local government sustainability objectives and indicators ... · pdf filelocal government...

Local Government Division

Department of Premier and Cabinet

12/6308

Local Government

Sustainability Objectives

and Indicators Report

2011-12

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT

2011-12

2/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet

Contents

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 5

PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................. 6

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................. 7

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .................................................................................... 9

1. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INDICATORS ................................................................................. 9

Operating Surplus .................................................................................................................................................. 9

Summary of results ........................................................................................................................................ 10

Observations – operating surplus .......................................................................................................... 11

Operating surplus ratio ................................................................................................................................ 12

Observations ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 13

Net Financial Liabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 13

Summary of Results ....................................................................................................................................... 14

Observations – net financial liabilities .................................................................................................. 15

Observations – net financial liabilities ratio ....................................................................................... 16

Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 17

2. ASSET MANAGEMENT INDICATORS ........................................................................................... 19


2011-12


Asset Sustainability Ratio .................................................................................................................................. 20


Observations – asset sustainability ratio ............................................................................................. 22

Analysis – asset sustainability ratio ......................................................................................................... 22

Road Asset Consumption Ratio................................................................................................................... 23


Observations ..................................................................................................................................................... 24

Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 25

Asset Renewal Funding Ratio ........................................................................................................................ 25


Observations – asset renewal funding ratio ..................................................................................... 26

Analysis – asset renewal funding ratio ................................................................................................. 26

3. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................ 28

CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 34

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 35

Appendix A – Summary of objectives and indicators ........................................................................... 36

Appendix B – Council classifications ............................................................................................................... 41

Appendix C – Operating surplus by council over time ($) ................................................................ 42


2011-12


Appendix D – Operating surplus ratio by council over time ............................................................ 43

Appendix E – Net financial liabilities ............................................................................................................... 44

Appendix F – Net financial liabilities ratio .................................................................................................... 45

Appendix G – Asset sustainability ratio ......................................................................................................... 46

Appendix H – Road asset consumption ratio............................................................................................ 47

Appendix I – Asset renewal funding ratio .................................................................................................... 48

Appendix J – Development applications ...................................................................................................... 49

Appendix K – Permitted applications ............................................................................................................. 50

Appendix L – Discretionary applications ...................................................................................................... 51

Appendix M – Building applications ................................................................................................................. 52

Appendix N - Appeals ............................................................................................................................................ 53


2011-12


Introduction

Welcome to the Local Government Sustainability Objectives and Indicators Report

2011-12.

This Report provides a summary of the performance of Tasmania’s councils against

10 indicators in financial management, asset management, and planning and development.

For the financial and asset management indicators, data is provided for the past five years to

give an indication of improvements in performance over time. For these indicators, data

was only available for 27 of the 29 councils.

For planning and development indicators, data is available over two years.

Data is analysed at a sectoral level to provide an overview of performance and allow

councils to compare their individual performance with the performance of the sector.

Councils are encouraged to review their performance against their performance in previous

years and, where appropriate, against the performance of similar councils. This provides

councils with information on where there is scope to improve the way they do business,

seek advice from councils who are performing well, and acknowledge areas where they are

performing well.

Any comments regarding the report should be directed to the Department of Premier and

Cabinet’s Local Government Division by email at [email protected] or by telephone on

6232 7022.

mailto:[email protected]


2011-12


Project overview The aim of the Sustainability Objectives and Indicators Project is to enhance local

government sustainability through continuous performance improvement.

Annual sustainability objectives and indicators reports will present data and analyse

performance trends to assist councils to identify opportunities for performance

improvement.

Local government sustainability objectives and indicators were established by the Premier’s

Local Government Council (PLGC) in December 2011 following extensive consultation

with the local government sector and stakeholders.

The indicators measure performance in four key local government areas:

1. financial management;

2. asset management;

3. planning and development; and

4. community satisfaction.

There are 17 indicators across the four areas of performance which are designed to provide

meaningful insight into the performance of councils. Five of the indicators have associated

benchmarks against which council performance can be assessed. For the remaining

12 indicators, targets or benchmarks may be set in future, or performance will be assessed

in terms of trends. A summary of the objectives and indicators is at Appendix A.

No data or analysis is provided this year against community satisfaction as community

satisfaction surveys are carried out every second year with the last one being in 2011.

It is envisaged that indicators will evolve over time, both in terms of the indicators used to

consider topics discussed in this report and the scope of the issues considered. Any

changes to sustainability objectives or indicators will be considered and approved by the

Premier’s Local Government Council.


2011-12


Summary of key findings Financial management

Councils’ performance at an aggregated level in terms of operating surplus ratio was

negative 1.2 per cent in 2011-12 which is slightly below the benchmark of zero. This is the

fifth consecutive year that councils, on average, have not met the benchmark. The 2011-12

result was marginally worse than the 2010-11 result of negative 0.97 per cent. However,

councils’ performance over the last five years against this benchmark is improving.

At an aggregated level, councils continued to move further from the benchmark for net

financial liabilities ratio, and only four councils met the benchmark in 2011-12 (two

councils less than last year and the least over five years). This result is due to councils

maintaining a strong net asset (as opposed to debt) position. This suggests that councils

may be holding cash and investments beyond their day-to-day needs. At 30 June 2012,

councils’ cash and investments totalled $400.237 million – up from $330 million in 2010-11.

Asset management

At 92.59 per cent, the average result for asset sustainability ratio was down slightly from

the 2010-11 average, and the result is below the benchmark of greater than 100 per cent.

Continual under-investment in existing assets will lead to a backlog of assets in need of

renewal over time.

Councils are generally performing well in terms of the road asset consumption ratio.

Councils, on average, have met the benchmark in each of the past four years. The trend in

the number of councils meeting the benchmark increased from 11 to 18 between 2007-08

and 2010-11 and stayed steady at 18 in 2011-12. This result suggests that councils have

sufficient service capacity remaining in their road infrastructure assets.

Of the 18 councils with long-term financial and strategic asset management plans in place,

10 councils met the asset renewal funding ratio benchmark of at least 90 per cent. This

suggests that for these councils planned expenditure on asset management is funded.

The implementation of long-term financial and strategic asset management planning across

all councils will improve the ability of councils to plan for, and manage finances and assets

more effectively, including meeting the financial and asset management benchmarks.


2011-12


Planning and development

At 28, the average number of days to process planning applications was well below the

statutory requirement which is a positive result. This overall result can be broken down:

22 days for permitted applications (an improvement on 25 days in 2010-11) and 33 days

for discretionary applications (an improvement on 36 days in 2010-11).

While both of these results represent an improvement on the 2010-11 performance, it

should be noted that the number of planning applications in 2011-12 was down markedly

compared to 2010-11. Overall there were 6 604 development applications submitted in

2011-12 compared to 7 827 in 2010-11. This reduction comprises of 906 fewer permitted

applications and 317 fewer discretionary applications. No analysis has been undertaken to

determine why there were fewer development applications in 2011-12 than in 2010-11.

Fewer than two per cent of council decisions were referred to the Resource

Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal in 2010-11 – that is 124 appeals from

6 604 development applications received by councils statewide.


2011-12


Analysis and findings

1. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INDICATORS

There are four financial management indicators:

1. operating surplus;

2. operating surplus ratio;

3. net financial liabilities; and

4. net financial liabilities ratio.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE

To achieve and/or improve financial sustainability through meeting the requirements of

sound fiscal management.

Operating Surplus

Table 1: Description of operating surplus indicators

Description Indicator results

Operating

surplus

The difference between day-to-day

income and expenses for the period.

An operating surplus (or deficit)

arises when operating income

(excluding capital income) exceeds (or is less than) operating expenses

over the year.

Operating

surplus ratio

The percentage by which the major

controllable income source plus

operating grants varies from day to

day expenses.

A positive result indicates a surplus,

the larger the surplus the stronger the

result and therefore the stronger the

assessment of sustainability.

However, too strong a result could

disadvantage ratepayers. A negative result indicates a deficit which cannot

be sustained in the long term.

The operating surplus-related indicators focus on the relationship between revenue and

expenditure. A positive surplus suggests that sufficient revenue was raised in that year to

cover operating expenses, including expenses attributed to the depreciation of assets.

It is not necessary that councils have a positive operating surplus every year. Income and

expenses can fluctuate from year-to-year leading to periods when expenses are greater than revenue for short periods. Further attention should be given to issues associated with

a negative operating surplus (an operating deficit) if they continue for more than two to


2011-12


three years or if the operating surplus ratio (comparison of the size of the deficit to the

level of income) becomes substantial.

The Auditor-General has recommended that councils continue to work towards

maintaining, on average, a positive operating surplus.

