Appendix 8 Performance Measures 2011 Budget Each year the Province of Alberta collects standard financial information from each municipality. From this information they develop financial indicator graphs for groups of similar municipalities. These charts give rate payers and Council and idea of how Mountain View County compares with its peers. These graphs are discussed as part of the budget process and have been included in the budget package. In addition, Council has asked that there be a greater emphasis on County performance measures. Included in the 2011 budget are funds to conduct a rate payer survey. One of the objectives of the survey is to obtain feedback regarding the County’s performance. The other aspect of performance measurement is to develop performance reporting. There has always been performance evaluation and measurement but not a formalized process. In 2011 it’s planned to develop a formalized performance reporting process. As part of this process performance measures for each major County function will be developed. A sample of the proposed format is included in the budget package for the Property Assessment area. The format includes objectives of the area, the resources or inputs used in the area, what’s produced or output, measures of the cost per unit of output or efficiency, measures of the quality of the output or effectiveness and a section on rate payer feedback concerning the function. ASSESSMENT – PERFORMANCE MEASURES Objectives: • To accurately value the properties within Mountain View County to ensure property values are consistent with Provincial regulations. • To ensure that comparable properties have a comparable value. Inputs: 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Staff 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Costs have shown an overall increase with a large increase coming in 2006 when salaries were reviewed for all County staff. 2010 shows a drop as the manager’s position was vacant for pat of the year. Consultants are used periodically to supplement available staff time for reviewing properties. 2005 and 2010 were years that there was an increased use of consultants. Outputs: In the six year period from2005 through 2010 the Assessment department was able to review all new assessment rolls as well as review all existing properties. In 2011 the properties scheduled for review were last reviewed in 2005. The results will be analyzed and will help determine the target review period. Efficiency: Cost per roll reviewed have remained reasonably consist with a trend towards increasing costs. Generally years where consultants have been used the cost per roll reviewed has decreased as the fixed costs of operating the department are spread over more rolls. Expenses have been steadily increasing. The majority of expenses relate to staff costs so they closely follow the cost of labour. Effectiveness: The Assessment Departments effectiveness is measured each year by the Provincial government. The Province analyses the roll and will not accept it until it passes their quality checks. These checks ensure consistent assessments across the Province. In addition to the annual checks the Province performs a detailed audit Assessment appeals are a broad measure of effectiveness. Appeals can be filed for periodically. The County’s last a number of different reasons and in some cases could be a reflection of the detailed audit was in 2007. political and/or economic climate. 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Meets Provincial Standard 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Potential Question for County Survey: Given that taxes are necessary in order to provide municipal services, do you believe that you are fairly taxed compared with your neighbours? (rate on a scale of 1 – 10) Financial Indicator Graphs for the Year Ended December 31, 2009 Prepared by Financial Advisory Services Local Government Services Division Municipal Affairs 1 2009 Financial Indicator Graphs The financial indicator graphs have been revised this year to reflect the significant changes in the presentation of the annual audited financial statements and the financial information return. Some indicators from previous years have been dropped or revised because the data set is no longer valid. Some new indicators have been added with data that is only available for 2009. The indicators are intended to serve as a tool that may assist council and administration with operational decisions. The comparative measures may be useful in assessing past performance and for budget planning. Comparison groups are shown on the last two slides and are arranged by population and by equalized assessment per capita. Other points to note are: 1. The range for most of the graphs is 2004 to 2009. 