KZN MUNICIPAL PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS Clive Coetzee General Manager

INTRODUCTION This analysis form the basis of a comprehensive and elaborate system of monitoring

INTRODUCTION Histogram = graphical representation showing a visual impression of the distribution of data

INTRODUCTION Graph = Displays 4 performance measures Individual Municipalities Improve/ Deteriorated in Average Municipal

INTRODUCTION Graph = Displays 4 performance measures Difference in Average Municipal Standard Better/Worse than

PROPERTY RATES AS A % OF TOTAL REVENUE (BIGGER IS BETTER) Average: 2003 -2004

PROPERTY RATES AS A % OF TOTAL REVENUE (BIGGER IS BETTER) 45 40 Number

SERVICE CHARGES AS A % OF TOTAL REVENUE (BIGGER IS BETTER) Average: 2003 -2004

SERVICE CHARGES AS A % OF TOTAL REVENUE (BIGGER IS BETTER) Number that Improved/Better/Pass

GOVERNMENT GRANTS AS A % OF TOTAL REVENUE) (SMALLER IS BETTER) Average: 2003 -2004

GOVERNMENT GRANTS AS A % OF TOTAL REVENUE) (SMALLER IS BETTER) 45 Number that

EXTERNAL LOANS AS A % OF TOTAL REVENUE(BIGGER IS BETTER Average: 2003 -2004 0

EXTERNAL LOANS AS A % OF TOTAL REVENUE(BIGGER IS BETTER 60 50 Number that

EMPLOYEE COSTS AS A % OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE (SMALLER IS BETTER) Average: 2003 -2004

EMPLOYEE COSTS AS A % OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE (SMALLER IS BETTER) 60 Number that

REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE COSTS AS A % OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE (SMALLER IS BETTER) Average:

REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE COSTS AS A % OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE (SMALLER IS BETTER) 40

MATERIALS & BULK PURCHASES COSTS AS A % OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE (SMALLER IS BETTER)

ELECTRICITY COSTS AS A % OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE (SMALLER IS BETTER) Average: 2003 -2004

ELECTRICITY COSTS AS A % OF EXPENDITURE (SMALLER IS BETTER) 60 TOTAL Number that

ROADS & STORM WATER COSTS AS A % OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE (SMALLER IS BETTER)

SUMMARY Number of Municipalities Performance Summary that Pass that Fail Employee costs as a

Slides: 26

Download presentation

KZN MUNICIPAL PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS Clive Coetzee General Manager: Infrastructure Management and Economic Services KZN Provincial Treasury

INTRODUCTION This analysis form the basis of a comprehensive and elaborate system of monitoring performance of municipalities. The system is designed to continuously monitor the financial performance of municipalities. Central to the system is the development of key performance indicators as instruments to assess performance.

INTRODUCTION Histogram = graphical representation showing a visual impression of the distribution of data Table – 2003/4 Histogram compared to 2009/10 Histogram Values in Red indicate the highest Percentage score Average: 2003 -2004 (7. 5%) 0 0. 075311525 0. 150623049 0. 225934574 0. 301246099 0. 376557623 0. 451869148 More Discrete intervals (bin) = Percentage Frequency Cumulative % 23 8 12 8 8 1 0 1 37. 70% 50. 82% 70. 49% 83. 61% 96. 72% 98. 36% 100. 00% Cumulative number of observations in all of the bins up to the specified bin Number of Observations per interval (bin) = 61

INTRODUCTION Graph = Displays 4 performance measures Individual Municipalities Improve/ Deteriorated in Average Municipal Standard = If 2003/4 Score <> 2009/10 Score then Improved/Deteriorated Average Municipal Standard Better/Worse than Average Total Standard = If Average Municipal Standard Score <> Average Total Standard Score then Better/Worse All the Municipalities, n=61

INTRODUCTION Graph = Displays 4 performance measures Difference in Average Municipal Standard Better/Worse than Difference in Total Standard = If Difference in Average Municipal Standard Score <> Difference in Average Total Standard Score then Better/Worse % Total Performance in Average Municipal Standard = Average Score of the above three (3) performance measures for each municipality

