Municipal Sustainability Self-Assessment Project
FINAL REPORT
Compiled by:
Ryan Lane
Stephen Quinton
January 2009
The Project
In 2005 the MNL’s President’s Task Force made a recommendation that all its
membership should complete a self-assessment of their municipality. This
recommendation would develop into the Municipal Sustainability SelfAssessment Project. Following this mandate, members of the CCRC Advisory
Committee and staff developed a process through which municipalities can
evaluate the status of their financial and operational positions and determine
for themselves their ability to effectively and efficiently deliver municipal
services. The project was an opportunity for council members and senior staff
to observe the bigger picture with regards to their viability as a municipality
and raise the awareness of long-term sustainability.
The project directly tied in with the need for municipalities to complete an
Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP). The ICSP is needed for
continued access to the Gas Tax Funding. The Agreement signed by the
Government of Canada, the Newfoundland & Labrador Government and each
municipality for the Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Revenues requires that all
municipalities prepare the Integrated Community Sustainability Plan.
The 6-month project involved council members and senior staff meeting with
one of four Field Staff Facilitators to complete the Municipal Sustainability
Self-Assessment Tool Kit. The project employed four Field Staff Facilitators
who traveled the province meeting with municipalities to complete the selfassessments. These field staff were: Derek Banfield, Chris Shortall, Bobbi
Gushue, and Paul Schiavone; Stephen Quinton coordinated the project.
Everyone involved in the project met with 250 municipalities throughout the
duration of the project. These sessions were the opportunity for council
members and senior staff to contemplate their current situation and begin
planning for the future. The Municipal Sustainability Self-Assessment Tool Kit
addressed seven categories: Governance, Administration, Finance and
Financial Management, Service Delivery, Infrastructure, Community WellBeing and Regional Cooperation.
Like any project, the Municipal Sustainability Self-Assessment Project saw
various challenges. The first challenge was to communicate with all
municipalities by means of email, phone, fax and mail, which proved to be
considerably time consuming. Another challenge was to coordinate the Field
Staff Facilitator’s appointments by regions in order to optimize traveling, as
well as incorporating flights and ferries, while organizing accommodations
during peak tourist seasons. Lastly, it was essential to efficiently reschedule
cancellations. The major restraint was to execute the Project within the
allocated resources.
Field Staff Facilitators met with 250 municipalities to complete SelfAssessment sessions throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. However the
numerical data used in spreadsheet formulas applied 249 participation rate
because although Field Staff met with senior staff from Corner Brook the Tool
Kit was not completed as it was deemed unnecessary because of their
proactive choice to begin the development of their ISCP. That averages out to
almost 15 meetings a week, during the short-life of the Project. When the
Project was first proposed few groups believed councils and administrators
would be willing to participate – approximately 90% of all Newfoundland &
Labrador municipalities have taken part in this process, far exceeding earlier
expectations. (See Appendix A for Tool Kit Results)
Mayors, Councilors and Senior Staff were very supportive and directly
involved in the Self-Assessment Project. Their commitment to the project
made it truly meaningful and reflective of the opinions of those involved in
municipal governance, in turn showing their dedication to the long-term
sustainability of their respective communities. Each municipality has their own
unique assets, circumstances and situations that can play a major role in
determining their long-term sustainability. These issues were presented to
each of the participating municipalities in their own Municipal Sustainability
Self-Assessment Report, outlining the results of the Tool Kit session.
After Tool Kit sessions and reports the CCRC launched a Follow-up Phone
Survey, measuring the membership’s opinions of the project. Out of the 186
participants in the Self-Assessment project that took part in the follow-up
survey over 96% found the project to be of value. Interestingly only 35
municipalities said they would have taken part if council members and staff
were required to travel in order to participant, highlighting the mobility of the
project. (See Appendix B for the findings of the Follow-up Survey)
The Municipal Sustainability Self-Assessment Project was an initiative of the
Community Cooperation Resource Centre (CCRC) and was funded through
the Canada – Newfoundland and Labrador Gas Tax Agreement. Through the
completion of this Self-Assessment municipalities gained a better appreciation
for issues affecting the sustainability of their municipal status but also of their
community and surrounding region.
Methodology
The project was centered on the Tool Kit; a booklet consisting of a series of
questions that related to the issues that are important to a municipality of any
size. These issues included: Governance, Administration, Finance and
Financial Management, Service Delivery, Equipment and Infrastructure,
Community Well-Being, and Regional Cooperation.
