| 1.1.1. Taxes as a % of Total Revenue |
Shows the amount of taxes as a percent of total revenue.
A low percentage may indicate a reliance on transfers from other governments. A high percentage indicates that a municipality is more self sufficient. This indicator is calculated by dividing total taxes including special assessments, business taxes, area rates and deed transfer taxes by total revenue.
|
| |
| 1.1.2. Transfers from Other Governments |
This indicator measures the reliance of a municipality on revenues from other levels of government (i.e. Equalization Grant). It is calculated by dividing transfers from other governments by total revenue. A high ratio probably indicates an over-reliance on transfers as compared to property tax revenue. |
| |
| 1.1.3. Residential Tax Burden (RTB) |
This indicator shows the average cost, to each dwelling unit, of municipal government services. When comparing municipalities, it is a more accurate reflection of residential property taxes than tax rates. It is calculated by dividing total residential property tax revenue, excluding area rates, by the number of dwelling units in the municipality. A high RTB may indicate that a municipality is reaching a ceiling on tax rates. A low RTB may indicate that a municipality has a relatively large commercial tax base to share the tax burden. While this indicator provides information on the cost of municipal government per dwelling unit, care must be exercised in comparing municipalities. Municipalities with user charges for services such as garbage collection will tend to have lower RTB's than municipalities that fund all services through tax revenue.
|
| |
| 1.1.4. Uniform Assessment per Dwelling Unit |
This indicator provides broad information on a municipality's ability to fund municipal services. It is calculated by dividing uniform assessment by dwelling units. A high Uniform Assessment per Dwelling Unit may indicate that the municipality is relatively well off compared to other municipalities.
|
| |
| 1.2.1. Mandatory Expenditures |
Shows the amount of expenditures that council has little or no control over as a percent of total expenditures. It is calculated by dividing the sum of education, assessment, corrections, housing, debt charges, library and social services by total expenditures. It may be argued that debt charges are controlled by councils, however once the decision to incur debt is made, future debt payments become a legal liability and future councils may not reduce or eliminate them. In addition to these items there are other expenditures that limit what could be termed "discretionary expenditures" of current councils. Union contracts, leases and other legal liabilities combined with mandatory expenditures limit the flexibility of councils to deal with expenditure pressures and revenue declines. Municipalities, because of differing conditions, would define "non-discretionary expenditures" differently. Therefore an indicator for discretionary expenditures is not calculated here. Municipalities are encouraged to complete the exercise of calculating a "discretionary expenditures" indicator for themselves. |
| |
| 1.2.2. Expenditures per Dwelling Unit |
Shows the amount that is spent on municipal services per dwelling unit. It is easily comparable across municipalities. It is calculated by dividing total expenditures by the number of dwelling units. The reasons for a high or low expenditure per dwelling unit should be explored before any conclusions are reached. Services may be more expensive to deliver in one municipality as opposed to another. For example, snow clearing costs are higher for a municipality with hilly terrain than a municipality that is relatively flat and has fewer roads.
|
| |
| 1.3.1. Liquidity Ratio |
This indicator measures the short-term ability of a municipality to meet its current obligations. It is calculated by dividing short-term operating assets by short-term operating liabilities.