REVENUE

PROPERTY RATES AS A % OF TOTAL REVENUE (BIGGER IS BETTER) Average: 2003 -2004 0 0. 075311525 0. 150623049 0. 225934574 0. 301246099 0. 376557623 0. 451869148 More Frequency Cumulative % 23 8 12 8 8 1 0 1 37. 70% 50. 82% 70. 49% 83. 61% 96. 72% 98. 36% 100. 00% Percent of Total Revenue derived from Property Rates – 2003/4 compared to 2009/10 Frequency = Number Average: 2009 -2010 0 0. 075311525 0. 150623049 0. 225934574 0. 301246099 0. 376557623 0. 451869148 More Frequency Cumulative % 11 24 11 9 3 3 0 0 18. 03% 57. 38% 75. 41% 90. 16% 95. 08% 100. 00% of Municipalities (N=61)

PROPERTY RATES AS A % OF TOTAL REVENUE (BIGGER IS BETTER) 45 40 Number that Improved/Better/Pass Number that Deteoriated/Worse/Failed 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Improve/ Deteoriated in Average Municipal Standard Difference in Average % Total Performance in Average Municipal Standard Better/Worse than Average Municpal Standard Average Municipal Standard Total Better/Worse that Difference in Total

SERVICE CHARGES AS A % OF TOTAL REVENUE (BIGGER IS BETTER) Average: 2003 -2004 Frequency Cumulative % 0 0. 101913401 0. 203826802 0. 305740203 0. 407653604 0. 509567005 0. 611480405 12 16 10 5 5 7 4 2 More 19. 67% 45. 90% 62. 30% 70. 49% 78. 69% 90. 16% 96. 72% 100. 00% Percent of Total Revenue derived from Service Charges– 2003/4 compared to 2009/10 Frequency = Number Average: 2009 -2010 Frequency Cumulative % 0 0. 101913401 0. 203826802 0. 305740203 0. 407653604 0. 509567005 0. 611480405 More 11 24 10 6 4 6 0 0 18. 03% 57. 38% 73. 77% 83. 61% 90. 16% 100. 00% of Municipalities (N=61)

SERVICE CHARGES AS A % OF TOTAL REVENUE (BIGGER IS BETTER) Number that Improved/Better/Pass 50 45 Number that Deteoriated/Worse/Failed 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Improve/ Deteoriated in Average Municipal Standard Difference in Average % Total Performance in Average Municipal Standard Better/Worse than Average Municpal Standard Average Municipal Standard Total Better/Worse that Difference in Total

GOVERNMENT GRANTS AS A % OF TOTAL REVENUE) (SMALLER IS BETTER) Average: 2003 -2004 0. 039454021 0. 170586369 0. 301718717 0. 432851065 0. 563983413 0. 695115761 0. 826248109 More Frequency Cumulative % 1 1. 64% 15 26. 23% 9 40. 98% 12 60. 66% 2 63. 93% 6 73. 77% 11 91. 80% 5 100. 00% Average: 2009 -2010 0. 039454021 0. 170586369 0. 301718717 0. 432851065 0. 563983413 0. 695115761 0. 826248109 More Frequency Cumulative % 0 0. 00% 4 6. 56% 11 24. 59% 6 34. 43% 11 52. 46% 16 78. 69% 11 96. 72% 2 100. 00% Percent of Total Revenue derived from Government Grants– 2003/4 compared to 2009/10 Frequency = Number of Municipalities (N=61)

GOVERNMENT GRANTS AS A % OF TOTAL REVENUE) (SMALLER IS BETTER) 45 Number that Improved/Better/Pass 40 Number that Deteoriated/Worse/Failed 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Improve/ Deteoriated in Average Municipal Standard Better/Worse than Average Total Difference in Average Municpal Standard Better/Worse that Difference in Total % Total Performance in Average Municipal Standard

EXTERNAL LOANS AS A % OF TOTAL REVENUE(BIGGER IS BETTER Average: 2003 -2004 0 0. 009653728 0. 019307456 0. 028961184 0. 038614912 0. 04826864 0. 057922368 More Frequency Cumulative % 54 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 88. 52% 90. 16% 91. 80% 95. 08% 96. 72% 98. 36% 100. 00% Percent of Total Revenue derived from Loans– 2003/4 compared to 2009/10 Frequency = Number of Municipalities Average: 2009 -2010 0 0. 009653728 0. 019307456 0. 028961184 0. 038614912 0. 04826864 0. 057922368 More Frequency Cumulative % 55 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 90. 16% 91. 80% 93. 44% 96. 72% 100. 00% (N=61)