Summary of results

Table 2: Operating surplus over time ($)

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average

Average -508 206 -313 689 -658 965 -194 655 -473 000 -425 988

Maximum 2 143 000 2 708 000 3 716 000 2 050 000 1 418 000 1 752 600

Minimum -6 036 000 -7 592 000 -5 981 000 -3 376 000 -3 286 000 -4 812 200

No.

councils

in surplus

11 14 14 15 13 13

Table 3: Operating surplus ratio indicator results 2011-12

Indicator Benchmark Number

meeting

benchmark

Percentage of

councils

meeting

benchmark

Average

result

Result

furthest from

benchmark

Operating

surplus ratio

Greater than 0 13 52% -1.20% -25.48%

Figure 1: Aggregated operating surplus over time

-10,000,000.00

-8,000,000.00

-6,000,000.00

-4,000,000.00

-2,000,000.00

0.00

2,000,000.00

4,000,000.00

6,000,000.00

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Operating surplus over time

Average

Maximum

Minimum


2011-12


Observations – operating surplus

The average operating surplus has been negative over the last five years.

Operating surplus is trending steadily but still below breakeven.

Seven councils remained in deficit for five years.

Five councils remained in surplus for five years.

Table 4: Average operating surplus ratio over time (benchmark = greater than 0)

Year 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average

Average result -1.66% -2.19% -4.83% -0.97% -1.2% -2.17% (last

year’s

average = -

2.62%)

Number of councils

meeting the

benchmark

12 14 13 14 13 13 (same

average as

last year)

Figure 2: Average operating surplus ratio over time

-6.00%

-5.00%

-4.00%

-3.00%

-2.00%

-1.00%

0.00%

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Average operating surplus ratio

(benchmark = greater than 0)

Average result


2011-12


Figure 3: Number of councils meeting the operating surplus ratio over time

Operating surplus ratio

Observations

The average result for operating surplus ratio in 2011-12 was -1.2 per cent which falls

below the benchmark of greater than zero, and is below the 2010-11 result of -0.97 per

cent.

Thirteen councils met the benchmark for operating surplus ratio in 2011-12. This is one

less council than in the previous financial year, although overall the number of councils

meeting the benchmark is trending slightly up.

The percentage of responding councils meeting the benchmark in 2011-12 was 48 per cent.

The result furthest from the benchmark was negative 25.48 per cent.

Over the past five years, the average result for operating surplus ratio is negative 2.17 per

cent which is a slight improvement from an average over the preceding four years of

negative 2.62 per cent.

Over the past five years there has been an average of 13 councils meeting the benchmark.

Five councils have met the benchmark for operating surplus ratio every year for the past

five years.

Six councils have not met the benchmark for operating surplus ratio once over the past

five years.

0

5

10

15

20

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Number of councils meeting the operating surplus

ratio benchmark

Number of councilsmeeting the benchmark


2011-12


Analysis

Councils’ performance at an aggregated level in terms of the operating surplus ratio

indicator was slightly below the benchmark in 2011-12. This is the fifth year in a row that

councils, on average, have not met the benchmark. At negative 1.2 per cent, the result was

marginally worse than the 2010-11 result of negative 0.97 per cent. However, councils’

performance over the last five years against this benchmark is improving.

The operating surplus ratio is an indicator where it is expected that there would be some

level of fluctuation, but ideally councils should achieve an average of zero or greater,

indicating an average breakeven result.

There was no pattern in the category of the five councils that have or the six councils that

have not met the benchmark over the past five years. No conclusions can be drawn

therefore regarding the likelihood of a particular category of council to perform or not for

this indicator.

As noted previously, it is not expected that councils would maintain a positive operating

surplus every year. Indeed, focusing only on positive outcomes and not planning over the

medium to long term may lead councils to raise revenue levels beyond those required for

meeting long-term asset plans and for day-to-day operations.

In this context, the current performance of council in terms of operating surplus ratio is not

of concern for the majority of councils. Those councils that have not met the operating

surplus ratio benchmark over the past five years should give attention to their forward

revenue and expenditure plans.

Refer to Appendices C and D for further detail.

Net Financial Liabilities

Table 4: Description of net financial liabilities indicators

Description Indicator results

Net financial

liabilities

Money held, invested or owed to the

entity less what is owed to others.

Net financial liabilities equals total

liabilities less financial assets.

Net financial

liabilities ratio

What is owed to others less money held, invested or owed to the entity.

Where the value is falling over time, the council’s capacity to meet its

financial obligations from operating

income is strengthening.

Net financial liabilities is an indicator of the level of debt being managed by a council. If the net financial liabilities ratio is positive, the council has no ‘net debt’, if it is negative then the

council will be managing some level of debt.


2011-12


Managing debt and/or reserves is critical for the financial ‘health’ of councils. If debt levels

become too high, interest obligations will limit the capacity of the council to invest in assets

and services. Councils should also be cautious about high levels of cash or investment

reserves, particularly where asset condition, asset maintenance expenditure or capital

investment is below the levels required to meet current community expectations.

Councils should avoid becoming reliant on interest received from investments to support

recurrent expenditure. Relying on interest to support recurrent expenditure means that communities are not being rated at an appropriate level. It also deprives the community of

potential infrastructure as the invested money could be used for infrastructure development

that could generate a return.

Levels of debt and/or reserves are highly relevant to maintaining ‘intergenerational equity’.

Debt that is too high may lead to future generations paying for benefits received today.

Conversely, reserves that are too high may mean that current generations are paying for benefits that will accrue to future generations.

The Auditor-General recommends that councils should maintain a net financial liability ratio of between 0 and negative 50, suggesting that councils should plan to manage modest levels

of debt in order to build and maintain assets and deliver services.

Summary of Results

Table 6: Net financial liabilities

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average

Average 1 662 448 1 662 655 4 222 310 3 248413 5 833 703 3 269 160

Maximum 20 570 000 25 920 000 40 660 000 42 145 000 43 807 000 34 620 400

Minimum -18 297 000 -22 507 000 -5 403 000 -15 484 000 -18 419 000 -16 022 000

Figure 5: Net financial liabilities over time

-30,000,000

-20,000,000

-10,000,000

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Net financial liabilities over time

Average

Maximum

Minimum


2011-12


Observations – net financial liabilities

On average, councils have had positive net financial liabilities over the last five years.

Eleven councils have had positive net financial liabilities over the past five years.

Three councils have had negative net financial liabilities over the past five years.

Table 7: Net financial liabilities ratio indicator results 2011-12


meeting

benchmark

Percentage of

councils

meeting

benchmark

Average

result

Result

furthest from

benchmark

Net financial

liabilities ratio

Between 0

and -50%

4 14.8% 40.69% 156.1% (there

were no

results below

the minimum of -50%)

Table 8: Average net financial liabilities ratio over time

(benchmark = between 0 and -50%)

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average

Average result 13.89% 21.62% 31.22% 28.52% 40.69% 27.00%

Number of

councils

meeting the

benchmark

12 13 5 6 4 8


2011-12


Figure 6: Average net financial liabilities ratio over time

Figure 7: Average number of councils meeting the benchmark over time

Observations – net financial liabilities ratio

Net financial liabilities ratio

Four (or 14.8 per cent of) councils met the benchmark for net financial liabilities ratio in

2011-12.

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Average net financial liabilites ratio over time (benchmark = 0 to -50 per cent)

Average result

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Number of councils meeting the net financial

liabilities ratio benchmark over time



2011-12


The remaining 23 councils were above the benchmark range of zero to negative

50 per cent (i.e. greater than zero).

The average result for net financial liabilities ratio was 40.69 per cent which is well above

the benchmark range of zero to negative 50 per cent.

The average result for net financial liabilities ratio has been above the top of the benchmark

range (zero) and trending upwards over the last five years.

The number of councils meeting the benchmark has reduced from 13 in 2008-09 to four in

2011-12.

The result furthest from the benchmark in 2011-12 was 156.1 per cent.

Analysis

At an aggregate level, councils continued to move further from the net financial liabilities

ratio benchmark, and only four councils met the benchmark in 2011-12 (two councils fewer

than last year and the least over five years). This result is due to councils maintaining a

strong net asset (as opposed to debt) position. This suggests that councils may be holding

cash and investments beyond their day-to-day needs. At 30 June 2012, councils’ cash and

investments totalled $400.237 million – up from $330 million in 2010-11.

Large reserves are not always a cause for concern and should be considered against the

expected future obligations of councils. Councils may be building up reserves for a target

capital investment or planning in advance of a significant ‘hump’ in capital

maintenance/replacement obligations. Either of these may justify a short-term increase in

the net financial position.

It would not be ideal for councils to increase net financial ratios significantly without

considering whether the community is better served through increased asset maintenance

or decreased revenue raising. Councils should not rely on investment returns to subsidise

recurrent funding obligations.

The results from this indicator require ongoing discussion with councils. Councils are now

in a strong position to be assessing their cash and investments positions having adopted

long-term financial plans.

There may be the opportunity for councils to increase investment in infrastructure that will

benefit their communities and deliver financial returns to councils.

There may also be the opportunity for councils to make better use of debt to smooth out

the ‘humps’ in asset maintenance/replacement obligations.


