 Population – (activity Volume of water treated Rate/volume of water Level) decreased treated at median pg. (activity level indicator) compared to others 284 (activity level indicator) How old are the water Average Age of Water Stable 4 28.8 distribution pipes? Pipe - (Service Level) Average age of water Oldest average age of pg. pipe is stable at 57 years pipes of OMBI 287 municipalities (service level indicator) (service level indicator) Community Impact Measures How much drinking water Residential Water Use Decrease 3 28.3 does the average (Megalitres) per 28.4 household use? Household – Amount of water used Slightly higher rate of (Community Impact) per household water used per pg. decreased household compared to 285 others Customer Service/Quality Measures Is the quality of drinking % of Water Quality Favourable 4 28.5 water in compliance with Tests in Compliance 28.6 provincial standards? with Provincial Drinking Percentage of tests in Lower rate than other Water Standards - compliance has muncipalities but still pg. (Customer remained high at 99.80% very high at 99.80% 286 Service/Quality) in 2010 Were there any boil Number of Household Favourable 1 water advisories? Days with Boil Water Advisories – (Customer No boil water advisories No boil water advisories Service/Quality) How many watermain Number of Water Main Increased 4 28.7 breaks are there? Breaks per 100 KM of 28.8 Water Distribution Pipe Number of watermain Highest rate of water – (Customer Service) breaks increased main breaks compared pg. to others 287 Efficiency Measures What does it cost in to Operating Cost for the Stable 4 28.9 distribute drinking water? Distribution of Drinking 28.10 Water per KM of Water Cost of water Higher cost of water Distribution Pipe – distribution was stable distribution compared to pg. (Efficiency) others 288 What does it cost to treat Operating Cost for the Decreased 1 28.11 drinking water? Treatment of Drinking 28.12 Water per Megalitre of Cost of water treatment Lower cost of water Drinking Water Treated decreased treatment compared to pg. – (Efficiency) others 289

282 Water Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

Question Indicator/Measure Internal Comparison External Comparison to Chart of Toronto’s Other Municipalities & Page 2010 vs. 2009 Results (OMBI) Ref. By Quartile for 2010 Service/ Performance Service Level Performance Overall Results Activity Level Measures Indicators Measures Indicators (Results) (Resources) (Results) (Resources)

0 - Increased 4 - Favourable 0 - 1st quartile 2 - 1st quartile 1 - Stable 1 - Stable 1 - 2nd quartile 0 - 2nd quartile 0 - decreased 1 - Unfavour. 0 - 3rd quartile 1- 3rd quartile 1 - 4th quartile 3- 4th quartile

100% stable or 83% favourable 50% above 33% above increased or stable median median

For an explanation of how to interpret this summary and the supporting charts, please see pages 20-26. These quartile results are based on a maximum sample size of 15 municipalities.

283 Water Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

How much drinking water is treated each year in Toronto?

20,000 Chart 28.1 summarizes Toronto's total volume 16,000 (megalitres) and rate of drinking water treated per 100,000 12,000 population. One megalitre is equivalent to one million litres. 8,000 In 2010 there was a -2.5% 4,000 decline in the total volume of drinking water treated, which is 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 consistent with the longer term Megalitres per 17,314 17,702 17,516 17,060 16,301 16,533 15,916 15,730 14,796 14,642 14,194 100K pop'n reduction as consumers use Total Megalitres 444,188 459,215 458,945 451,463 435,610 446,130 430,410 429,432 405,194 403,497 393,591 water more efficiently.

Chart 28.1 (City of Toronto) Megalitres of Drinking Water Treated per 100,000 Population (Activity Level) Contributors to lower water consumption are: How does the amount of water treated in Toronto, compare to • a larger number of high other municipalities? density condominiums 25,000 (water use is lower than in Median 14,194 homes), 20,000 • improved water conservation resulting from City initiatives 15,000 • improved consumer water products 10,000 • impact of higher water rate • lower than expected 5,000 population and employment

0 growth rates Wind Ham T-Bay Sud Niag Calg Lond Tor Musk Halt York Durh Ott Wat Bar • the introduction of the U.S. Megalitres 19,708 18,319 15,390 15,225 15,177 14,684 14,219 14,194 14,128 13,913 12,369 11,821 11,566 10,645 10,414 EPA’s WaterSense water efficient product labelling Chart 28.2 (OMBI 2010) Megalitres of Drinking Water Treated per 100,000 Population program, (Activity Level) • wetter summers • a high level of public education and environmental awareness..

Chart 28.2 compares Toronto's 2010 result to other municipalities on the volume of water treated per 100,000 population. These volumes relate to water use by both the residential and ICI (industrial, commercial and institutional) sectors. Toronto ranks eighth of fifteen (at median), in terms of having the highest volumes of water treated.