|
| |
| 1.3.2. Deficits Last 5 years |
Indicates the ability of a municipality to meet operating expenditures with revenues. Continuing deficits may indicate that there are ongoing budgetary problems that should be addressed through the budget process. This indicator is expressed as a number from zero to five for the number of operating deficits incurred in the last five years. |
| |
| 1.3.3. Uncollected Taxes |
Indicates the ability of taxpayers to pay taxes on time and may indicate the strength of collection policies in place and the economic strength of a municipality. It is calculated by dividing total uncollected taxes at year end by total tax levy. |
| |
| 1.3.4. Reserves as a % of Expenditures |
May indicate the relative health of a municipality and council's willingness to "put money away for a rainy day". Generally, municipalities that have higher levels of reserves than average are considered financially healthier and may be more advanced in their strategic planning. A low indicator here may not necessarily indicate a financially weak municipality. It may simply reflect council policy to keep tax rates at a minimum rather than building reserves. This indicator is calculated by dividing equity of reserves by total expenditures. |
| |
| 1.4.1. Debt Service Ratio |
Indicates the amount of the current operating expenditures incurred for debt servicing and therefore not available for other services. It is calculated by dividing total long term debt servicing costs including lease payments, temporary financing and other debt charges by total own source revenue. Total own source revenue is total revenue less transfers. Care must be used in evaluating this indicator. A high debt service ratio may indicate a municipality that has taken on too much debt but it may also indicate that the municipality has taken an aggressive approach to debt repayment and is paying down their debt quickly to avoid interest costs. Similarly, a low debt service ratio could indicate a municipality is strong financially and can finance most capital projects through their operating budget. It may also indicate that a municipality is financially weaker and has deferred capital projects and allowed important infrastructure to deteriorate. Debt Service Ratio is a key indicator currently used by Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations prior to recommending Ministerial approval of Temporary Borrowing Resolutions.
|
| |
| 1.4.2. Debt Outstanding/ Uniform Assessment |
This indicates the level of total outstanding long term debt as a percentage of a municipality's ability to pay. Typically a growing municipality with new development has a greater need for new infrastructure and will therefore incur higher capital costs. This indicator is calculated by dividing long term commitments by uniform assessment.
|
| |
| 1.5.1. Capital from Revenue |
Indicates a municipality's investment in capital infrastructure through the operating fund. A high percentage may indicate financial strength. It is calculated by dividing the total amount of current capital expenditures funded through the operating budget by total expenditures. |
| |
| 1.5.2. Total Capital From Operating |
Indicates the total amount of operating budget funds dedicated to past, present or future infrastructure of the municipality through debt charges (past capital), capital from revenue (current capital) and future capital (transfers to capital reserve). It is calculated by dividing the sum of capital expenditures funded through the operating budget, debt charges for capital projects and transfers to capital reserves by total expenditures. |
| |
| 2.1.1. Increase in Uniform Assessment |
Indicates the increase in a municipality's ability to pay over the last three years and may reflect the change in economic well-being of the municipality. Calculated as current U.A. minus U.A. of three years ago divided by U.A. of three years ago. This indicator should also be viewed in combination with the increase in uniform assessment for the province as a whole because uniform assessment is used in cost sharing and equalization grant formulas. For example, a higher than average increase in U.A. may indicate that expenditures for cost sharing programs will increase. |
| |
| 2.1.2. Commercial/Total Assessment |
Shows the relative strength of the municipality's tax base. A higher percentage indicates higher revenue raising ability because commercial tax rates are higher than residential tax rates and therefore generate more tax revenue. This is calculated by dividing total taxable commercial assessment including business occupancy assessment and machinery and equipment assessment by total taxable assessment. |
| |
| 2.2.1. Average Household Income (AHI) |
Indicates average household income that may be available to pay taxes in a municipality. A comparison across municipalities may indicate the relative economic well-being of residents. This information is obtained from Statistics Canada.
|
| |
| 2.2.2. Residential Tax Burden/ Average Household Income (RTB/AHI) |
This indicates the percentage of household income that is used to pay municipal property taxes. It is calculated by dividing residential tax burden by average household income. It expands on the RTB indicator to give a picture of the relative ability of taxpayers in a municipality to pay taxes. |
| |
| 2.3.1. Change in Population |
Shows the changes in population over the past four years. It is calculated by dividing the difference between population estimates of the current year and four years ago by current year's estimated population. Continual decreases in population may indicate serious structural problems in the economy of the municipality.