2011-12


Councils may also benefit from considering whether there are blockages in capital programs

that limit their capacity to maintain asset programs that are at least consistent with

estimated levels of depreciation.

There are no councils with net financial liabilities ratios that are below the benchmark range.

This indicates that there are no councils with unmanageable debt levels.


2011-12


2. ASSET MANAGEMENT INDICATORS

There are three asset management indicators:

1. asset sustainability ratio;

2. Road asset consumption ratio; and

3. asset renewal funding ratio.

ASSET MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE

To manage assets in a way that maximises asset service delivery, manages related risks and accounts for whole-of-life costs.

Table 9: Summary of asset management indicators

Asset sustainability ratio

Road asset consumption

ratio

Asset renewal funding

ratio

Description

The ratio of asset

replacement expenditure relative to depreciation

for a period. It measures

whether assets are being replaced at the rate they

are wearing out.

The average proportion

of ‘as new’ condition left in assets.

The ratio of net present

value of asset renewal funding accommodated

over a ten year period in

a long-term financial plan relative to the net

present value of the

projected capital renewal

expenditures identified in

an asset management

plan for the same period.

Indicator

description

Ratios higher than 100

per cent indicate that spending on existing

assets is greater than the

depreciation rate. This is a long-term indicator as

capital expenditure can

be deferred in the short

term if there are

insufficient funds available

from operations and

borrowing is not an option.

This indicator shows the

average proportion of new condition left in

assets.

This indicator measures

the capacity of councils to fund asset

replacement

requirements. An inability to fund future

requirements will result

in revenue, expense or

debt consequences, or a

reduction of service

levels.


2011-12


Under Australian accounting standards, all assets must be assigned an expected ‘life’. The

‘life’ of an asset will depend on the conditions that it is subjected to (for example, level of

traffic) and the level of maintenance of the asset throughout its ‘life’.

Depreciation is the replacement cost of the asset spread over its life. Increased

maintenance of an asset will lower annualised depreciation costs as it will allow councils to assume that the asset will have a longer life.

The indicators for asset management focus on three factors:

is a council currently spending enough on capital renewal to cover the estimated

depreciation of its assets (asset sustainability ratio)?;

what is the current state of the assets within the municipality (road asset

consumption ratio)?; and

is the council planning to spend enough in asset renewal funding over the next

ten years to accommodate project capital replacement obligations (asset

renewal funding ratio)?

While single point-in-time analyses of asset management practices can be useful, any analysis

of the management of assets by a council must look beyond single year results. It should

have regard to trends over time and, if available, the degree to which councils are adhering

to sustainable long-term asset management plans.

All councils set their own assumptions regarding asset depreciation and revaluation in

accordance with Australian accounting standards. There is some flexibility in the standards

to accommodate local conditions and policies regarding asset maintenance. Some care, therefore, needs to be taken when comparing results across councils. Differences in the

data may arise from differences in the approach to depreciation and revaluation and may

not reflect true differences in the condition of assets or asset management practices.

Asset Sustainability Ratio

Summary of results

Table 10: Asset sustainability ratio indicator results 2011-12

(benchmark = greater than 100%)


meeting

benchmark

Percentage of

councils

meeting

benchmark

Average

result

Result furthest

from

benchmark

Asset

sustainability ratio

At least

100%

9 33.33% 92.59% 52%


2011-12


Table 11: Asset sustainability ratio over time

(benchmark = at least 100%)

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average

Average result 79.68% 96.5% 96.19% 96.41% 92.59% 92.27% (last year’s

average =

93.13%)

Number of councils

meeting the

benchmark

7 11 12 11 9 9 (last year’s

average =

8)

Figure 8: Number of councils meeting the asset sustainability ratio benchmark over time

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Number of councils meeting the asset

sustainability ratio benchmark



2011-12


Figure 9: Average asset sustainability ratio over time

Observations – asset sustainability ratio

Nine (or 33 per cent of) councils met the benchmark for asset sustainability ratio in

2011-12.

The number of councils meeting the benchmark for asset sustainability ratio is two fewer

than last year but there remains slight trend up over the past five years in the number of

councils meeting the benchmark.

The average result against asset sustainability ratio for 2011-12 was 92.59 per cent. This is

below the benchmark of at least 100 per cent and below the 2010-11 average of 96.4 per

cent.

The average result for 2011-12 is the lowest in three years.

Analysis – asset sustainability ratio

At 92.59 per cent, the average result for asset sustainability ratio was down slightly from the

2010-11 result and below the benchmark of greater than 100 per cent. The average result

over five years was 92.27 per cent.

During 2011-12 councils had depreciation expenses of $150 021 000. With an average

asset sustainability ratio of 92.59 per cent, this means that the sector spent approximately

$138 904 000 on asset replacement. To meet the benchmark, the sector needed to spend

an additional $11 117 000 on asset replacement/renewal.

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Average asset sustainability ratio over time (benchmark = greater than 100%)

Average result


2011-12


Councils that are not meeting the asset sustainability ratio over the long term are under-

investing in their existing assets. Under-investment will lead to a backlog of assets in need

of renewal over time. Sixteen councils had an average asset sustainability ratio over the five

years of greater than 90 per cent suggesting that asset replacement expenditure was within

the margins of reasonable levels of investment.

Of some concern was that four councils had an average asset sustainability ratio over the

last five years of 60 per cent or less. This suggests that either depreciation and revaluation

processes do not reflect the true loss of value of assets or the councils are currently

underinvesting in asset replacement. Further consideration of these issues, including

assessment against long-term asset management plans is considered appropriate.

It is important to note that this indicator is unlikely to be met by councils every year, as

capital expenditure can be deferred in the short term if there are insufficient funds available

from operations and borrowing is not an option.

Some councils are in a situation where they have a positive net financial liabilities ratio,

indicating reserves, but appear to be underinvesting in asset maintenance. These councils

should ensure that, over time, available financial assets are used to adequately maintain their

capital assets.

Road Asset Consumption Ratio

Summary of results

Table 12: Road asset consumption ratio 2011-12


meeting

benchmark

Percentage of

councils

meeting

benchmark

Average

result

Result furthest

from

benchmark

Road asset

consumption

ratio

Greater than 60%

18 67% 65.57% 43.2%

Table 13: Road asset consumption ratio over time

(benchmark = greater than 60%)

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average

Average result 59.98% 60.07% 60.74% 62.27% 65.57% 61.73%

No of councils

meeting the

benchmark

11 12 13 18 18 14


2011-12


Figure 10: average result for road asset consumption ratio over time

Figure 11: Number of councils meeting the road asset consumption ratio over time

Observations

At 65.57 per cent, the average result for road asset consumption ratio met the benchmark

in 2011-12. The result also represents the highest result over the last five years.

Eighteen (or 67 per cent of) councils met the benchmark for road asset consumption ratio

in 2011-12.

56.00%

57.00%

58.00%

59.00%

60.00%

61.00%

62.00%

63.00%

64.00%

65.00%

66.00%

67.00%

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Average road asset consumption ratio over time

Average result

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

No of councils meeting the road asset

consumption ratio benchmark over time

No of councils meetingthe benchmark


2011-12


The number of councils meeting the benchmark for road asset consumption ratio remained

the same in 2011-12 as it was in 2010-11 but over the five years is trending up.

The average result for road asset consumption ratio has met the benchmark in the last four

years to 2011-12.

Nine councils have met the benchmark in each of the last five years.

Eight councils have not met the benchmark in any of the last five years.

Analysis

Councils are generally performing well in terms of road asset consumption levels. Councils,

on average, have met the benchmark in each of the past four years. The trend in the

number of councils meeting the benchmark increased from 11 to 18 between 2007-08 and

2010-11 and stayed steady at 18 in 2011-12.

The results of this indicator suggest that councils have sufficient service capacity remaining in

their road infrastructure assets. There is no general concern regarding councils’

performance in terms of this indicator.

As noted in the analysis of the net financial liabilities ratio and the asset sustainability ratio, there are examples of councils that appear to have cash reserves beyond the levels

recommended by the Auditor-General but also have road asset consumption ratios well

below the benchmark. These councils should ensure that, over time, available financial assets are used to adequately maintain their capital assets.

Asset Renewal Funding Ratio

Summary of results

Table 14: Asset renewal funding ratio 2011-12


meeting

benchmark

Percentage of

councils

meeting

benchmark

Average

result

Result furthest

from benchmark

Asset renewal

funding ratio

At least 90% 10 37% 97.33% 56% (result

furthest below

range) 166% (result

highest above

range)


2011-12


Table 15: Asset renewal funding over time

Benchmark = 90-100%

Indicator 2010-11 2011-12 Average

result

Average result 95.07% 97.33% 96.20%

No. of councils

meeting the

benchmark

11 10 10.5

No. of councils

with plans in place

13 18

Observations – asset renewal funding ratio

Eighteen councils had long-term financial and strategic asset management plans in place at

30 June 2012 which is five more than at 30 June 2011.

Of the councils with plans in place, the average result met the benchmark in both years

with a slightly higher result in 2011-12 (97.33 per cent) than in 2010-11 (95.07 per cent).