Participating municipalities would meet with a Field Staff Facilitator and
together they would complete the Tool Kit. Field Staff were there to lead the
sessions, explain the questions and record the answers into a hardcopy Tool
Kit and input the data into an Excel Spreadsheet for final calculation. The
municipalities were encouraged to record and keep a copy of the results. Field
Staff submitted spreadsheets for each individual municipality and completed
booklets to the Project Coordinator. Individual spreadsheets were then
inputted into a Master spreadsheet that would allow for further analysis. The
Master spreadsheet was designed so that group data could be gathered from
the participants.
The Tool Kit was designed with “Yes/To Some Degree/No” answers to allow
for accurate responses from the participants. The Self-Assessment measured
how the administration and council thought the municipality was functioning.
The “Yes/To Some Degree/No” options corresponded with numerical-inputs
into the spreadsheet, to allow for simple formulation in the Master
spreadsheet. (See Appendix C for Master spreadsheet example) The
following is the corresponding inputs:
 Yes = 2
 To Some Degree = 1
 No = 0
 N/A = x.
An individual report was issued to each participating municipalities based on
their answers, highlighting areas of concern related to the functioning of the
municipality and their long-term sustainability. When preparing the report
there was a pool of answers to choice from that corresponded with the results
of the Self-Assessment session, these findings were tabulated in the Master
spreadsheet. The breakdown of how the pooled answers were distributed is
as follows:
 Section A – G
o 0%-46%: Negative response
o 47%-69%: Moderate response
o 70%-100%: Positive response (only if all sub-sections scored
70%-100%)
 Sub-Sections
o 0%-69%: Description of why it is important
o 70%-100%: Include no comment
 Attendance
o 1 – 3 individuals: Poor turnout response
o 4 – 5 individuals: Moderate turnout response
o 6+ individuals: Excellent turnout


Bonus Questions
o 0 – 3 items*: Lack of unique assets response
o 4+ items: Significant unique assets response
ISCP Preparation
o 0%-69%: Complete as part of a larger group of municipalities
response
o 70%-100%: Capable of completing ICSP solo response
Results
Completion of this project led to many significant findings. Some of these
findings support the premise that many municipalities are experiencing fiscal
and administrative difficulties in maintaining service levels. The process
prompted municipalities to recognize where current methods of service
delivery may be challenging or inadequate. The self-assessment, in addition,
highlighted areas where municipalities excelled. These areas include the
council’s commitment to the community’s well-being and their unique assets.
Below are findings that really stood out after formulating the results (see
Appendix A for all results).
The section “Governance” refers to issues pertaining to the elected council.
The following are noteworthy results from the project:
 54.2% (135) answered YES to “A1: Did your council have a contested
election for the last Municipal General Election?”
 39.4% (98) answered YES to “A8: Does your council have a Policy &
Procedures Manual?”
 63.1% (157) answered YES to “A9: Does your council have standing
committees of Council in place?”
 57.8% (144) answered YES to “A14: Does your council regularly
update their knowledge of municipal government through participation
in MA, MTDC, MNL, MLAMA or other training opportunities?”
 85.5% (213) answered NO to “A20: Does your municipality have a
comprehensive sustainability plan?”
 77.1% (192) answered NO to “A22: Does your municipality have a
formal process to monitor the sustainability of your community and
progress in implementing development plans?”
 42.2$ (105) answered YES to “A23: Does your municipality have an
emergency preparedness plan (EPP)?”
The section “Administration” evaluates the abilities and performance of the
administrative employee(s) of council. The following are noteworthy results
from the project:
 99.6% (248) answered YES to “B3: Does your municipality take
minutes for each council meeting?” Indicating that there is one
municipality that is failing to compile to this requirement.
 26.5% (66) answered NO to “B6: Has your council identified its Access
to Information Policy (ATIP) Coordinator?”
The section “Finance and Financial Management” examines issues of
financial management, borrowing, and revenues. The following are
noteworthy results from the project:
 100% (249) answered YES to “C1: Does your council adopt an annual
budget?”
 52.2% (130) answered YES to “C8: Does your municipality have the
fiscal capacity to take on additional debt?”
 41% (102) answered NO to “C11: Is the percentage of your taxes in
arrears at year-end less than 10%?”

38.2% (95) answered YES to “C14: Is your municipality able to
establish and maintain a capital works fund that addresses your
infrastructure needs?”
The section “Service Delivery” reviews the major areas of municipal service
delivery. The following are noteworthy results from the project:
 41% (102) answered YES to “D4: Has your council determined the
level of service the Fire Department will provide?”