In many municipalities the ICI sectors can use significant water volumes in their operations, such as in Toronto where the ICI volumes of water used was flat in relation to 2009, but accounted for 39 per cent of the total volumes of drinking water treated.

284 Water Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How much drinking water does the average Toronto household use? Toronto has an approved water efficiency plan designed to 0.25 protect the environment and accommodate future population 0.20 growth within the planned capacity of water treatment 0.15 plants.

0.10 Chart 28.3 shows the annual 0.05 volume of water (megalitres) used in an average Toronto 0.00 household decreased by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 approximately 1,000 litres. Megalitres/HH 0.240 0.222 0.205 0.222 0.198 0.197

Note: 2009 result previously reported of .23 megalitres/HH was restated Rebate programs for capacity buy-back, more water efficient Chart 28.3 (City of Toronto) Megalitres of Drinking Water Used per Household (Community Impact) toilets and washing machines are examples of initiatives that How does Toronto’s drinking water use per household compare were used in 2010 to reduce to other municipalities? water consumption.

4 Annual water use in houses can 0.6 be impacted each year by the 0.5 3 amount of rain and resulting 0.4 outdoor water use requirements 2 such as the watering of lawns 0.3 and gardens. 0.2 Median 0.196 1 0.1 Examining total daily water use during the winter months (when Household per # of inviiduals Average Megalitres of water used per household household per used of water Megalitres 0.0 0 T- outdoor water use is minimal) is Lon Sud Musk Ott Bar Tor Calg Durh Ham Halt Wind Bay another way of examining longer Megalitres/HH 0.121 0.164 0.168 0.180 0.190 0.196 0.197 0.199 0.203 0.203 0.222 0.243

# indiv. per HH 2.21 2.22 2.69 2.56 2.77 3.32 2.54 2.59 2.68 2.49 2.79 2.45 term, trends, and it shows that usage has decreased by -12%

Chart 28.4 (OMBI 2010) Annual Residential Water Use (Megalitres) per Household from 1,155 megalitres per day in (Community Impact) & Average Number of Individuals per Household 2001 to 1,015 megalitres in 2010.

Chart 28.4 compares Toronto’s 2010 water use per household to other municipalities, plotted as bars relative to the left axis. Toronto ranks seventh of twelve (third quartile) in terms of having the lowest water use per household.

The average number of individuals per household is also plotted as a line graph relative to the right axis, as family size can impact household water consumption.

285 Water Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

Does Toronto's water quality meet or exceed provincial standards? The quality of drinking water 100% provided in Toronto is of paramount importance. 95% Toronto’s drinking water monitoring program extends in 90% intensity and scope well beyond provincial regulatory 85% requirements. Many more parameters are regularly tested 80% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 in relation to those formally % compliance 99.88% 99.91% 99.87% 99.94% 99.84% 99.80% regulated.

Chart 28.5 (City of Toronto) % of Water Quality Tests in Compliance with Drinking During 2010, over 23,000 Water Standards. (Customer Service) analyses were performed on treated water as well as water at How does Toronto's compliance with provincial water quality various stages of treatment. standards compare to other municipalities? Additional tests are conducted through comprehensive Median 99.92% 100% distribution monitoring.

Chart 28.6 reflects Toronto's 95% results for the number of drinking water microbiological test results 90% that met or exceeded the standards as set out in Ontario 85% Regulation 169/03 of the Ontario Drinking Water Act. Results

80% continue to be very strong. Calg Niag Musk York Ham Ott Wind Bar Lond Wat Sud Durh T-Bay Halt Tor

% compliance 100.00 100.00 99.97% 99.95% 99.94% 99.93% 99.93% 99.92% 99.91% 99.91% 99.88% 99.86% 99.85% 99.81% 99.80%

Chart 28.6 (OMBI 2010) % of Water Quality Tests in Compliance with Drinking Water Standards. (Customer Service)

Chart 28.4 compares Toronto's 2010 result to other municipalities for the percentage of tests in compliance with provincial standards. In terms of having the highest compliance rate, Toronto ranks 15th of 15 (fourth quartile); however, Toronto continues to have very high rates of compliance at 99.80 per cent.

Another measure of water quality is the weighted number of days when a boil water advisory relating to a municipal water supply is issued by the Medical Officer of Health. In Toronto, there were no boil water advisories issued in 2010 or prior years. .

286 Water Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

How many watermain breaks are there in Toronto? 30 Chart 28.7 summarizes Toronto's total number and 25 rate of watermain breaks per 20 100 km of pipe, and shows an increase in 2010 15 10 The rate of breaks varies from year to year with the 5 degree of variation in winter 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 temperatures being a # breaks per significant factor combined 24.5 23.1 26.6 28.3 26.3 24.9 16.2 25.8 17.9 20.8 21.6 100km of pipe with aging infrastructure. Total # of breaks 1,460 1,375 1,581 1,683 1,562 1,484 965 1,533 1,065 1,233 1,282 Other contributing factors that can lead to variations in Chart 28.7 (City of Toronto) Annual # of Watermain Breaks per 100 km of watermain breaks are Distribution Pipe (Customer Service) surrounding construction

projects and changes in

water pressure due to other How does Toronto’s rate of watermain breaks compare to project work. other municipalities?

