Appendix 8 Performance Measures 256 Performance Measures 2013 Budget Each year the Province of Alberta collects standard financial information from each municipality. From this information they develop financial indicator graphs for groups of similar municipalities. These charts give rate payers and Council and idea of how Mountain View County compares with its peers. These graphs are discussed as part of the budget process and have been included in the budget package. In addition, Council has asked that there be a greater emphasis on County performance measures. Included in the 2013 budget are funds to conduct a rate payer survey. One of the objectives of the survey is to obtain feedback regarding the County’s performance. The other aspect of performance measurement is to develop performance reporting. There has always been performance evaluation and measurement but the challenge becomes how to summarize everything that is being measured, in a meaningful way. Throughout the budget there are a number of charts that give some insight into the overall financial health of the County. Below are a few selected charts which give some insight into the operations of Mountain View County. In the pages that follow are a number of charts which provide some further insight into specific programs that the County runs. As a package hopefully these charts inform rate payers of the County’s overall performance. In the last three years recurring municipal operating expenses have remained flat after a period of growth. This is partly due to a change in Council and administrative direction and partly due to overall economic conditions. In the same period where operating expenses have leveled off the amount that is set aside for the renewal of County infrastructure has been increasing. 257 Performance Measures 2013 Budget Road infrastructure is where the majority of County funds are spent. At the heart of County road maintenance is equipment. In 2005 and 2006 the County moved from doing both road construction and maintenance to focusing County resources on maintenance, and contracting out construction. This can be seen in the drop in overall equipment hours in 2006 and after. 2012 was a year of administrative transition in the County’s Operational Services department and subsequently equipment hours were down. It’s expected the equipment hours will return to normal levels in 2013. The chart shows Action Requests for Operational Services. Overall there is a downward trend in Action Requests. The spike in requests in 2011 is primarily related to higher than normal snowfall resulting in more requests. 258 DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURES Corporate Services April 2013 259 CAO SERVICES AND LEGISLATIVE & COMMUNITY SERVICES 260 CAO SERVICES AND LEGISLATIVE & COMMUNITY SERVICES – PERFORMANCE MEASURES Objectives: • To provide legislative and legal compliance and implement strategic corporate programs to support Council and Administration in pursuing excellence in municipal management and quality public service • To provide Human Resources services such as advice and guidance to management in the areas of recruitment, staffing, compensation, rewards and organizational development • To provide safe, healthy and supportive environments for staff • To safeguard and improve residents’ quality of life. Individuals, families, community groups and associations, social agencies, industry and visitors to the County benefit from our services and access our programs, grants and spaces on a daily basis 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Staff 6 7 7 8 9 12 12 13 13 13 Inputs: Expenses for the CAO and Legislative & Community Services Departments have increased through the years 2003 – 2010 and have leveled off in the subsequent year. The chart below show the main areas where cost increased. 2003 2010 Area Staff Total Cost Staff Total Cost Communications 0 $ 70,766.87 1 $ 263,667.51 Economic Development 0 $ 17,946.84 1 $ 57,013.76 Executive Administration 2 $ 153,203.98 2 $ 733,541.50* Human Resources/ Health & Safety 0 $ 9,630.77 2 (1 Consultant) $ 195,904.40 Legislative Services 2 $ 103,001.51 2 $ 259,123.71 Patrol 2 $ 186,677.48 3 $ 416,449.25 Community Services 0 $ - 2 $ 137,186.18 *Includes non-recurring costs of $355,517.84 for Corporate Review and CAO Severance. 261 Outputs: There has been a large increase in the amount spent on newspaper and magazine related expenses since 2005 as there has been an emphasis on communications. The number of Council Meetings, which includes Policies and Priorities, has increased dramatically between 2003 and 2010 and have dropped off slightly after 2010. • This department includes a variety of services. In recent years, the scope of this area has increased significantly. This includes the expansion of Human Resources/ Health & Safety functions with an increased focus on communications, economic development and intergovernmental relations. Efficiency: Costs per Council meeting for the department, have increased between 2003 and 2010. Expenditures increased between 2003 – 2010, with a large increase coming in 2008 when new positions were added. 