Where 11 councils met the benchmark for asset renewal funding in 2010-11 only 10 (or 37

per cent of councils) met the benchmark in 2011-12.

Analysis – asset renewal funding ratio

For those councils with long-term financial and strategic asset management plans in place,

planned expenditure on asset management was, on average, funded. Where planned asset

requirements are not fully funded, there will be revenue, expense, debt and/or service level

consequences.

Results for this indicator were collected for the first time in 2010-11. Future reports will

provide a more comprehensive summary of results against this indicator as all councils now

have in place long-term financial and strategic asset management plans, and it will be

possible to compare results over time which will give greater depth to the analysis applied

to the indicator.


2011-12


Depreciation and asset revaluation

A meaningful assessment of the condition of assets and adequacy of asset replacement

expenditure relies on consistent and reasonable assumptions regarding depreciation and

asset revaluation.

There is some concern that a lack of consistency among the methods employed by councils

to depreciate and revalue their assets undermines confidence in some of the comparisons

drawn in this report.

The Department of Premier and Cabinet’s Local Government Division is currently working

with the Office of the Auditor-General and local government to improve the consistency

and transparency of asset depreciation and revaluation practices of councils. A Steering

Committee has been established to guide this project and is due to report by 30 June 2013.


2011-12


3. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

OBJECTIVE

To develop, implement and improve planning and development practices that improve access to facilities and services, utilisation of resources, appropriate infrastructure provision

and sustainable environmental practices.

INDICATORS

Table 16: planning and development indicators

Indicator Description

Percentage of Development

Applications (DAs) completed within

statutory timeframes*

What percentage of DAs was completed within the

statutory timeframe of 42 days?

Average days to process

development applications (statutory

time as per legislation, excluding days

where clock is stopped)*

What are the:

Average number of calendar days to process

applications:

o Planning: permitted

o Planning: discretionary

o Building

Total number of all planning applications lodged

Total number of all building applications lodged

*Note that the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) is developing performance indicators for local government

performance in terms of planning and development. When these indicators have been finalised and tested consideration

will be given to aligning the indicators used in this report with the indicators developed by the TPC. It is noted that there

is some discrepancy between the data used in this report and data held by the TPC. Future data sharing will reduce the

risk of this occurring.

The indicators associated with the assessment of development applications seek to provide

information on the capacity of councils to deal with the development applications within the

timeframes required under the Land Use Planning and Approval Act 1993. The second

indicator relating to the average days to process planning applications has been included to

provide greater context to the results – for example, have timeframes been impacted by an

increase or decrease in the number of applications lodged.

Councils may wish to give further consideration to processes associated with development

applications if a significant percentage of applications were not considered within the

statutory timeframes. Councils may also wish to compare their performance against other

similar councils in terms of the average days taken to process planning and development

applications.


2011-12


Table 17: Appeals to the Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal

Indicator Description

Percentage of decision by Resource

Management and Planning Appeals

Tribunal (RMPAT) in favour of the

council.

How many council planning decisions were appealed

to RMPAT? How many decisions were in favour of the council?

This indicator seeks to provide some guidance on the quality of council decisions when considering discretionary applications. A significant increase in the number of successful

appeals to RMPAT may suggest that councils review their development application

assessment system and procedures.

Summary of results

Indicator Description Result

2010-11

Result

2011-12

Percentage of Development

Applications (DAs) completed

within statutory timeframes*

Percentage of DAs were completed within

the statutory timeframe NA 87%*

Average number of calendar

days to process development

applications (statutory time as

per legislation, excluding days

where clock is stopped)*

Planning - permitted

25 22

Planning - discretionary 36 33

Building NA 7**

Total number of all planning applications

lodged

7 827 6 604

Total number of all building applications

lodged

NA 7 624

Percentage of decisions by

Resource Management and

Planning Appeals Tribunal

(RMPAT) in favour of the

council.

How many council planning decisions were appealed to RMPAT?

146 124

How many decisions were in favour of the council?

18 17

Percentage of appeals in favour of

councils

12% 14%

*This result does not necessarily accurately reflect on councils’ performance. In a number of

cases there were applications that were lodged late in the financial year but not processed

within the financial year. These applications are counted as being completed outside the

statutory timeframe just because they were not completed within the financial year. This is

a quirk of the way the questions were framed in the data gathering process. The questions

have been revised to ensure more accurate results in subsequent years.

**Average for 26 councils as three councils do not collect this data.


2011-12


Observations

Total development applications

The total number of planning applications received by councils in 2011-12 was 6 604

(2010-11 = 7 827).

The average number of development applications received by each council in the 2011-12

financial year was 228.

The average percentage of applications processed within the statutory timeframe was 87%.

The average number of days to process development applications was 28.

The largest number of development applications received by a single council was 739 and

the smallest was 19.

The greatest percentage of applications processed in the statutory timeframe was 100 per

cent and the lowest was 46 per cent.

Permitted planning applications

The total number of permitted applications lodged to councils in 2011-12 was 2001

(2010-11 = 2 907).

The average number of permitted applications lodged to councils in 2011-12 was 69

(2010-11 = 100).

The average number of days to process permitted applications in 2011-12 was 22

(2010-11 = 25).

The greatest number of permitted applications received by one council in 2011-12 was 194

(2010-11 = 323).

The smallest number of permitted applications received by one council in 2011-12 was 2

(2010-11 = 0).

The greatest average number of days to process permitted applications in 2011-12 was 34

(2010-11 = 43).

The smallest average number of days to process permitted application in 2011-12 was five

(2010-11 = 8).


2011-12


Discretionary planning applications

The total number of discretionary applications lodged to councils in 2011-12 was 4603

(2010-11 = 4 920)

The average number of discretionary applications lodged to councils in 2011-12 was 159

(2010-11 = 170).

The average number of days to process discretionary applications in 2011-12 was 33

(2010-11 = 36).

The greatest number of discretionary applications received by one council in 2011-12 was

644 (2010-11 = 658).

The smallest number of discretionary applications received by one council in 2011-12 was

17 (2010-11 = 0).

The greatest average number of days to process discretionary applications in 2011-12 was

49 (2010-11 = 97).

The smallest average number of days to process discretionary application in 2011-12 was

11 (2010-11 = 15).

Appeals to RMPAT

There were 22 (five per cent) fewer appeals lodged to RMPAT in 2011-12 than in 2010-11.

Fourteen per cent of appeals were found in favour of councils’ decisions in 2011-12

compared with 12 per cent in 2010-11.

Building applications

The total number of building application received in 2011-12 was 7 346 meaning that on

average councils received 262 building applications.

The greatest number of building applications received by a council was 819 and the smallest

was 20.

The average number of days to process building applications was 7. The greatest number

of days was 20 and the smallest number of days was 1.


2011-12


Analysis

No benchmarks or targets have been established for the planning and development

indicators so individual council performance can only be compared with average

performance and, where applicable, performance in the previous year. Note, however, that

councils are required to process planning and development applications within 42 days –

this requirement is considered a quasi-indicator.

In analysing the planning and development indicators, it becomes clear that the planning and

development indicators do not indicate whether councils are achieving the stated objective.

The indicators relate more to the efficiency of internal planning practices than the capacity

of councils’ to ‘improve access to facilities and services, utilisation or resources, appropriate

infrastructure provision and sustainable environmental practices’. Either the indicators or the

objective (or both) may need revising in the future.

Planning applications and assessments

At 28, the average number of days to process planning applications was well below the

statutory requirement which is a positive result. This overall result can be broken down:

22 days for permitted applications (an improvement on 25 days in 2010-11) and 33 days

for discretionary applications (an improvement on 36 days in 2010-11).

While both of these results represent an improvement on the 2010-11 performance, it

should be noted that the number of planning applications in 2011-12 was down markedly

compared to 2010-11. Overall there were 6 604 development applications submitted in

2011-12 compared to 7827 in 2010-11. This reduction comprises of 906 fewer permitted

applications and 317 fewer discretionary applications.

The reduction in the number of applications received would be partially attributable to the

introduction of Planning Directive No. 3 on 10 August 2011. Planning Directive No. 3

removed the need for a planning permit for a single dwelling in residential zones in seven

planning schemes. While there were notable reductions in the number of permitted

applications received by the seven relevant councils, there were notable reductions at other

councils as well so there were other factors also impacting the number of permitted

applications lodged in 2011-12.

While the average number of development applications received by councils is 226, there is

huge variation in the number of applications received by individual councils. The largest

number of applications received by a single council was 739 and the smallest 19.

2 569 applications were received by the five urban medium councils which represents

40 per cent of the applications received by all councils. 482 applications were received by


2011-12


the rural agricultural small councils representing eight per cent of the applications received

by all councils.

On average, councils assessed 87 per cent of applications in the statutory timeframe. There

were 13 councils that processed 95 per cent of applications within the statutory timeframe,

and nine councils that processed under 80 per cent of applications within the statutory

timeframe.