 73.5% (183) answered NO to “D7: Does your municipality have a nondeposit recycling program?”
 39.8% (99) answered YES to “D8: Does your municipality encourage
composting?”
 10.8% (27) answered YES to “D9: Does your municipality have
education programs in place to encourage waste reduction and
diversion?”
 23.3% (58) answered YES to “D10: Does your municipality have a
program for collecting, handling, and safely disposing hazardous
waste?”
 24.1% (60) answered YES to “D15: Does your council have an
operations and preventative maintenance schedule/plan for your water
system?” [Note: This question did not apply to 11.6% (29).]
 21.7% (54) answered YES to “D16: Does your council have operations
and preventative maintenance schedule/plan for your sewer system?”
[Note: This question did not apply to 26.5% (66).]
 56.6% (141) answered YES to “D22: Does your council run a
recreation program?”
 85.5% (213) answered YES to “D25: Does your municipality employ
mechanisms for informing and communicating with residents about
council decisions and priorities on an ongoing basis?”
 96.4% (240) answered YES to “D26: Does your municipality make
council documents and budget information publicly available?”
The section “Equipment and Infrastructure” assists municipalities in
determining their infrastructure needs. The following are noteworthy results
from the project:
 18.9% (47) answered YES to “E3: Is your water system less than 20
years old?”
 16.1% (40) answered YES to “E4: Is your waste system less than 20
years old?”
The section “Community Well-Being” examines the sustainability of the
community as a whole. The following are noteworthy results from the project:
 5.2% (13) answered YES to “F22: Is your council involved in taking
steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in you municipality?”
 16.9% (42) answered YES to “F23: Has your municipality introduced
policies or programs to reduce energy consumption within your
municipal operations?”


4% (10) answered YES to “F24: Has your council introduced policies or
programs to encourage reduced energy consumption within your
community?”
0.8% (2) answered YES to “F30: Does your council have an integrated
environmental management plan in place?”
Conclusion
Municipal Sustainability Self-Assessment Project is considered to be the
“catalyst for establishing a self-sustaining local government administration that
is an essential component of, and proactively supports, the development of
viable and sustainable communities throughout the province of Newfoundland
and Labrador”. The 90% completion rate is a strong indicator of the
municipalities’ commitment and concern of long-term sustainability. The
project’s eye-opening Tool Kit raised the awareness of several issues that
could have otherwise gone unnoticed, preparing councils and administrators
for the development of Integrated Community Sustainability Plans.
Appendix A
Municipal Sustainability Self-Assessment Project
Tool Kit Results