30 60 Chart 28.8 compares Median number of breaks 8.2

Toronto's 2010 rate of 25 50 watermain breaks, to other

20 40 municipalities, plotted as

bars relative to the left axis.

15 30

Toronto ranks thirteenth of

per 100 km of 100 km pipe per 10 20

thirteen (fourth quartile), with

breaks of Number watermain the highest rate of watermain 5 10 breaks.

0 0 T- York Musk Calg Halt Bar Durh Lond Ott Sud Ham Wind Tor pipe of watermain age (years) Average Bay # breaks 1.0 2.6 4.6 4.8 6.1 6.8 8.2 8.8 9.0 9.8 14.3 20.5 21.6 Average age 15.3 40.0 30.5 23.1 32.3 19.7 33.7 46.0 31.7 45.0 42.7 46.1 57.0

Chart 28.8 (OMBI 2010) Annual Number of Watermain Breaks per 100km of Distribution Pipe (Customer Service) and Average Age of Watermains (Service Level)

The age and condition of a municipality’s water distribution system can be a significant factor in the number of watermain breaks. The average age of the water distribution pipe is plotted on Chart 28.8 as a line graph relative to the right axis.

Toronto’s watermain system is the oldest of the OMBI municipalities at an average of 57 years, with 25 per cent of the watermains over 80 years old. The condition of the watermain system can be affected by the amount of co-located utilities and subway and streetcar tracks, which can accelerate pipe corrosion (through electrolysis) and is another factor contributing to Toronto’s higher rate of breaks.

287 Water Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

What does it cost in Toronto to distribute drinking water? Water distribution refers to the $24,722 $27,000 $23,160 process of distributing drinking $24,000 water from the water treatment $21,000 plant through the system of $18,000 watermains to the customer. $15,000 $12,000 $9,000 Chart 28.9 provides Toronto's $6,000 water distribution costs, per $3,000 kilometre of distribution pipe. $0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Impact of change in acct. policy 7,345 5,961 Starting in 2009, changes in $cost per km of pipe 14,368 14,566 14,688 14,693 16,387 15,986 15,000 16,537 17,734 17,377 17,199 accounting policies were CPI Adjusted cost (base 2000) 14,368 14,120 13,954 13,552 14,869 14,246 13,146 14,217 14,896 14,532 14,025 instituted by all Ontario Results previously reported for 2008 ($16,652/km) and 2009 (23,636/km) have been restated to be consistent with the municipalities as described on costing methodology used in 2010. page 26. The 2010 impact of Chart 28.9 (City of Toronto) Operating Cost for Drinking Water Distribution per km of Pipe (Efficiency) these accounting policy changes amounted to $5,961 per km of How does the cost of distributing drinking water in Toronto pipe, and is plotted as a stacked compare to other municipalities? column to isolate it from the 2010 result using the previous $60,000 costing methodology used in 2008 and prior years. $50,000

$40,000 There has been a longer term trend of increasing costs in $30,000 response to ageing Median $11,400 infrastructure, but in 2010 there $20,000 was actually a slight decrease of -1.0%, excluding the impact of $10,000 the accounting policy changes. $0 Musk Bar Halt Wind Ham Sud T-Bay Lond Calg Durh Ott Niag Tor York $cost 6,845 7,837 7,943 8,815 8,913 9,305 11,217 11,583 11,890 12,117 12,287 18,001 23,160 52,163 . Chart 28.10 (OMBI 2010) Operating Cost for Drinking Water Distribution per km of Pipe (Efficiency)

Chart 28.10 also provides Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjusted results, plotted as a line graph. This adjusts/discounts the actual result for each year by the change in Toronto’s CPI since the base year of 2000.

Chart 28.10 compares Toronto's 2010 cost of water distribution per km. of pipe to other municipalities. Toronto ranks thirteenth of fourteen (fourth quartile) with the second highest costs.

The topography of the City of Toronto is a factor in our higher costs. It is necessary to have 12 separate pressure districts at six different levels to provide adequate pressure to all consumers. In some cases, water must be pumped three or four times before it reaches the consumer.

