FY2012 LGU F ISCAL S USTAINABILITY S CORECARD Financial - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
FY2009 Anong FY2010 Iskor ng FY2011 yong Bayan? FY2012 LGU F ISCAL S USTAINABILITY S CORECARD Financial Management Performance Review for Local Government Units Declining, <1% locally sourced income to GDP
LGU FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY SCORECARD
Financial Management Performance Review for Local Government Units
0.91% 0.86% 0.89% 0.80%
2009 2010 2011 2012
Declining, <1% locally sourced income to GDP
revenue operations
“Monitor and support the implementation
measures on local revenue administration”
indicators necessary for exercise of mandate Agency has to have a systematic, not sporadic, process for regular assessment of fiscal performance of LGUs
analytics and metrics Closer, thorough monitoring of revenue performance of LGUs Evidence- and policy-based performance assessment of local treasurers and assessors General housekeeping of reports Visit in BIR revenue regions / BOC ports /LGUs
DOF Department Order No. 08-2011: Statement of Receipts and Expenditures Treasurer: eSRE System in the LGUs Assessor: Quarterly Reports on Real Property Assessments LGU Fiscal Performance Monitoring System BLGF’s Local Revenue Targets SMV Profile and Ordinances of LGUs
Local Government Unit
FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY
Directive of the Secretary Baselining the LGU performance from FY2009 to FY2012 Validating the LGU data and testing the integrity of BLGF reports Compliance monitoring on DOF directives and other relevant regulations Publication of LGU performance Policy setting purposes
Financial (Quantitative) - 90%
KRA 1 - Revenue Generation Capacity KRA 2 - Local Collection Growth KRA 3 - Expenditure Management
KRA 4 - 6 - Reportorial Compliance
KRA 1. Revenue Generation Capacity Indicator Benchmark Initial Rating
1.1 Regular income level Mean by Income Class; Graduated
Very Good, Good, Fair, Needing Improvement, Poor
1.2 Local revenue level 1.3 Local revenue growth Actual Growth
+YoY% or -YoY%
1.4 Dependence on locally sourced income Mean by LGU Type; Graduated
% Share to Annual Regular Income
1.5 Dependence on IRA 1.6 Dependence on Other Shares from National Tax Collection Maximum Score 60
Annual Regular Income. Sum of locally sourced income (excluding SEF), current year’s IRA and other shares from national tax collection. Other income/receipts were not considered due to reporting errors. Locally sourced income. Total of real property tax (basic), tax on business, other taxes, regulatory fees, user charges, and business income from economic enterprise Tax Revenues. Total revenues collected from real property tax (basic), business tax, other taxes Non-Tax Revenues. Total of regulatory fees, user charges, and income from economic enterprise. Other income/receipts were not considered due to reporting errors
Dependence on Locally Sourced Income. % share of local revenues (excluding Other Receipts) to total regular income Dependence on IRA. % share of current IRA (excluding monetised IRA) to total regular income Dependence on Other Shares from National Tax Collection. % share of other shares from national tax collection (economic zone, EVAT, national wealth, tobacco excise tax, PAGCOR/PCSO) to total regular income Per Capita. Based on 2010 Census, with 1.82% projected annual growth for FY2011 and FY2012.
Use of IRA for local development projects. At least 20% of IRA should be utilized for local development projects (LGC Sec. 287) Limitation on Expenditure for Personal Services. Not to exceed 45%
3rd income class LGUs or 55% for 4th or lower income class LGUs (LGC
Limitation on Debt Service Ratio. Expenditures for debt servicing not to exceed 20% of the regular income for the fiscal year (LGC Sec. 324a) RPT Collection Efficiency. Ratio of current year collections of basic RPT (including fines and penalties for current year only) with preceding year’s collectible basic RPT, as reflected in the QRRPA.