It should be noted that this figure may not be an accurate assessment of councils’

performance due to a quirk of data collection and accounting methods. The 87 per cent

reflects applications received and approved in the financial year, and also includes

applications that may have been received in the previous financial year but approved within

the statutory timeframe in this financial year. Similarly it does not account for applications

received in the 2011-12 financial year that may not have been processed until the 2012-13

financial year even if they were processed in the statutory timeframe. The questions asked

to gather this data have been amended to resolve this issue in future reports.

Data was not collected in 2010-11 regarding the percentage of assessments that were

completed within the statutory timeframe so the results cannot be compared across years

at this stage.

Appeals to RMPAT

Fewer than two per cent of council decisions were referred to RMPAT in 2010-11 – that is

124 appeals from 6604 development applications received by councils statewide. This is

equivalent to last year’s result and suggests that planning and development applicants

generally accepted councils’ decisions regarding planning.

Of the decision referred to RMPAT, 17 (14 per cent) were found in favour of councils’

original decisions.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the majority of RMPAT decisions fall in a ‘grey’ area

where neither the council nor the appellant is an outright winner. These decisions, while

councils have not necessarily lost the appeal, are counted against councils in this report

because the permit may have been modified by RMPAT. This indicator may need revisiting

in the future, and/or other indicators may be more useful.

The data does not provide the basis for any level of concern regarding councils’

performance in terms of planning and development. More detailed analysis will be possible

in future years when trends over time are available.


2011-12


Conclusions The 2011-12 Sustainability Objectives and Indicators Report has found that at an aggregated

level there is scope for councils to improve performance in terms of financial management

and asset management.

The major concern highlighted by the report is the level of cash and investments held by

councils. There is no breakdown of councils’ cash and investment levels and their allocated

use – all cash and investments may be justified. However, without that detailed knowledge

it could be concluded that there may be opportunity for councils to invest some cash and

investments in existing assets to improve performance against the asset sustainability ratio.

Debt levels among Tasmanian councils are low relative to the level of cash and investments

held. This reflects a tendency among Tasmanian councils to avoid debt which can at times

be a useful financial management tool. The Australian Centre of Excellence for Local

Government is expected to release a local government sector focussed report on when

and how best to use debt. It is anticipated that this report could prove to be highly valuable

to Tasmanian councils.

All councils now have in place long-term financial and strategic asset management plans. It is

anticipated that as councils implement and up-date their plans there will be visible

improvements in performance against the financial and asset management indicators

contained within this report.

It is difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding councils’ performance in terms of planning

and development. It can be concluded that at 28 days, councils’ performance in terms of

average number of days to process planning applications is well below the statutory

requirement of 42 days. This is a positive result. It was surprising to see that councils, on

average, were only processing 87 per cent of development applications within the statutory

timeframe. These results appear to contradict each other but may be attributable to some

extent to data collections questions. The questions have now been revised in an effort to

gather more accurate data in future years. It will be useful to look at the results over time –

this will help to draw more meaningful conclusions.


2011-12


Appendices


2011-12


APPENDIX A – SUMMARY OF OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS

Areas of

measurement

Objective Draft indicator Indicator questions / descriptions Data source

1. Financial

management

To achieve

and/or improve

financial

sustainability

through meeting

the

requirements of

sound fiscal

management.

Operating

surplus Description: The difference

between day-to-day income and

expenses for the period.

Comment: An operating surplus (or

deficit) arises when operating

income (excluding capital income)

exceeds (or is less than) operating

expenses for a period (usually a

year).

Calculation: Operating income

(excluding amounts received

specifically for new or upgraded

assets and physical resources

received free of charge) less

operating expenses for the reporting

period.

Consolidated Data

Collection (CDC). The

new financial

management indicators

will be added to the

2012 CDC.

Operating

surplus ratio Description: The percentage by

which the major controllable income

source plus operating grants varies

from day to day expenses.

Comment: The operating surplus

ratio is the operating surplus (or

deficit) expressed as a percentage of

general and other rates and

operating grants.

Calculation: Operating surplus (or

deficit) divided by general and other

rate income and operating grants.

CDC – see above.

Net financial

liabilities Description: What is owed to

others less money held, invested or

owed to the entity.

Comment: Net financial liabilities

equals total liabilities less financial

assets.

Calculation: Total liabilities less

financial assets (cash and cash

equivalents plus trade and other

receivables plus other financial

assets).

See above.

Net financial

liabilities ratio

Description: The significance of net

amount owed compared with the

period’s income.

Comment: Indicates the extent to

See above.


2011-12


Areas of

measurement


which net financial liabilities could be

met by operating income.

Calculation: Net financial liabilities

divided by operating income.

2. Asset

management

To manage

assets in a way

that maximises

asset service

delivery,

manages related

risks and

accounts for

whole-of-life

costs.

Asset

sustainability

ratio

Description: The ratio of asset

replacement expenditure relative to

depreciation for a period. It

measures whether assets are being

replaced at the rate they are

wearing out.

Comment: Indicates whether the

entity is replacing or renewing non-

financial assets at the same rate that

its overall stock of assets is wearing

out for the period.

Calculation: Capital expenditure on

replacement / renewal of existing

plant and equipment and

infrastructure assets divided by their

annual depreciation expense.

CDC. As with the

financial management

indicators, the new

asset management

indicators will be added

to the 2012 CDC.

Asset

consumption

ratio

Description: The average

proportion of ‘as new’ condition left

in assets.

Comment: Shows the depreciated

replacement cost of an entity’s

depreciable assets relative to their

‘as new’ (replacement) value

Calculation: The depreciated

replacement cost of plant,

equipment and infrastructure assets

divided by the current replacement

cost of depreciable assets.

See above.


2011-12


Areas of

measurement


Asset renewal

funding ratio

Description: The ratio of net

present value of asset renewal

funding accommodated over a ten

year period in a long-term financial

plan relative to the net present value

of the projected capital renewal

expenditures identified in an asset

management plan for the same

period.

Comment: Indicates whether the

entity has the financial capacity to

fund asset renewal as required and

therefore continue to provide

existing levels of asset-based services

in the future without additional

operating income or reductions in

operating expenses, or an increase

in net financial liabilities above that

currently projected.

Calculation: The net present value

of projected ten-year capital renewal

funding outlays in a long-term

financial plan divided by the net

present value of projected ten-year

capital renewal expenditures in an

asset management plan in current

values.

See above.

3. Planning and

development

To develop,

implement and improve

planning and

development

strategies that improve the

quality of life

for

communities

through

supplying

access to

facilities and

services,

appropriate

Percentage of

Development Applications

(DAs)

completed

within statutory

timeframe.

What percentage of DAs was

completed within the statutory

timeframe of 42 days?

CDC - Land Use and

Planning Section of

CDC SOI sheet -

Planning and

Development Data

Average days

to process

planning and

development

applications

(statutory time

as per

legislation,

exclude days

where clock

What are the:

Average number of

calendar days to

process applications:

- planning: permitted

use

- planning:

discretionary use

- building

CDC SOI sheet

(collection commences

from 1 July 2012). See

KPI section - Planning

and Development

Data.


2011-12


Areas of

measurement


infrastructure

provision and

sustainable environmental

practices.

stopped). Total number of all

planning applications

lodged

Total number of all

building applications

lodged

Number of

appeals

determined in

favour of

council by the

Resource

Management

and Planning

Appeals

Tribunal

(RMPAT)

What were the number of appeals

not upheld by the Resource

Management and Planning Appeals

Tribunal?

CDC SOI sheet. See

Land Use and Planning

tab - Planning and

Development Data

4. Community

satisfaction To ensure

communities

are satisfied

with councils’

provision of

services in the

areas of: a) Planning and

development

b) Community

involvement

c) Infrastructure

d) Environment

al

management

/ waste

e) Recreation /

culture

f) Community

health and

safety

g) Overall

satisfaction

LGAT survey

a) Planning and

development

Satisfaction

with councils’

performance in

planning and

development.

On a scale of 1-5, how do

respondents rate their satisfaction

on their council’s performance in

consistent and appropriate planning

policies (see footnote 4 below)

LGAT survey, section

A1 – planning and

development, question

2.1

b) Community

involvement

Satisfaction

with councils’

performance in

community

involvement.




community involvement in relation

to:

informing residents about council

activities

involving residents in local decision

making

access to councillors / aldermen


A1 – community

involvement

Question 1.1

Question 1.2

Question 1.3.

c) Infrastructure Safe and well

maintained

roads,

pedestrian

areas and local




providing:

safe and well maintained local


A3 – roads, footpaths

and traffic

Question 3.1


2011-12


Areas of

measurement


road networks. roads

safe and well maintained

pedestrian areas

an efficient road network

Question 3.2

Question 3.3

d) Environmental

management /

waste

Waste

management



on their council’s performance in:

household garbage collection

recycling services – including

kerbside recycling and depots

operation of local tip and

transfer stations

maintaining a clean and tidy

city/town

providing household hazardous

waste collection services


A4 – waste

management

Question 4.1

Question 4.2

Question 4.3

Question 4.4

Question 4.5

e) Recreation,

cultural

facilities and

programs

Provision and

management

of recreational

and cultural

facilities and

programs.




sports grounds and recreation

facilities

parks and playgrounds

community centres and halls

arts and entertainment facilities

including museums and art

galleries

arts and entertainment

activities and special events


A8 – recreation,

cultural facilities and

programs

Question 8.1

Question 8.2

Question 8.3

Question 8.4

Question 8.5

f) Community

health and

safety

Hygiene

standards of

food outlets,

restaurants and

public facilities,

council

immunisation

programs and

animal control.




hygiene standards of food

outlets, restaurants and public

facilities

council immunisation programs

animal control


A6 – community health

and safety.