|
| |
| 2.3.2. Age Profile |
These three percentages show the percentage of the population of a municipality that is 0 - 19 years of age; 20 - 65 years of age; and over 65 years of age. The three percentages may indicate where expenditure pressures for a municipality will be. For example a young population may demand more playgrounds and ballfields while an older population may want more resources invested in police services and walking trails. |
| |
| 3.1. Voter Turnout |
This indicator is the percentage of voter turnout for an election. It is intended to indicate the level of citizen interest in the electoral process at the municipal level. It is calculated by dividing the actual voter turnout by the total eligible number of voters. A high voter turnout could mean either a high level of citizen interest in the affairs of the municipality or a high level of dissatisfaction. A low voter turnout could mean either a high level of satisfaction with municipal government or voter apathy. It may also indicate the election of a candidate by acclamation. |
| |
| 3.2. Municipal Elections Candidates |
This indicates the willingness of residents to serve in an elected capacity. Municipal Councils need individuals with leadership skills to provide overall direction and to serve the interests of the community. Contested elections provide opportunities for important issues to be debated in public. This indicator is calculated by dividing the total number of election candidates by the total number of council seats.
|
| |
| 3.3. Training Costs per Employee |
This indicator calculates the investment of the municipality in its most important asset, human capital. A high indicator shows the municipality recognizes that training and development are important in maintaining a capable and motivated workforce. This indicator is calculated by dividing the total training and development expenditures by total full time equivalent staff. |
| |
| 3.4. Succession Planning |
Municipalities today recognize demographic trends and that staff turnover will become a greater issue. When staff leave the organization a certain amount of corporate history is lost and with it some efficiency and effectiveness. Succession planning can minimize the losses the organization experiences when staff leave. This indicator is calculated by dividing the number of full time positions with a succession plan by the number of full time equivalent positions. |
| |
| 3.5. Strategic Planning |
The environment that municipalities face today is ever changing. This indicator identifies which municipalities have recognized this fact and have developed plans that recognize their strengths and weaknesses while taking into consideration their opportunities and threats. This is a yes or no indicator. Either the municipality maintains a strategic plan or it doesn't.
|
| |
| 4.1.1. Documentation |
This measure will indicate yes - all documentation was received by the Department by the deadline for submission or no - not all documentation was received by the Department, by the stipulated date. Timely reporting and submission of reports to Councils and the provincial government is a sign of an efficient municipal administration. It provides stakeholders, including taxpayers, with important information on the well-being and plans of the municipality.
Reports and submissions required by Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations are:
1. Estimates Forms
2. Capital Budgets
3. General Return
4. Financial Statements including Auditor's Report
5. Management Letter |
| |
| 4.1.2. Legislative/Capita |
This indicator shows the amount that a municipality spent for legislative services per capita. This can be compared to a municipality's previous years' spending on this service or can be compared to other municipalities of similar size and structure.
|
| |
| 4.1.3. Administration/Capita |
This indicator shows the amount that a municipality spent for administrative services per capita and measures the efficiency of administration. It is calculated by dividing general administrative services less tax rebates and expenses related to properties acquired at tax sales by population. It can used to compare with previous years and with similar municipalities. A high indicator may indicate high expenditures in this area or higher service levels. A low indicator may indicate efficient operations or an insufficient number of qualified employees.
|
| |
| 4.2.1. Police Services/$1,000 Assessment |
This indicates the efficiency of police services. It is calculated by dividing total costs of police services by thousands of dollars of assessment. Assessment less business occupancy is used as a measure because part of police services mandate is to protect property. Police services in Nova Scotia are delivered by a municipality's own force, the RCMP or a combination of both. Differences between municipalities should be researched before conclusions are made, service levels may be different. |
| |
| 4.2.2. Police Services/Capita |
This indicates the efficiency of police services. It is calculated by dividing total costs of police services by population. Population is used as a measure because part of police services mandate is protection to people. Police services in Nova Scotia are delivered by a municipality's own force, the RCMP or a combination of both. Differences between municipalities should be researched before conclusions are made, service levels may be different.