Toronto’s high operating costs are also related to the higher rate of watermain breaks (Chart 28.8), and the age of the infrastructure, with 35 percent of the Toronto watermain system being 50 to 80 years old and 25 percent over 80 years old

288 Water Services 2010 Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Report

What does it cost to treat drinking water in Toronto? $209 $220 Water treatment costs $200 include the operation and $180 $150 maintenance of treatment $160 plants as well as quality $140 assurance and laboratory $120 $100 testing to ensure compliance $80 with regulations. $60 $40 Chart 28.11 summarizes $20 Toronto’s cost of treating a $0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 megalitre (one million litres) of Impact of change in acct. policy $90 $57 drinking water. $Cost per megalitre $71 $79 $73 $63 $89 $78 $73 $80 $90 $119 $93 CPI Adjusted cost (base 2000) $71 $77 $69 $58 $80 $69 $64 $69 $76 $100 $76 Starting in 2009, changes in Results previously reported for 2008 ($90/megalitre) and 2009 ($201/megalitre) have been restated to be consistent with the accounting policies were costing methodology used in 2010. instituted by all Ontario municipalities as described on Chart 28.11 (City of Toronto) Operating Cost for Drinking WaterTreatment per Megalitre (Efficiency) page 26. The 2010 impact of these accounting policy changes amounted to an increase of $57 How does Toronto’s cost of drinking water treatment compare per megalitre treated, which has to other municipalities? been plotted as a stacked $800 column to isolate it from the $700 2010 result using the costing methodology used in 2008 and $600 prior years $500 Excluding the impact of the $400 Median $278 accounting policy changes, $300 Toronto's 2010 costs decreased $200 and are consistent with 2008 levels. Part of the decreased $100 cost was the financial effects of $0 Lond Tor Calg Ham Wind Ott Durh Niag Halt Bar York T-Bay Wat Sud Musk a settlement with Enwave. $ megalitre $124 $150 $180 $183 $222 $266 $286 $287 $325 $396 $397 $403 $450 $454 $745

Chart 28.12 (OMBI 2010) Cost of Water Treatment per Megalitre Treated (Efficiency)

Chart 28.11 also provides CPI adjusted results plotted as a line graph. This adjusts/discounts the actual result for each year by the change in Toronto’s CPI since the base year of 2000

Chart 28.12 compares Toronto's 2010 cost of water treatment per megalitre to other municipalities. Toronto ranks second of fifteen municipalities (first quartile).

The primary factors behind Toronto’s lower costs are efficiencies and economies of scale realized from the operation of four large water treatment plants.

289 Water Services 2010 Performance Measurement And Benchmarking Report

2011 Achievements and 2012 Planned Initiatives

The following initiatives have and are expected to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Water Services in Toronto:

2011 Initiatives Completed/Achievements • completed annual inspection done by the Ministry of Environment at the City's water treatment facilities and achieved full compliance rating with no major non-conformance issues identified • achieved full-scope on-site accreditation as per the Safe Drinking Water Act • completed an on-site audit by the Canadian General Standards Board on Toronto's Drinking Water Quality Management System • conducted numerous Energy Optimization initiatives at various locations to reduce the overall cost of energy and reduce the carbon footprint • Water Efficiency Plan 2001-2011 was completed • implemented a City-Wide Water Loss Reduction and Leak Detection Program • received an award for the water conservation framework (2011 Cities Initiative Water Conservation Framework - Most Innovative Conservation Method Award) • implemented the City’s Lead in Drinking Water Mitigation Strategy, which includes the Corrosion Control Plan, the Priority Lead Service Replacement Program, and the Faucet Filter Program • met installation targets for Water Meter Program with some Wards achieving 100% completion while others exceeded 95%

2012 Initiatives Planned • completion of the major capital projects such as the Avenue Road Trunk Watermain and the Horgan Water Treatment Plant Expansion • continue the program (to be completed by 2017) to install water meters for the remaining flat rate customers in the city and the city-wide water meter replacement program coupled with the concurrent installation of automated meter reading technology (i.e. a radio frequency based fixed area network) • Several infrastructure planning projects for TTC and waterfront impacting both water and wastewater services • Divisional key performance indicators continuation from 2011 and further development • Customer service strategic initiative affecting all water and wastewater service programs

Factors Influencing the Results of Municipalities

The results of each municipality included in this report can be influenced to varying degrees by factors such as: • demand: variation in supply to the ICI and residential sectors, relative to total system demand • supply: cost is impacted by the water source (ground water or surface water), the resulting treatment costs and the number of independent water supply/distribution systems operated; size of the geographic area serviced • treatment plants: number, size and complexity of a municipality’s water treatment plants • urban density: proximity of pipes to other utilities increases the cost for infrastructure repair and replacement • age of infrastructure: age and condition of the water distribution pipe, type of water distribution pipe material and frequency of maintenance activities • local water supply requirements: specific municipal water quality requirements may exceed provincial regulations • weather conditions: negative impacts associated with more severe and frequent extreme weather events • conservation programs: extent of municipal water conservation programs can impact water consumption

290