Question 6.1

Question 6.2

Question 6.3

g) Overall

satisfaction

Satisfaction

with overall

performance of

council.

On a scale of 1-5, how satisfied are

you with your council’s performance

overall?


A9 – Question 9.1


2011-12


APPENDIX B – COUNCIL CLASSIFICATIONS


2011-12


APPENDIX C – OPERATING SURPLUS BY COUNCIL OVER TIME ($)

Council 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average No. of

consec

years in

deficit

from

2011-12

Number

of

years in

deficit

Break O'Day 1 185 000 -710 000 -1 659 000 -2 004 000 -3 224 000 -1 282 400 4 4

Brighton 1 834 000 2 599 000 1 275 000 1 419 000 789 000 1 583 200 0 0

Burnie City 123 000 487 000 -1 167 000 514 000 -1 007 000 -210 000 1 2

Central Coast -2 785 000 -901 000 -1 586 000 -513 000 568 000 -1 043 400 0 4

Central

Highlands

-1 039 000 -3 507 000 -3 668 000 -1 582 000 -1 534 000 -2 266 000 5 5

Circular Head 1 505 000 701 000 103 000 118 000 -453 000 394 800 1 1

Clarence City -737 000 2 708 000 -2 539 000 -549 000 -935 000 -410 400 3 4

Derwent Valley -200 000 -44 000 -750 000 66 000 176 000 -150 400 0 3

Devonport City -2 679 000 -166 000 3 716 000 560 000 -757 000 134 800 1 3

Dorset -340 000 1 541 000 133 000 911 000 80 000 465 000 0 1

Flinders -609 000 -767 000 -226 000 -607 000 -324 000 -506 600 5 5

George Town 1 373 000 341 000 -292 000 -651 000 386 000 231 400 0 2

Glamorgan -

Spring Bay

-718 000 774 000 574 000 384 000 433 000 289 400 0 1

Glenorchy City -5 902 000 -5 592 000 -5 981 000 -3 376 000 -3 210 000 -4 812 200 5 5

Hobart City -6 036 000 -7 592 000 -4 002 000 -2 257 000 -589 000 -4 095 200 5 5

Huon Valley 2 143 000 565 000 51 000 777 000 778 000 862 800 0 0

Kentish -993 000 127 000 44 000 -194 000 NA -254 000 2

King Island -85 000 -142 000 -306 000 -80 000 NA -153 250 4

Kingborough -1 548 000 -2 566 000 -5 079 000 -1 721 000 -3 286 000 -2 840 000 5 5