2. Equalized assessment is shown for the period 2005 to 2010. 3. Caution should be used when interpreting results as each municipality has unique characteristics affecting how it compares to the group. In addition, circumstances may have changed since the December 31, 2009 reporting date. 2 Financial Indicator Graphs include: .Equalized Tax Rates –Municipal/Residential/Non-Residential .Equalized Assessment Per Capita (urban only) .Equalized Assessment Per Km of Roads (rural only) .Non-residential Equalized Assessment as % of Total .Tax Collection Rate .Debt & Debt Service as % of the Limits .Long Term Debt Per Capita .Major Revenue Sources As % of Total Revenue (2009 only) : .Municipal Property Tax .Sales & User Charges .Provincial & Federal Grants .Broad Function Expenses Per Capita (2009 only) .General Government .Protective Services .Transportation .Environmental Protection .Recreation .Total .Per Capita Expenses by Major Type: .Salaries, Wages & Benefits .Contracted & General Services .Materials, Goods, Supplies & Utilities .Bank Charges & Interest .Amortization (2009 only) .Net Book Value As % of Total Capital Property Cost (2009 only) .Accumulated Surplus Categories, As %, End of Year (2009 only) .Ratio of Current Assets to Current Liabilities 3 Municipal Equalized Tax Rate MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY 0 2 2 7 4 - F 0 3 - 0 2 2 6 Median (Equalized Assessment 2,083 - 6,167 million - Rural) 12 10 1 0 . 4 9 . 6 8 7 . 3 7 . 4 7 . 0 6 . 8 6 . 5 6 . 5 6 6 . 6 6 . 4 5 . 8 5 . 9 5 . 8 5 . 9 4 2 . 9 2 . 9 2 0 2004 Group 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009 Group M a x i m u m M a x i m u m Minimum Minimum Note : Municipal Equalized Tax Rate is calculated based on total equalized assessment and net municipal property tax. 4 Residential Equalized Tax Rate MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Median (Equalized Assessment 2,083 - 6,167 million - Rural) 1 6 1 4 1 2 1 2 . 4 1 0 9 . 2 8 . 9 9 . 8 9 . 1 8 . 4 8 8 . 6 7 . 5 8 . 3 7 . 4 7 . 2 6 5 . 7 5 . 6 5 . 0 4 4 . 9 3 . 4 2 0 2 0 0 4 G r o u p 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 0 9 G r o u p M a x i m u m M a x i m u m M i n i m u m M i n i m u m Note : Residential Equalized Tax Rate is calculated based on gross residential property taxes and residential equalized assessment. 5 Non-Residential Equalized Tax Rate MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Median (Equalized Assessment 2,083 - 6,167 million - Rural) 21 19 18.0 1 6 . 9 17 15 13.5 12.9 1 3 . 2 1 2 . 9 12.5 1 2 . 6 13 1 3 . 1 1 3 . 2 12.9 1 2 . 0 1 1 . 8 1 1 . 7 11 9 7 . 8 7 6 . 3 5 2004 Group 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009 Group M a x i m u m M a x i m u m Minimum Minimum Note : Non-Residential Equalized Tax Rate is calculated based on gross non-residential property taxes and non-residential equalized assessment. 6 Equalized Assessment Per Km of Roads (in thousands) MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Median (Equalized Assessment 2,083 - 6,167 million - Rural) 3 , 5 0 0 3,347 3 , 0 0 0 2 , 5 0 0 2 , 0 0 0 1,881 1,719 1,836 1 , 5 0 0 1,122 1 , 3 7 5 1 , 0 0 0 1,213 8 7 8 6 9 7 768 1,005 809 545 5 0 0 6 8 9 7 5 2 263 0 - 5 0 0 2 0 0 5 G r o u p 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 G r o u p Maximum Maximum Minimum Minimum Note : Equalized Assessment Per Km of Roads approximates a municipality's ability to generate property tax revenue relative to the number of kilometers of open roads maintained compared to the average. Equalized Assessment Per Capita (in thousands) MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY Median (Equalized Assessment 2,083 - 6,167 million - Rural) 900 800 700 7 7 4 600 500 4 9 3 400 385 3 6 7 300 296 3 1 8 2 2 6 280 229 200 1 9 1 1 7 2 2 2 3 173 1 8 6 100 110 1 5 9 0 2 0 0 5 G r o u p 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 G r o u p Maximum Maximum M i n i m u m M i n i m u m Note : Equalized Assessment Per Capita approximates a municipality's ability to generate property tax revenue in comparison to similar municipalities.