KRA 1. Revenue Generation Capacity Indicator Parameter Rating Points
1.1 Regular income level Mean + 50% Very Good
5
Mean + 25% Good
4
Mean Fair
3
Mean - 25% Needs Improvement
2
Mean - 50%
Poor 1
Maximum Score 5
Indicator Parameter Rating Points
1.2 Local Revenue Level Mean + 50% Very Good
10
Mean + 25% Good
8
Mean Fair
6
Mean - 25% Needs Improvement
4
Mean - 50%
Poor 2
Maximum Score 10
Main Driver of Performance Assessment Goal is to ensure stable or progressive collection growth
KRA 1. Revenue Generation Capacity Indicator Parameter Rating Weight
1.3 Local Revenue Growth Actual Growth
Total Local Collections
>20%
20
>10%
15
>5%
10
>0%
5 <0%
Maximum Score 20
KRA 1. Revenue Generation Capacity Indicator Parameter Rating Weight
1.4 Dependence
Souced Income P >=20% & C>=50% Very Good
10
P >=15% but <20% C>=40% but <50% Good
8
P >=10% but <15% C>=30% but <40% Fair
6
P >=5% but <10% C>=20% but <30% Needs Improvement
4
P>0% but <5% C>0% but <20%
Poor 2
Maximum Score 10
Average Dependence on LSI Provinces: 10% - 15% Cities: 30% - 40%
KRA 1. Revenue Generation Capacity Indicator Parameter Rating Weight
1.5 Dependence
P<75% C<50% Very Low
10
P >=75% but <80% C>=50% but <60% Low
8
P >=80% but <85% C>=60% but <70% Fair
6
P >=85% but <90% C>=70% but <80% High
4
P>90% C>80%
Very High 2
Maximum Score 10
Average Dependence on IRA Provinces: 80% - 85% Cities: 60% - 70%
KRA 1. Revenue Generation Capacity Indicator Parameter Rating Weight
1.6 Dependence
from National Tax Collection <10% Low
5
>=10% but <15% Fair
4
>=15% but <30% High
3
>30%
Very High 2
Maximum Score 5
Main Driver of Performance Assessment Goal is to ensure stable or progressive collection growth
KRA 2. Local Collection Growth Indicator Benchmark Rating Points
2.1 Tax Revenues Actual Growth
Total Local Collections
>20%
5
>10%
4
>5%
3
>0%
2 <0%
Maximum Score 5
2.2 Non-Tax Revenues Actual Growth
Total Local Collections
>20%
5
>10%
4
>5%
3
>0%
2 <0%
Maximum Score 5
Focusing on Actual Utilization, not Budget Appropriation Statutory Obligations and Limitations
KRA 3. Expenditure Management Indicator Parameter Rating Weight
3.1 Expenditure Per Capita Mean + 50% Very High
5
Mean + 25% High
4
Mean Fair
3
Mean - 25% Low
2
Mean - 50%
Very Low 1
3.2 Use of IRA for Local Devt. Project >=20%
Passed 5
<20%
Failed
3.3 Limitation on Expenditure for PS <= 45% (H); <= 55% (L)
Passed 5
>= 45% (H); >= 55% (L)
Failed
3.4 Limitation on Debt Service <=20%
Passed 5
>20%
Failed
7 out of 10 Treasurers Did Not Submit SRE on Time
KRA 4. eSRE Indicator Parameter Rating Weight
Submission of Timely and Accurate eSRE Timely and No Rejection Compliant
4
Timely with Rejection; No Rejection but not Timely Non-Compliant
2
No Report Submitted
No Report
Maximum Score 4
15 Cities & Provinces have new SMVs effective 2014
But 130+ More Are Already DUE…
KRA 5. SMV Updating Indicator Parameter Rating Weight
Regular Updating
Conduct of General Revision
Assessments SMV is Current & Effective Compliant
3
SMV is Outdated by at Least 3 Years Non-Compliant Maximum Score 3
Is the assessor correctly accomplishing the QRRPA? Are there properties with restrictions? Is the land area correct?
KRA 6. Quarterly Report on Real Property Assessments (QRRPA) Indicator Parameter Rating Weight
Submission of Timely and Accurate QRRPA Complete according to form Compliant
3
Incomplete according to form Non-Compliant
1.5
No Report Submitted No Report Maximum Score 3
KRA Max Score Quantitative 90
60
20
10 Qualitative 10
4
3
3
Weighted Score Grade Rating Remarks
>=80
A Excellent
All revenue and expenditure indicators are strong; full compliance with reportorial requirements
>=70 but <80
B Very Good
Most of the revenue and expenditure indicators are met very satisfactorily; high compliance with reportorial requirements
>=60 but <70
C Good
Most of the revenue and expenditure indicators are above average performance; minimum level of compliance with reportorial requirements
>=50 but <60
D Average
Revenue and expenditure indicators have not significantly changed and are generally on the average; minimum level
>=40 but <50
E Needs Improvement
Almost all of the key revenue and expenditure indicators need to be improved and validated; minimum reportorial requirements are not complied with
<40
F Poor
All revenue and expenditure indicators are way below the benchmarks; key reportorial requirements are incomplete/ not submitted and/or require further validation
Utilized the BLGF SRE of all provinces, cities, and municipalities, and the QRRPA of provinces and cities from FY2009-FY2012 Run date of SRE: 15 August 2013 Processed individual SRE fields per LGU (initially cities and provinces) through pivot tables Benchmarking and national comparison through DOF income classification as of 2008 One-on-one data- and process- validation with LGUs and BLGF regions
xxx
No rating on QRRPA due to limited data (only consolidated QRRPA from the
province is submitted to BLGF)
No rating on SMV (for provinces only, but this is noted in the scorecard) Instead of 3 indicators for Qualitative, only SRE is rated 10% for Compliant SRE: Timely and without Rejections 5% for Non-Compliant: Incomplete, With Rejections, Not Timely 0% for No Report: No approved/submitted report as of 15 Aug 2013 Automatic 5 points on assessment for PS Limitation in 2010
Launching of “Iskor Ng ‘Yong Bayan” website, to be linked with “Open Data Initiative” Release by 1st Quarter of FY2014; LCEs and DILG will be informed Credit rating for LGUs will be next Continuous monitoring and improvement of SRE’s integrity Linked with improved income classification Municipalities are next by April 2013 Regional BLGF staff to be trained on LGU FSS
2 1 3 P E R F O R M A N C E
restrictions
tax or revenue ordinance
LGU FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY SCORECARD
Financial Management Performance Review for Local Government Units