(A) Governance
YES (2)
%
TSD (1)
%
NO (0)
%
N/A (x)
%
Elections
1
2
135
54.2%
5
2.0%
109
43.8%
0
0.0%
96
38.6%
38
15.3%
33
13.3%
82
32.9%
3
Meetings and
proccedures
211
84.7%
22
8.8%
16
6.4%
0
0.0%
4
236
94.8%
10
4.0%
3
1.2%
0
0.0%
5
215
86.3%
30
12.0%
4
1.6%
0
0.0%
6
192
77.1%
37
14.9%
20
8.0%
0
0.0%
7
201
80.7%
25
10.0%
23
9.2%
0
0.0%
8
98
39.4%
81
32.5%
70
28.1%
0
0.0%
9
157
63.1%
23
9.2%
69
27.7%
0
0.0%
10
152
61.0%
23
9.2%
22
8.8%
52
20.9%
11
Training and
Qualifications
139
55.8%
20
8.0%
90
36.1%
0
0.0%
12
224
90.0%
15
6.0%
10
4.0%
0
0.0%
13
232
93.2%
16
6.4%
1
0.4%
0
0.0%
14
144
57.8%
62
24.9%
43
17.3%
0
0.0%
15
208
83.5%
12
4.8%
29
11.6%
0
0.0%
16
180
72.3%
13
5.2%
56
22.5%
0
0.0%
17
75
30.1%
32
12.9%
142
57.0%
0
0.0%
18
111
44.6%
70
28.1%
68
27.3%
0
0.0%
19
36
14.5%
51
20.5%
162
65.1%
0
0.0%
20
8
3.2%
28
11.2%
213
85.5%
0
0.0%
21
173
69.5%
22
8.8%
17
6.8%
37
14.9%
Committees
Planning
22
20
8.0%
37
14.9%
192
77.1%
0
0.0%
23
105
42.2%
15
6.0%
129
51.8%
0
0.0%
24
74
29.7%
21
8.4%
23
9.2%
131
52.6%
25
142
57.0%
6
2.4%
101
40.6%
0
0.0%
26
163
65.5%
40
16.1%
18
7.2%
28
11.2%
27
155
62.2%
54
21.7%
40
16.1%
0
0.0%
1
242
97.2%
7
2.8%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2
177
71.1%
28
11.2%
44
17.7%
0
0.0%
3
248
99.6%
0
0.0%
1
0.4%
0
0.0%
4
141
56.6%
31
12.4%
32
12.9%
45
18.1%
(B) Administration
5
162
65.1%
50
20.1%
37
14.9%
0
0.0%
6
177
71.1%
6
2.4%
66
26.5%
0
0.0%
7
203
81.5%
25
10.0%
21
8.4%
0
0.0%
8
228
91.6%
7
2.8%
14
5.6%
0
0.0%
9
203
81.5%
17
6.8%
5
2.0%
24
9.6%
10
223
89.6%
20
8.0%
6
2.4%
0
0.0%
11
176
70.7%
43
17.3%
30
12.0%
0
0.0%
12
224
90.0%
14
5.6%
11
4.4%
0
0.0%
13
215
86.3%
17
6.8%
17
6.8%
0
0.0%
14
210
84.3%
8
3.2%
31
12.4%
0
0.0%
15
210
84.3%
4
1.6%
35
14.1%
0
0.0%
16
206
82.7%
21
8.4%
22
8.8%
0
0.0%
17
231
92.8%
8
3.2%
10
4.0%
0
0.0%
1
249
100.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2
221
88.8%
26
10.4%
2
0.8%
0
0.0%
3
217
87.1%
11
4.4%
21
8.4%
0
0.0%
4
199
79.9%
36
14.5%
14
5.6%
0
0.0%
5
204
81.9%
12
4.8%
33
13.3%
0
0.0%
6
214
85.9%
9
3.6%
26
10.4%
0
0.0%
7
216
86.7%
14
5.6%
19
7.6%
0
0.0%
8
130
52.2%
54
21.7%
65
26.1%
0
0.0%
9
176
70.7%
51
20.5%
22
8.8%
0
0.0%
10
103
41.4%
27
10.8%
119
47.8%
0
0.0%
11
145
58.2%
2
0.8%
102
41.0%
0
0.0%
12
177
71.1%
61
24.5%
11
4.4%
0
0.0%
13
193
77.5%
7
2.8%
49
19.7%
0
0.0%
14
95
38.2%
69
27.7%
85
34.1%
0
0.0%
15
217
87.1%
27
10.8%
5
2.0%
0
0.0%
16
165
66.3%
64
25.7%
20
8.0%
0
0.0%
1
208
83.5%
37
14.9%
4
1.6%
0
0.0%
2
177
71.1%
44
17.7%
28
11.2%
0
0.0%
3
189
75.9%
41
16.5%
19
7.6%
0
0.0%
4
102
41.0%
47
18.9%
100
40.2%
0
0.0%
5
248
99.6%
1
0.4%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
6
221
88.8%
17
6.8%
11
4.4%
0
0.0%
7
35
14.1%
31
12.4%
183
73.5%
0
0.0%
(C)Finance
Budgeting
Borrowing and Debt
Taxation
Acouncting & other
(D) Service Delivery
Fire and Emergency
services
Waste Management
8
99
39.8%
34
13.7%
116
46.6%
0
0.0%
9
27
10.8%
35
14.1%
187
75.1%
0
0.0%
10
58
23.3%
27
10.8%
164
65.9%
0
0.0%
11
167
67.1%
29
11.6%
22
8.8%
31
12.4%
12
218
87.6%