EXTERNAL LOANS AS A % OF TOTAL REVENUE(BIGGER IS BETTER 60 50 Number that Improved/Better/Pass Number that Deteoriated/Worse/Failed 40 30 20 10 0 Improve/ Deteoriated in Average Municipal Standard Difference in Average % Total Performance in Average Municipal Standard Better/Worse than Average Municpal Standard Average Municipal Standard Total Better/Worse that Difference in Total

EXPENDITURE

EMPLOYEE COSTS AS A % OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE (SMALLER IS BETTER) Average: 2003 -2004 0. 04294111 0. 134834518 0. 226727926 0. 318621334 0. 410514741 0. 502408149 0. 594301557 More Average: 2009 -2010 0. 04294111 0. 134834518 0. 226727926 0. 318621334 0. 410514741 0. 502408149 0. 594301557 More Frequency 1 5 12 23 10 6 2 2 Frequency 0 9 32 16 4 0 0 0 Cumulative % 1. 64% 9. 84% 29. 51% 67. 21% 83. 61% 93. 44% 96. 72% 100. 00% Cumulative % 0. 00% 14. 75% 67. 21% 93. 44% 100. 00% Percent of Total Expenditure on Employee Costs– 2003/4 compared to 2009/10 Frequency = Number of Municipalities (N=61)

EMPLOYEE COSTS AS A % OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE (SMALLER IS BETTER) 60 Number that Improved/Better/Pass 50 Number that Deteoriated/Worse/Failed 40 30 20 10 0 Improve/ Deteoriated in Average Municipal Standrad Difference in Average % Total Performance in Average Municipal Standard Better/Worse than Average Municpal Standard Average Municipal Standard Total Better/Worse that Difference in Total

REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE COSTS AS A % OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE (SMALLER IS BETTER) Average: 2003 -2004 0 0. 030475036 0. 060950073 0. 091425109 0. 121900146 0. 152375182 0. 182850219 More Average: 2009 -2010 0 0. 030475036 0. 060950073 0. 091425109 0. 121900146 0. 152375182 0. 182850219 More Cumulative % 2 3. 28% 29 50. 82% 16 77. 05% 9 91. 80% 3 96. 72% 1 98. 36% 0 98. 36% 1 100. 00% Frequency Cumulative % 0 0. 00% 37 60. 66% 19 91. 80% 3 96. 72% 1 98. 36% 1 100. 00% 0 100. 00% Percent of Total Expenditure on Repairs & Maintenance Costs– 2003/4 compared to 2009/10 Frequency = Number of Municipalities (N=61)

REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE COSTS AS A % OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE (SMALLER IS BETTER) 40 35 Number that Improved/Better/Pass Number that Deteoriated/Worse/Failed 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Improve/ Deteoriated in Average Municipal Standard Difference in Average % Total Performance in Average Municipal Standard Better/Worse than Average Municpal Standard Average Municipal Standard Total Better/Worse that Difference in Total

MATERIALS & BULK PURCHASES COSTS AS A % OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE (SMALLER IS BETTER) Average: 2003 -2004 0 0. 075041142 0. 150082284 0. 225123427 0. 300164569 0. 375205711 0. 450246853 More Average: 2009 -2010 0 0. 075041142 0. 150082284 0. 225123427 0. 300164569 0. 375205711 0. 450246853 More Cumulative % 34 55. 74% 6 65. 57% 5 73. 77% 4 80. 33% 7 91. 80% 3 96. 72% 1 98. 36% 1 100. 00% Frequency Cumulative % 31 50. 82% 6 60. 66% 11 78. 69% 8 91. 80% 3 96. 72% 2 100. 00% 0 100. 00% Percent of Total Expenditure on Materials & Bulk Purchases Costs– 2003/4 compared to 2009/10 Frequency = Number of Municipalities (N=61)

MATERIALS & BULK PURCHASES COSTS AS A % OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE (SMALLER IS BETTER) 50 45 Number that Improved/Better/Pass Number that Deteoriated/Worse/Failed 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Improve/ Deteoriated in Average Municipal Standard Difference in Average % Total Performance in Average Municipal Standard Better/Worse than Average Municpal Standard Average Municipal Standard Total Better/Worse that Difference in Total