|
| |
| 4.3.1. Fire Services/$1,000 Assessment |
This indicates the efficiency of fire services. It is calculated by dividing total costs of fire services by thousands of dollars of assessment. Assessment less business occupancy is used as a measure because part of fire services responsibility is to protect property. Fire services in Nova Scotia are delivered by a municipality's own force, volunteer fire departments or a combination of both. Differences between municipalities should be researched before conclusions are made, service levels may be different. |
| |
| 4.3.2. Fire Services/Capita |
This indicates the efficiency of fire services. It is calculated by dividing total costs of fire services by population. Population is used as a measure because part of fire services responsibility is protection of people. Fire services in Nova Scotia are delivered by a municipality's own force, volunteer fire department or a combination of both. Differences between municipalities should be researched before conclusions are made, service levels may be different. |
| |
| 4.4.1. Roads and Streets |
This indicator measures the efficiency of road and street maintenance services per kilometre of roads owned by the municipality. Costs included in this measure are operating costs for roads and streets, sidewalks, snow and ice removal, bridges, street lighting, traffic services and parking. A higher or lower indicator for this indicator may have many different explanations. For example, municipalities that have hilly streets or more annual snowfall may have a higher "Roads and Streets" indicator. |
| |
| 4.5.1. Storm and Wastewater/Km |
This indicator measures the efficiency of storm sewer and sanitary sewer systems. It is calculated by dividing storm and sanitary sewer collection and treatment expenditures by total kilometres of sewer line. A high result may indicate old, deteriorating sewer lines. A low indicator may be the result of new or updated sewer lines. |
| |
| 4.5.2. Sewer Main Backups/Km |
Municipal wastewater management practices prevent environmental and human health hazards. This indicator measures the efficiency of the sewer system. It is calculated by dividing the number of sewer main backups in a year by the kilometres of sewer line. A sewer main backup is defined as an obstruction or hydraulic overload in a municipal system (separated sanitary and storm sewer systems as well as a combined sanitary/storm system) which results in a backup of wastewater which may enter a house. This should be distinguished from an obstruction in a lateral line from a house to the sewer main. Included are municipal system flushing activities which cause a backup in residential basements. Sewer lines on private property are not measured.
|
| |
| 4.6.1. Solid Waste Collection/Ton |
This indicator measures the efficiency of municipal solid waste collection services. A municipality with large collection areas such as counties may have a higher solid waste collection cost per ton indicator than a town that has a shorter collection route. |
| |
| 4.6.2. Solid Waste Disposal/Ton |
This indicator measures the efficiency of municipal solid waste disposal services. It is calculated by dividing the costs of disposal including landfills and incinerators less revenues received from other municipalities by total tons collected. A high indicator may be the result of the higher costs of running a second generation landfill. A low indicator may result from a higher than average recyclables diversion rate. |
| |
| 4.6.3. Recycling Costs/Ton |
This indicator measures the efficiency of municipal solid waste recycling services. The definition for operating costs for recycling applies to material collected from all property classes which are diverted for recycling or composting. |
| |
| 4.7.1. Water Treatment & Distribution |
This indicator measures the efficiency of municipal water treatment and distribution services. It is calculated by dividing operating costs for water including: source of supply, pumping, water treatment, transmission and distribution, administration, depreciation and taxes by millions of litres of water treated.
|
| |
| 4.7.2. Water Tests |
This indicator measures the percentage of water test results that showed adverse water quality or exceeded maximum concentrations as prescribed. This effectiveness measure indicates whether water is safe and meets local needs. It is calculated by dividing the number of adverse water quality tests by the total number of water quality tests.
|
| |
| 4.7.3. Water Main Breaks/Km |
This indicator measures the effectiveness of the water main system in the municipality. It is calculated by dividing the number of breaks in water mains in a year by the total number of kilometres of water main pipe.
|
| |