Latrobe 633 000 474 000 203 000 486 000 304 000 420 000 0 0

Launceston City 1 295 000 2 323 000 793 000 -623 000 -1 647 000 428 200 2 2

Meander Valley -235 000 -39 000 1 404 000 1 094 000 1 418 000 728 400 2 2

Northern

Midlands

-1 128 000 -945 000 -1 649 000 -755 000 -1 783 000 -1 252 000 5 5

Sorell -201 000 57 000 669 000 488 000 515 000 305 600 0 1

Southern

Midlands

-529 000 -872 000 -974 000 -909 000 -1 315 000 -919 800 5 5

Tasman 449 000 -187 000 866 000 718 000 482 000 465 600 0 1

Waratah -

Wynyard

-1 337 000 -523 000 -1 386 000 32 000 -432 000 -729 200 1 4

West Coast 267 000 1 079 000 93 000 559 000 549 000 509 400 0 0

West Tamar 1 556 000 1 680 000 2 230 000 2 050 000 1 247 000 1 752 600 0 0

Average -508 207 -313 690 -658 966 -194 655 -473 000 -425 988 1.8 2.3

Maximum 2 143 000 2 708 000 3 716 000 2 050 000 1 418 000 2 407 000 5 5

Minimum -6 036 000 -7 592 000 -5 079 000 -2 257 000 -3 286 000 -4 850 000 0 0


2011-12


APPENDIX D – OPERATING SURPLUS RATIO BY COUNCIL OVER TIME

Benchmark = greater than 0

Council 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average

Break O'Day 9.90% -5.90% -16.80% -18.10% -23.50% -10.88%

Brighton 13.35% 16.28% 10.52% 12.00% 10.52% 12.53%

Burnie City 0.32% 1.24% -3.66% 1.47% -2.79% -0.68%

Central Coast -11.74% -3.33% -7.89% -2.52% 2.52% -4.59%

Central Highlands -18.03% -59.51% -65.95% -28.68% -25.48% -39.53%

Circular Head 10.61% 4.75% 0.87% 0.96% -3.53% 2.73%

Clarence City -1.27% 4.13% -5.32% -1.10% -1.82% -1.08%

Derwent Valley -3.47% -1.26% -9.64% 0.06% 1.43% -2.58%

Devonport City -7.24% -0.42% -8.71% 1.69% -2.24% -3.38%

Dorset -2.83% 11.59% 1.25% 11.59% 0.66% 4.45%

Flinders -16.85% -20.32% -5.92% -15.19% -6.79% -13.01%

George Town 12.90% 3.22% -3.46% -7.51% 4.16% 1.86%

Glamorgan - Spring Bay -7.05% 6.87% 6.53% 4.14% 4.21% 2.94%

Glenorchy City -9.41% -8.59% -12.57% -6.60% -6.01% -8.64%

Hobart City -6.23% -7.47% -4.42% -2.35% -0.59% -4.21%

Huon Valley 10.76% 2.65% 0.27% 3.85% 3.74% 4.25%

Kentish -13.33% 1.55% 0.59% -2.12% NA -3.33%

King Island -1.65% -2.60% -5.74% -1.40% NA -2.85%

Kingborough -4.42% -7.02% -18.42% -5.75% -10.65% -9.25%

Latrobe 5.63% 4.06% 2.20% 5.01% 3.09% 4.00%

Launceston City 1.39% 2.30% 1.02% -0.76% -1.92% 0.41%

Meander Valley -1.31% 0% 8.45% 6.39% 7.87% 4.24%

Northern Midlands -7.74% -6.02% -12.40% -5.35% -12.33% -8.77%

Sorell -1.44% 0.39% 4.96% 3.49% 3.46% 2.17%

Southern Midlands -6.62% -10.49% -13.61% -11.00% -14.79% -11.30%

Tasman 6.11% -3.08% 16.08% 13.72% 8.85% 8.34%

Waratah - Wynyard -8.74% -3.12% -10.81% 0.23% -2.88% -5.06%

West Coast 2.77% 9.23% 1.01% 5.39% 5.03% 4.69%

West Tamar 7.60% 7.53% 11.42% 10.35% 6.00% 8.58%

Average -1.66% -2.19% -4.83% -0.97% -1.20% -2.17%

Maximum 13.35% 16.28% 11.42% 13.72% 10.65% 12.53%

Minimum -18.03% -59.51% -65.95% -28.68% -25.48% -39.53%

No meeting benchmark 12 14 13 14 13 12


2011-12


APPENDIX E – NET FINANCIAL LIABILITIES

Council 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average

Break O'Day -2 536 000 -2 895 000 -5 403 000 -4 975 000 -4 334 000 -4 028 600

Brighton -540 000 1 411 000 2 826 000 3 168 000 3 390 000 2 051 000

Burnie City -6 922 000 -9 476 000 -35 000 1 755 000 862 000 -2 763 200

Central Coast 2, 275 000 2 545 000 -1 471 000 -3 024 000 -1 964 000 -327 800

Central Highlands 4 621 000 5 632 000 6 142 000 6 589 000 7 526 000 6 102 000

Circular Head 2 711 000 4 373 000 5 826 000 5 675 000 8 671 000 5 451 200

Clarence 20 570 000 25 920 000 40 660 000 42 145 000 43 807 000 34 620 400

Derwent Valley -1 144 000 -74 000 -1 128 000 -1 080 000 -1 850 000 -1 055 200

Devonport City -4 722 000 -7 750 000 -2 620 000 -2 467 000 -558 000 -3 623 400

Dorset 8 875 000 12 429 000 11 969 000 12 924 000 14 356 000 12 110 600

Flinders 1 540 000 6 905 000 645 000 1 158 000 7 446 000 3 538 800

George Town -1 402 000 -298 000 33 000 359 000 2 036 000 145 600

Glamorgan-Spring Bay -2 474 000 -1 730 000 998 000 716 000 335 000 -431 000

Glenorchy City -18 297 000 -10 086 000 -157 000 -6 344 000 28 265 000 -1 323 800

Hobart City 2 828 000 -12 901 000 -2 063 000 -15 484 000 -18 419 000 -9 207 800

Huon Valley 3 392 000 8 884 000 4 482 000 4 706 000 4 443 000 5 181 400

Kentish -272 000 853 000 2 357 000 2 748 000 NA 1 421 500

King Island 1 330 000 2 378 000 1 824 000 2 539 000 NA 2 017 750

Kingborough 15 925 000 17 089 000 6 396 000 5 353 000 3 441 000 9 640 800

Latrobe -2 464 000 -1 486 000 990 000 2 466 000 3 719 000 645 000

Launceston City 1 228 000 -22 507 000 8 808 000 -623 000 6 090 000 -1 400 800

Meander Valley 7 916 000 12 727 000 12 920 000 13 918 000 12 992 000 12 094 600

Northern Midlands 4 656 000 2 305 000 1 462 000 341 000 7 672 000 3 287 200

Sorell -1 097 000 -20 000 3 743 000 4 374 000 5 222 000 2 444 400

Southern Midlands 4 351 000 5 052 000 6 490 000 6 418 000 6 084 000 5 679 000

Tasman -938 000 -909 000 184 000 1 055 000 2 662 000 410 800

Waratah Wynyard -22 000 -220 000 3 251 000 4 094 000 5 685 000 2 557 600

West Coast 144 000 -1 977 000 2 460 000 1 598 000 3 085 000 1 062 000

West Tamar 8 679 000 12 043 000 10 858 000 4 102 000 6 846 000 8 505 600

Average 1,662,448 1,662,655 4,222,310 3,248,413 5 833 703 3 269 160

Maximum 20 570 000 25 920 000 40 660 000 42 145 000 43 807 000 34 620 400

Minimum -18 297 000 -22 507 000 -2 620 000 -15 484 000 -18 419 000 -9 207 800


2011-12


APPENDIX F – NET FINANCIAL LIABILITIES RATIO

Benchmark = 0 to -50 per cent

Council 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average

Break O'Day 21.30% 24.10% 54.70% 44.90% 31.60% 35.32%

Brighton -3.90% 8.80% 23.30% 26.80% 28.60% 16.72%

Burnie City -18.10% -24.20% -0.10% 5.00% 2.40% -7.00%

Central Coast 9.60% 9.40% -7.30% -14.90% -8.70% -2.38%

Central Highlands 80.20% 95.60% 110.40% 119.40% 123.70% 105.86%

Circular Head 19.10% 29.60% 49.40% 46.00% 67.60% 42.34%

Clarence 35.40% 39.60% 85.20% 84.70% 85.40% 66.06%

Derwent Valley -10.70% -0.70% -13.00% -11.00% -17.50% -10.58%

Devonport City -12.80% -19.70% 12.40% -7.50% -1.70% -5.86%

Dorset 73.90% 93.50% 112.50% 108.40% 117.60% 101.18%

Flinders 46.20% 183.00% 16.90% 29.00% 156.10% 86.24%

George Town -13.20% -2.80% 0.40% 4.10% 21.90% 2.08%

Glamorgan - Spring Bay -24.30% -15.40% 11.40% 7.70% 3.30% -3.46%

Glenorchy City -29.20% -15.50% -0.30% -12.40% 52.90% -0.90%

Hobart City 2.90% -12.70% -2.30% -16.10% -18.50% -9.34%

Huon Valley 25.90% 5.60% 22.50% 18.00% 21.30% 18.66%

Kentish -3.70% 10.40% 31.60% 30.00% NA 17.08%

King Island 25.80% 43.50% 34.20% 44.60% NA 37.03%

Kingborough 45.50% 46.70% 23.20% 17.90% 11.10% 28.88%

Latrobe -21.90% -12.70% 10.70% 25.40% 37.80% 7.86%

Launceston City 1.30% -22.30% 11.40% -0.80% 7.10% -0.66%

Meander Valley 44.00% 67.10% 77.80% 81.20% 72.10% 68.44%

Northern Midlands 31.90% 14.70% 11.00% 2.40% 53.10% 22.62%

Sorell -7.87% -0.14% 27.70% 31.20% 35.10% 17.20%

Southern Midlands 54.50% 60.80% 90.70% 77.70% 68.40% 70.42%

Tasman -12.80% -15.00% 3.40% 20.20% 48.90% 8.94%

Waratah - Wynyard -0.10% -1.30% 25.40% 29.00% 37.90% 18.18%

West Coast 1.50% -16.90% 26.70% 15.40% 28.30% 11.00%

West Tamar 42.40% 54.00% 55.60% 20.70% 32.90% 41.12%

Average 13.89% 21.62% 31.22% 28.52% 40.69% 27.00%

Maximum 80.20% 95.60% 110.40% 119.40% 123.70% 105.86%

Minimum -29.20% -24.20% -13.00% -16.10% -18.50% -20.20%



2011-12


APPENDIX G – ASSET SUSTAINABILITY RATIO

Benchmark = greater than 100 per cent

Council 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average

Break O'Day 127.00% 35.00% 63.00% 68.00% 65.00% 71.60%

Brighton 64.00% 86.00% 82.00% 153.00% 144.00% 105.80%

Burnie City 64.00% 129.00% 182.00% 53.00% 94.00% 104.40%

Central Coast 58.00% 96.00% 112.00% 103.00% 182.00% 110.20%


Circular Head 116.00% 77.00% 93.00% 85.00% 63.00% 86.80%

Clarence 35.00% 68.00% 60.00% 53.00% 77.00% 58.60%

Derwent Valley 90.00% 139.00% 161.00% 145.00% 172.00% 141.40%

Devonport City 55.00% 113.00% 101.00% 108.00% 67.00% 88.80%

Dorset 74.00% 74.00% 126.00% 74.00% 89.00% 87.40%

Flinders 47.00% 73.00% 80.00% 90.00% 108.00% 79.60%

George Town 71.00% 108.00% 157.00% 91.00% 70.00% 99.40%

Glamorgan - Spring Bay 122.00% 112.00% 91.00% 114.00% 78.00% 103.40%

Glenorchy City 47.00% 47.00% 61.00% 51.00% 52.00% 51.60%

Hobart City 49.00% 97.00% 84.00% 80.00% 89.00% 79.80%

Huon Valley 174.00% 153.00% 107.00% 69.00% 116.00% 123.80%

Kentish 91.00% 120.00% 45.00% 89.00% NA 86.25%

King Island NA NA 120.00% 117.00% NA 118.50%

Kingborough 36.00% 51.00% 56.00% 64.00% 84.00% 58.20%

Latrobe 72.00% 58.00% 60.00% 86.00% 55.00% 66.20%

Launceston City 53.00% 41.00% 135.00% 164.00% 68.00% 92.20%

Meander Valley 70.00% 94.00% 99.00% 109.00% 88.00% 92.00%


Sorell 93.00% 83.00% 101.00% 87.00% 102.00% 93.20%