ELECTRICITY COSTS AS A % OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE (SMALLER IS BETTER) Average: 2003 -2004 0 0. 005217018 0. 010434036 0. 015651054 0. 020868072 0. 02608509 0. 031302108 More Average: 2009 -2010 0 0. 005217018 0. 010434036 0. 015651054 0. 020868072 0. 02608509 0. 031302108 More Frequency 46 2 5 1 2 2 1 2 Frequency 45 3 2 5 1 2 Cumulative % 75. 41% 78. 69% 86. 89% 88. 52% 91. 80% 95. 08% 96. 72% 100. 00% Cumulative % 73. 77% 78. 69% 81. 97% 90. 16% 91. 80% 95. 08% 96. 72% 100. 00% Percent of Total Expenditure on Electricity Costs– 2003/4 compared to 2009/10 Frequency = Number of Municipalities (N=61)

ELECTRICITY COSTS AS A % OF EXPENDITURE (SMALLER IS BETTER) 60 TOTAL Number that Improved/Better/Pass Number that Deteoriated/Worse/Failed 50 40 30 20 10 0 Improve/ Deteoriated in Average Municipal Standard Better/Worse than Averate Total Difference in Average Municpal Standard Better/Worse that Difference in Total % Total Performance in Average Municipal Standard

ROADS & STORM WATER COSTS AS A % OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE (SMALLER IS BETTER) Average: 2003 -2004 0 0. 033751217 0. 067502435 0. 101253652 0. 135004869 0. 168756086 0. 202507304 More Average: 2009 -2010 0 0. 033751217 0. 067502435 0. 101253652 0. 135004869 0. 168756086 0. 202507304 More Cumulative % 44 72. 13% 9 86. 89% 3 91. 80% 3 96. 72% 0 96. 72% 1 98. 36% 0 98. 36% 1 100. 00% Frequency Cumulative % 21 34. 43% 7 45. 90% 6 55. 74% 9 70. 49% 3 75. 41% 6 85. 25% 6 95. 08% 3 100. 00% Frequency Percent of Total Expenditure on Roads & Storm Water Costs– 2003/4 compared to 2009/10 Frequency = Number of Municipalities (N=61)

ROADS & STORM WATER COSTS AS A % OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE (SMALLER IS BETTER) 60 Number that Improved/Better/Pass Number that Deteoriated/Worse/Failed 50 40 30 20 10 0 Improve/ Deteoriated in Average Municipal Standard Difference in Average % Total Performance in Better/Worse than Averate Municpal Standard Average Municipal Standard Total Better/Worse that Difference in Total

SUMMARY Number of Municipalities Performance Summary that Pass that Fail Employee costs as a % of total expenditure (Smaller is Better) 38 23 Remuneration costs as a % of total expenditure (Smaller is Better) 36 25 Repairs & Maintence costs as a % of total expenditure (Smaller is Better) 33 28 Depreciation & Amontisation costs as a % of total expenditure (Smaller is Better) 28 33 Finance charges as a % of total expenditure (Smaller is Better) 28 33 Materials & Bulk purchases costs as a % of total expenditure (Smaller is Better) 18 43 Grants & subsides costs as a % of total expenditure (Smaller is Better) 44 17 Other expenditure costs as a % of total expenditure (Smaller is Better) 26 35 Water & Sanitation costs as a % of total expenditure (Smaller is Better) 17 44 Electricity costs as a % of total expenditure (Smaller is Better) 49 12 Housing costs as a % of total expenditure (Smaller is Better) 6 55 Roads& Storm Water costs as a % of total expenditure (Smaller is Better) 35 26 Other costs as a % of total expenditure (Smaller is Better) 30 31 Property rates as a % of total revenue (Bigger is Better) 26 35 Service charges as a % of total revenue (Bigger is Better) 18 43 Investment revenue as a % of total revenue (Bigger is Better) 30 31 Government grants as a % of total revenue (Bigger is Better) 36 25 Public contritibutions & donations as a % of total revenue (Bigger is Better) 3 58 Other own revenue as a % of total revenue (Bigger is Better) 32 29 External loans as a % of total revenue (Bigger is Better) 5 56 Public contributions & donations as a % of total revenue (Bigger is Better) 4 57 Grants & subsides as a % of total revenue (Bigger is Better) 38 23 Other revenue as a % of total revenue (Bigger is Better) 13 48 Average 25. 78 35. 22