0
0.0%
4
1.6%
27
10.8%
13
173
69.5%
39
15.7%
4
1.6%
33
13.3%
14
160
64.3%
8
3.2%
56
22.5%
25
10.0%
15
60
24.1%
57
22.9%
103
41.4%
29
11.6%
16
54
21.7%
51
20.5%
78
31.3%
66
26.5%
17
144
57.8%
51
20.5%
24
9.6%
30
12.0%
18
84
33.7%
44
17.7%
90
36.1%
31
12.4%
19
198
79.5%
19
7.6%
6
2.4%
26
10.4%
20
181
72.7%
30
12.0%
10
4.0%
28
11.2%
21
180
72.3%
24
9.6%
15
6.0%
30
12.0%
22
141
56.6%
47
18.9%
61
24.5%
0
0.0%
23
112
45.0%
56
22.5%
48
19.3%
33
13.3%
24
83
33.3%
86
34.5%
47
18.9%
33
13.3%
25
213
85.5%
24
9.6%
12
4.8%
0
0.0%
26
240
96.4%
6
2.4%
3
1.2%
0
0.0%
1
127
51.0%
87
34.9%
30
12.0%
5
2.0%
2
182
73.1%
12
4.8%
13
5.2%
42
16.9%
3
47
18.9%
94
37.8%
85
34.1%
23
9.2%
4
40
16.1%
77
30.9%
70
28.1%
62
24.9%
5
156
62.7%
60
24.1%
33
13.3%
0
0.0%
6
202
81.1%
0
0.0%
47
18.9%
0
0.0%
7
212
85.1%
22
8.8%
15
6.0%
0
0.0%
8
158
63.5%
72
28.9%
19
7.6%
0
0.0%
9
205
82.3%
35
14.1%
9
3.6%
0
0.0%
10
187
75.1%
31
12.4%
31
12.4%
0
0.0%
11
212
85.1%
22
8.8%
15
6.0%
0
0.0%
1
59
23.7%
2
0.8%
188
75.5%
0
0.0%
2
226
90.8%
1
0.4%
22
8.8%
0
0.0%
3
40
16.1%
3
1.2%
206
82.7%
0
0.0%
4
110
44.2%
19
7.6%
120
48.2%
0
0.0%
5
192
77.1%
23
9.2%
34
13.7%
0
0.0%
6
119
47.8%
42
16.9%
88
35.3%
0
0.0%
7
131
52.6%
59
23.7%
59
23.7%
0
0.0%
8
200
80.3%
12
4.8%
37
14.9%
0
0.0%
Water and Sewer
Recreation
Communications
(E) Equipment/Infrastructure
(F) Well-Being
Demographics
Economics
9
205
82.3%
2
0.8%
42
16.9%
0
0.0%
10
227
91.2%
3
1.2%
19
7.6%
0
0.0%
11
Social Capital and
Inclusion
243
97.6%
4
1.6%
2
0.8%
0
0.0%
12
196
78.7%
45
18.1%
8
3.2%
0
0.0%
13
208
83.5%
36
14.5%
5
2.0%
0
0.0%
14
204
81.9%
32
12.9%
13
5.2%
0
0.0%
15
229
92.0%
14
5.6%
6
2.4%
0
0.0%
16
158
63.5%
47
18.9%
41
16.5%
3
1.2%
17
146
58.6%
44
17.7%
52
20.9%
0
0.0%
18
210
84.3%
30
12.0%
7
2.8%
2
0.8%
19
133
53.4%
52
20.9%
64
25.7%
0
0.0%
20
Environment and
Resources
239
96.0%
9
3.6%
1
0.4%
0
0.0%
21
33
13.3%
39
15.7%
140
56.2%
37
14.9%
22
13
5.2%
47
18.9%
189
75.9%
0
0.0%
23
42
16.9%
70
28.1%
137
55.0%
0
0.0%
24
10
4.0%
23
9.2%
216
86.7%
0
0.0%
25
49
19.7%
36
14.5%
158
63.5%
6
2.4%
26
55
22.1%
10
4.0%
173
69.5%
11
4.4%
27
202
81.1%
42
16.9%
5
2.0%
0
0.0%
28
92
36.9%
49
19.7%
108
43.4%
0
0.0%
29
232
93.2%
11
4.4%
6
2.4%
0
0.0%
30
2
0.8%
24
9.6%
223
89.6%
0
0.0%
31
169
67.9%
47
18.9%
33
13.3%
0
0.0%
32
218
87.6%
16
6.4%
15
6.0%
0
0.0%
33
154
61.8%
23
9.2%
72
28.9%
0
0.0%
34
156
62.7%
43
17.3%
50
20.1%
0
0.0%
35
98
39.4%
45
18.1%
106
42.6%
0
0.0%
1
199
79.9%
24
9.6%
24
9.6%
2
0.8%
2
193
77.5%
12
4.8%
42
16.9%
2
0.8%
3
165
66.3%
44
17.7%
39
15.7%
1
0.4%
4
202
81.1%
36
14.5%
11
4.4%
0
0.0%
5
170
68.3%
61
24.5%
17
6.8%
1
0.4%
6
132
53.0%
16
6.4%
92
36.9%
2
0.8%
7
94
37.8%
36
14.5%
111
44.6%
1
0.4%
8
168
67.5%
32
12.9%
42
16.9%
0
0.0%
1
96
38.6%
63
25.3%
77
30.9%
5
2.0%
2
69
27.7%
54
21.7%
112
45.0%
6
2.4%
Health and Education
Arts and Culture
(G) Regional Coop
Future Options
Appendix B
Municipal Sustainability Self-Assessment Project
FOLLOW-UP SURVEY FINDINGS
Q#1. Did your municipality take part in Self-Assessment process?