Tasman 171.90% 80.10% 68.40% 70.80% 64.00% 91.04%

Waratah - Wynyard 88.00% 94.00% 78.00% 76.00% 104.00% 88.00%

West Coast 61.00% 321.00% 199.00% 215.00% 113.00% 181.80%

West Tamar 100.00% 101.00% 65.00% 111.00% 77.00% 90.80%

Average 79.68% 96.50% 96.19% 96.41% 92.59% 92.27%

Maximum 174.00% 321.00% 199.00% 215.00% 182.00% 218.20%

Minimum 28.00% 31.00% 24.00% 38.00% 52.00% 34.60%



2011-12


APPENDIX H – ROAD ASSET CONSUMPTION RATIO

Benchmark = greater than 60 per cent

Council 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average

Break O'Day 70.30% 68.90% 67.80% 69.60% 68.00% 68.92%

Brighton 70.20% 69.20% 68.20% 67.40% 84.70% 71.94%

Burnie City 53.80% 52.80% 51.50% 50.90% 50.20% 51.84%

Central Coast 70.00% 69.00% 68.00% 81.30% 86.40% 74.94%


Circular Head 58.90% 58.70% 58.10% 58.70% 57.80% 58.44%

Clarence City 51.80% 50.40% 51.10% 50.40% 49.20% 50.58%

Derwent Valley 53.20% 53.00% 54.80% 71.40% 72.40% 60.96%

Devonport City 46.80% 46.20% 43.50% 42.90% 43.20% 44.52%

Dorset 39.20% 37.00% 72.50% 71.20% 70.10% 58.00%

Flinders 43.70% 41.90% 40.50% 39.00% 77.80% 48.58%

George Town 73.10% 74.40% 73.40% 72.40% 72.70% 73.20%

Glamorgan - Spring Bay 68.80% 67.00% 65.50% 64.30% 63.10% 65.74%

Glenorchy City 53.20% 52.10% 51.00% 50.00% 50.60% 51.38%

Hobart City 59.70% 60.30% 63.80% 62.50% 60.80% 61.42%

Huon Valley 53.80% 53.10% 55.80% 57.90% 57.00% 55.52%

Kentish 54.00% 53.40% 52.20% 74.40% NA 58.50%

King Island 62.30% 66.80% 67.00% 66.30% NA 65.60%

Kingborough 57.10% 56.10% 55.40% 63.70% 64.30% 59.32%

Latrobe 63.00% 59.30% 58.20% 72.40% 71.30% 64.84%

Launceston City 59.10% 58.40% 57.60% 60.50% 59.60% 59.04%

Meander Valley 78.20% 77.10% 76.30% 75.50% 77.60% 76.94%


Sorell 51.60% 89.20% 87.60% 86.00% 84.40% 79.76%


Tasman 59.20% 56.80% 53.30% 32.90% 75.40% 55.52%

Waratah - Wynyard 55.40% 53.20% 52.50% 52.00% 51.10% 52.84%

West Coast 57.60% 52.40% 56.70% 57.10% 61.50% 57.06%

West Tamar) 74.70% 69.90% 67.60% 67.00% 65.90% 69.02%

Average 59.98% 60.07% 60.74% 62.27% 66.04% 61.82%

Maximum 79.40% 89.20% 87.60% 86.00% 86.40% 85.72%

Minimum 39.20% 37.00% 40.50% 32.90% 43.20% 38.56%



2011-12


APPENDIX I – ASSET RENEWAL FUNDING RATIO

Benchmark = 90 – 100 per cent

Council 2010-11 2011-12 Average

Break O'Day 100.00% NA NA

Brighton 100.00% 166.00% 133.00%

Burnie City 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Central Coast 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Central Highlands NA NA NA

Circular Head NA 139.00% NA

Clarence City NA NA NA

Derwent Valley NA NA NA

Devonport City 97.00% 96.00% 96.50%

Dorset NA 58.00% NA

Flinders NA 56.00% NA

George Town NA 100.00% NA

Glamorgan - Spring Bay NA NA NA

Glenorchy City 91.00% 78.00% 84.50%

Hobart City 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Huon Valley 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Kentish NA NA NA

King Island NA NA NA

Kingborough 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Latrobe 77.00% 106.00% 91.50%

Launceston City 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Meander Valley 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Northern Midlands NA 96.00% NA

Sorell NA NA NA

Southern Midlands NA NA NA

Tasman NA NA NA

Waratah - Wynyard NA 72.00% NA

West Coast NA NA NA

West Tamar) 71.00% 85.00% 78.00%

Average 95.07% 97.33% 96.20%

No. meeting benchmark 11 10 10

No. councils with plans in place 13 18 12


2011-12


APPENDIX J – DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

Council Number of

development

applications

Number

assessed

in

statutory

timeframe

Percentage

assessed in

statutory

timeframe

Break O’Day 230 170 74%

Brighton 156 72 46%

Burnie City 140 113 81%

Central Coast 317 241 76%

Central Highlands 98 71 72%

Circular Head* 88 72 82%

Clarence City 490 387 79%

Derwent Valley 160 139 87%

Devonport City 221 217 98%

Dorset 94 94 100%

Flinders 44 31 70%

George Town 87 61 70%

Glamorgan-Spring Bay 238 222 93%

Glenorchy City 328 328 100%

Hobart City 739 527 71%

Huon Valley 268 256 95%

Kentish 85 84 99%

King Island 19 19 100%

Kingborough* 373 353 95%

Latrobe 151 151 100%

Launceston City 639 519 81%

Meander Valley 238 235 99%

Northern Midlands 312 312 100%

Sorell 267 255 95%

Southern Midlands 121 117 97%

Tasman 83 83 100%

Waratah-Wynyard 197 178 90%

West Coast 57 57 100%

West Tamar 364 277 76%

Total 6604 5641 NA

Average 228 195 87%

*for these councils, the number of applications approved rather than received has been

used because there was a large number of applications that were submitted in the 2010-11

financial year but considered in the 2011-12 financial year.


2011-12


APPENDIX K – PERMITTED APPLICATIONS

Council Number of

permitted

applications

received

2010-11

Number of

permitted

applications

received

2011-12

Average days

to process

permitted

applications

2010-11

Average days

to process

permitted

applications

2011-12

Break O’Day 119 160 43 25.8

Brighton 233 108 35 19.6

Burnie City 24 24 28 33

Central Coast 219 135 17 10.78

Central Highlands 44 40 17 13

Circular Head 16 18 30 16

Clarence City 71 52 28 29

Derwent Valley 93 89 8 5

Devonport City 53 69 27 26

Dorset 7 16 29 25

Flinders 13 3 42 30

George Town 77 50 33 33

Glamorgan-Spring Bay 127 102 36 16

Glenorchy City 58 50 30 25.3

Hobart City 105 95 25 24

Huon Valley 163 103 35 20

Kentish 51 29 28 37

King Island 0 2 0 30

Kingborough 208 54 23 19

Latrobe 200 55 32 34.5

Launceston City 119 157 30 16

Meander Valley 49 53 23 29

Northern Midlands 111 73 15 9

Sorell 137 69 21 21

Southern Midlands 71 60 19 15

Tasman 67 35 11 16

Waratah-Wynyard 103 73 19 19

West Coast 46 33 28 28

West Tamar 323 194 13 11.71

Total 2907 2001 725 NA

Average 100 69 25 22


2011-12


APPENDIX L – DISCRETIONARY APPLICATIONS

Council Number of

discretionary

applications

2010-11

Number of

discretionary

applications

2011-12

Average days

to process

discretionary

applications

2010-11

Average days

to process

discretionary

applications

2011-12

Break O’Day 80 70 21 41

Brighton 136 48 50 23

Burnie City 110 116 35 23

Central Coast 154 182 34 11






Dorset 69 78 36 32

Flinders 36 41 42 46

George Town 51 37 38 51


Glenorchy City 337 278 34 32


Huon Valley 186 165 23 37

Kentish 68 56 37 40

King Island 25 17 48 30


Latrobe 0 96 39 36




Sorell 204 198 42 42


Tasman 51 48 35 41


West Coast 28 24 28 28

West Tamar 140 170 28 23.43

Total 4920 4603 1057

Average 170 159 36 33


2011-12


APPENDIX M – BUILDING APPLICATIONS

Council Number of

building

applications

Average number of days

to assess building

applications

Break O’Day 268 2

Brighton 213 7

Burnie City 213 12

Central Coast 311 4.55

Central Highlands* 79

Circular Head 151 3

Clarence City 666 2.5

Derwent Valley 111 11

Devonport City 273 3.3

Dorset 181 15

Flinders* 20

George Town 98 5

Glamorgan-Spring Bay 209 7

Glenorchy City 355 3.81

Hobart City 738 12.69

Huon Valley 278 3

Kentish 90 2

King Island 33 20

Kingborough 587 15

Latrobe 234 19.7

Launceston City 819 1

Meander Valley 307 10

Northern Midlands 266 5

Sorell 270 7

Southern Midlands* 89

Tasman 45 6

Waratah-Wynyard 242 6

West Coast 60 7

West Tamar 418 2

Total 7624 193

Average 263 7 *These councils do not collect data on the average number of days to assess building applications. This is

because the councils accept building applications at the same time as they receive all other applications. The

councils ensure that the building applications are processed within the 42 day statutory timeframe associated

with planning applications.


2011-12


APPENDIX N - APPEALS

Council Number of

decisions

appealed*

to RMPAT

2010-11

Number of

decisions

appealed*

to RMPAT

2011-12

Number of

decisions found

in favour of

council 2010-11

Number of

decisions found

in favour of

council

2011-12

Break O’Day 2 4 1 0

Brighton 7 4 0 0

Burnie City 1 1 0 0

Central Coast 8 5 2 2






Dorset 4 0 3 0

Flinders 0 0 0 0

George Town 3 7 0 0


Glenorchy City 9 8 0 1


Huon Valley 7 6 2 2

Kentish 0 1 0 1

King Island 1 0 0 0


Latrobe 4 2 0 0




Sorell 4 4 0 1


Tasman 1 0 0 0


West Coast 0 2 0 0

West Tamar 1 3 0 3

Total 146 124 18 17

Average 5 4.3 0.6 0.6

*only valid and completed appeals that are within the jurisdiction of RMPAT were counted.

Local Government Division

Department of Premier and Cabinet

GPO Box 123, Hobart 7001

Phone: (03) 6232 7022

Email: [email protected]

Visit: www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/lgd

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/lgd

local government sustainability objectives and indicators ... · pdf filelocal government...

Documents