262 Effectiveness: • The effectiveness of the CAO and Legislative & Community Services departments is based on its ability to develop long-term corporate objectives and improve the economy while also representing Mountain View County on matters involving the Province of Alberta and other intergovernmental affairs. 263 COMMUNITY GRANTS – PERFORMANCE MEASURES Overall Measures: There has been a steady increase to the funds provided for fire services. The main component of Community grants is the County’s support of the FCSS program. In 2008 the County made a one time contribution of $350,000 to the Community Learning Campus in Olds. The County has increased its support of community halls. Through agreements with the Towns the County has increased its contribution to recreation facilities and libraries. Starting in 2007 the County increased contributions over a five year period. 264 CORPORATE SERVICES 265 FINANCE – PERFORMANCE MEASURES Objectives: • To accurately record financial transactions and report the results of the transactions to Rate Payers, Council and those responsible for overseeing the financial transaction in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Government Act • To coordinate the preparation of a budget, this establishes the resources available to carry out the programs and initiatives in the coming year • To manage all Operating, Capital and Reserve Funds 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Staff 5 6 7 9 9 12 12 12 12 11 Inputs: Costs have shown an overall increase with a increase coming in 2006 and after when salaries were reviewed and positions were added. 2010 shows a drop as a few positions were not filled for the entire year. Outputs: The number of financial transactions has increased between the years 2003 to 2011. This can be explained by increased “automation” of certain entries and the addition of Tangible Capital Assets transactions. 266 Efficiency: Cost per capita has been increasing over the last eight years. A federal census was last conducted in 2006, so it would be reasonable to expect this trend to level off in 2011 as the County has experienced population growth. Costs per full time employee have remained fairly consistent over the period 2003 – 2010 and have gone up through 2012 as the number of staff has decreased. As a long term trend the costs should increase close to the rate of inflation with the potential for the cost structure to be impacted by service level changes or process changes. The increase in expenditures in the Finance Department in 2004 can be attributed to a service level change, when accounting duties for Mountain View Regional Waste Commission were assumed by the County. Another increase was seen in 2008 when new positions were added to manage the Tangible Capital Asset program and the Grant Reporting. Effectiveness: According to the Municipal Government Act, all municipalities must annually undergo an audit to test and examine evidence supporting the financial statements. The Finance Department is responsible for coordinating the annual audit. This audit ensures that the financial statements are free of material misstatements. The Audit Committee reviews these results and makes recommendations as necessary, to County Council. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Unqualified Audit Opinion GFOA Distinguished Budget Presentation Award 267 ASSESSMENT – PERFORMANCE MEASURES Objectives: • To accurately value the properties within Mountain View County to ensure property values are consistent with Provincial regulations • To ensure that comparable properties have a comparable value 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Staff 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Inputs: Costs have shown an overall incline with a large increase coming in 2006 when salaries were reviewed for all County staff. 2010 & 2011 shows a drop as the manager’s position was vacant for part of the year. Consultants are used periodically to supplement available staff time for reviewing properties. 2005 and 2010 - 2012 were years that there was an increased use of consultants. With a new manager in place it’s expected that we will be able to reduce our reliance on consultants. Outputs: In the six year period from2005 through 2010 the Assessment Department was able to review all new assessment rolls as well as review all existing properties. In 2011 assessment operations were impacted as the manager’s position was vacant for part of the year. 268 Efficiency: Cost per roll reviewed have remained reasonably consist with a trend towards increasing costs. Generally years where consultants have been used the cost per roll reviewed has decreased as the fixed costs of operating the department are spread over more rolls. Cost per roll increased in 2011 since less rolls were reviewed than typically would be the case. Expenses have been steadily increasing. The majority of expenses relate to staff costs so they closely follow the cost of labour.