YES… 91.6%, 196 of 214
NO… 8.4%, 18 of 214
Q#2. Why didn’t your Council participate?
Q#3. Did you participate in process/meeting?
Yes… 93.4%, 185 of 198
NO… 6.6%, 13 of 198
Q#4. Was the session useful?
YES… 72.0%, 134 of 186
SOMEWHAT… 24.2 %, 45 of 186
NO… 3.8%, 7 of 186
Q#5. Would Council have participated as it did if travel was required?
YES… 18.8%, 35 of 186
SOMEWHAT… 45.7%, 85 of 186
NO… 35.5%, 66 of 186
Q#6. Are there any comments you would like to make about the sustainability self-assessment?
Q#7. Although you didn’t participate in the meeting, have you heard about it?
YES… 72.7%, 8 of 11
NO… 27.3%, 3 of 11
Appendix C
Municipal Sustainability Self-Assessment Project
EXAMPLE OF MASTER SPREADSHEET
Community A
Yes=2, TSD=1, No=0, N/A=x
Governance (A)
Elections
1
2
3
Community B
0
2
2
2
x
2
2/6
Meetings and proccedures
4
5
6
7
8
6/6
33%
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
10/10
100%
80%
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6/6
100%
100%
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
10/10
9/10
100%
100%
90%
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
1
2
2
21/22
95%
Administration (B)
1
2
6/6
100%
21/22
Total
AVERAGE
8/10
100%
10/10
Planning
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
2/6
100%
6/6
Training and Qualifications
12
13
14
15
16
0
x
33%
10/10
Committees
9
10
11
Community C
49/54
15/22
95%
53/54
68%
40/54
86%
99%
74%
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Total
33/34
Finance (C )
Budgeting
1
2
3
4
5
34/34
88%
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
10/10
100%
100%
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
6/6
100%
83%
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
8/8
100%
75%
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
1
2
1
6/8
31/32
8/8
6/8
88%
100%
Service Delivery (D)
Fire and Emergency services
1
2
3
4
5/6
100%
8/8
Total
AVERAGE
10/10
100%
7/8
Acouncting & other
13
14
15
16
30/34
100%
6/6
Taxation
9
10
11
12
2
1
1
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
97%
10/10
Borrowing and Debt
6
7
8
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6/8
75%
30/32
75%
27/32
97%
94%
83%
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
8/8
8/8
Waste Management
5
6
7
8
9
10
100%
100%
100%
2
2
0
2
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
9/12
Water and Sewer
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
6/12
50%
33%
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
0
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
x
1
1
2
2
2
18/22
Recreation
22
23
24
18/22
82%
45%
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6/6
100%
100%
2
2
2
2
0
2
4/4
100%
Equipment (E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Well-Being (F)
Demographics
1
2
45/52
2/4
100%
42/52
50%
30/52
91%
86%
66%
2
2
2
0
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
x
2
x
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Total
6/6
100%
4/4
Total
AVERAGE
10/22
82%
6/6
Communications
25
26
4/12
75%
18/22
16/22
18/22
82%
73%
82%
0
2
0
2
0
2
3
0
2/6
Economics
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
33%
33%
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
15/16
94%
88%
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
15/18
83%
94%
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
0
0
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
16/20
13/20
65%
20%
2
2
2
0
2
1
1
2
1
3/6
50%
67%
2
2
2
2
2
2
4/4
100%
Regional Coop (G)
1
2
4/6
100%
4/4
Total
AVERAGE
4/20
80%
6/6
Arts and Culture
34
35
17/18
100%
x
Health and Education
31
32
33
14/16
88%
18/18
Environment and Resources
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
0
2/6
33%
14/16
Social Capital and Inclusion
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0
2/6
60/70
4/4
100%
52/70
100%
45/70
83%
71%
67%
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2
2
2
2
2
2
Total
16/16
Future Options
1
2
Total
Average of Averages
2
2
2
2
2
2
16/16
1
1
1
2
2
1
12/16
100%
100%
75%
0
0
2
1
0
0
0/4
3/4
0/4
0%
75%
0%
80%
87%
67%