{kiwi} district council presentation {date} our council’s … ‘vital stats’ larry. n. mitchell...

{Kiwi} District Council Presentation {Date}

Our Council’s …

‘Vital Stats’

Kiwi District Council

Larry. N. MitchellLarry. N. MitchellFinance & Policy AnalystFinance & Policy Analyst (Local (Local Government)Government)

2



Contents … a roadmap of this presentation

The next slide gives an outline of how this presentation is put together. Use the next slide to ‘navigate’ around the full presentation whilst completing the customisation necessary for YOUR slide show.

3



Contents … a roadmap of this presentation

• Slide front page and navigation note• Powerpoint Presentation Notes• Read Me … Advice to users• Presentation ‘proper’ … Start slide show here …

• Executive Summary – Findings• The ‘10 Biggies’ & Objectives of the session• Timing and Process of the Session• Brief overview of the {Kiwi} District Council

‘Base Stats with Trendz’ reports and the rationale for Council comparisons

• ‘Biggie No 1’ - Organisational dynamics … to ‘Biggie No 10’ - Local Issues

4



Powerpoint Presentation Notes

• The analysis and customisation process is best conducted ‘by the presenter’,

• that way, she/he will become familiar with the ‘issues’ and will be able to respond to points which are likely to arise in discussions.

• If you require assistance in completing these steps or in delivering a customised presentation just contact…

Larry Mitchell at [email protected] or on0800 puhoi u (0800 784 648)

mailto:[email protected]





5



• The next few slides (headed ‘Powerpoint Presentation Notes‘, ‘Read Me … Advice to users’) are NOT part of the presentation.

• They provide ‘Help’ … in the form of specific ‘easy to follow’ instructions (such as customising the graphs) as well as …

• giving ‘useful tips’ to improve and focus the content, for example the specific instructions for customisation of graphs, findings and executive summaries for your Council’s presentation.


6




• Care taken to implement these tips will add value to the ‘Base Stats with Trendz’ reporting, using a presentation that identifies key findings drawn from the analysis of YOUR results taken from the ‘Base Stats’ reports … tailored and presented to YOUR selected audience(s).

• This presentation will add value to the ‘Base Stats with Trendz’ report package by using key findings from your analysis of the ‘reports’ customised for YOUR selected audience(s).

7




• The presentation follows the ’10 Biggies’ coverage …

• these are a selection of 10 key topics or subject areas that succinctly cover YOUR Council’s ‘vital stats’.

• The next slides describe how to obtain best value from the presentation and contain some simple instructions to customise YOUR presentation.

8



• Optimum ‘value’ can be obtained from this presentation by firstly deciding what the presentation is designed to achieve.

• If its objective is a generic one, a briefing and coverage of your Council’s ‘vital stats’ within the ’10 biggies’ framework will do, as supplied with this presentation.

• If the presentation is to have an emphasis, such as ‘Rating’ or ‘Finances’ then the presentation can be modified, based upon the ‘modular’ topic-driven format of the 2006 ‘Base Stats with Trendz’ reports.


9



Read Me … Advice to users• The ‘topic driven’ ’10 Biggies’ presentation of the

reports address the issues within a focused modular format covering the standard topic areas.

• This series of slides as supplied, has been compiled and provides a ‘framework’ for Council driven presentations based upon the findings drawn from your Council’s ‘Base Stats with Trendz’ reports.

• The following steps, outlined on the ‘Read Me’ slides can be used but these will require your involvement for the preparation that is needed to customise the presentation for YOUR presentation.

10



Important note:

• Use of the Microsoft (MS) ‘Find’ utility (edit/find) is required … to input or replace the parts of the presentation necessary for its customisation.

• To customise the presentation for your Council, complete the following steps covered on the next slide …

Read Me … Advice to users

11



• To customise the presentation for your Council, complete the following steps:

• All areas requiring customisation have been identified with red brackets { }, for example the name of a Council shown in red brackets as {Kiwi} is intended to be replaced with your Council’s name.

• Use your own Council’s logo to replace the ‘Kiwi’ one … cut & paste your logo to the bottom right hand side of the slide master, (front page) slide – to do this …


12



• From drop-down menu select – View/Master/Slide Master and paste your Council logo over ‘Kiwi District Council’ logo, bottom right of slide (this will add logo to all slides)

• Cut and paste your own graphs/tables within the ‘10 Biggies’ series of slides, replacing with yours, in the places already containing ‘sample’ graphs … and adding any others you consider to be appropriate.


13



• Conduct your own analysis of your ‘Base Stats’ results and enter these ‘Findings’ at two levels:• Within the body of the ’10 Biggies’

presentation complete topic findings then …• Summarise the ’10 Biggies’ topic finding and

copy these to within the ‘Executive Summary’ slides ‘Findings’ area

• For both of the above steps use Edit/Find at all points where {enter text here} appears.


14



• For generic presentations of your Council’s ‘vital stats’ the framework provided should be sufficient, supplemented with your own interpretations of the findings and summarised within the ’10 Biggies’ slides and the Executive Summaries.

• For more focused topic driven findings, further analysis and a ‘rejigging’ of this presentation is required.


15



•Add to the standard formats provided for

this presentation, (with Larry’s assistance if

necessary) your own more precise ‘topic’

analysis within a more specific reporting

and analysis of your slide series and

Executive Summary. ‘Let’s Go!’


16



‘Presentation Proper’

The next slide commences

the presentation


17



Executive Summary - Findings

• The executive summary of this presentationis produced in the same format as the presentation … that is, it follows the ‘10 Biggies’ topic list.

• The ’10 Biggies’ are listed on the next slide.

• Each ‘Finding’ contained in the ‘10 Biggies’ topic list of the executive summaries is reproduced from the supporting detail from each of the ’10’ topics within the presentation.

18



1.Organisational Dynamics2.Outcomes-Results3.Niceties to Amenities4.Ability to Pay5.Roading6.Financial position7.Debt levels8.Rating levels9.Local Issues (if any)10.Overall assessment

The 10 Biggies

19



Biggie No 1 - Organisational Dynamics

Findings:

{enter text here}

Biggie No 2 - Outcomes-Results Factors

Findings:

{enter text here}


20



Biggie No 3 - Niceties to Amenities

Findings:

{enter text here}

Biggie No 4 - Ability to Pay

Findings:

{enter text here}


21



Biggie No 5 - Roading

Findings:

{enter text here}

Biggie No 6 - Financial Position

Findings:

{enter text here}


22



Biggie No 7 - Debt Levels

Findings:

{enter text here}

Biggie No 8 - Rating levels

Findings:

{enter text here}


23



Biggie No 9 - Local Issues (if any)

Findings:

{enter text here}

Biggie No 10 - Overall assessment

Findings:

{enter text here}


24



Objectives of the session

The objectives of this presentation are …• To conduct a ‘review and presentation … of the

Council’s ‘vital stats’ its ‘dynamics’ that is:• its financial and non financial characteristics,• the demographic and geographic

characteristics that make up the {Kiwi} District … and

• the things that make the ‘{Kiwi}DC’ tick … its ‘vital stats’

• 10 of these key ‘topics’ are chosen … referredto as the ’10 Biggies’

25



Timing and process of the session

• The ‘presentation’… is usually run as a series of interactive topic-driven sessions, each of about 15 minutes duration.

• Each topic will refer to one of the ’10 Biggies’ and will first be presented and then discussed by all.

• An attempt, where possible should be made to reach some at least tentative conclusions for each topic. These are summarised in the ‘Executive Summaries’ … preceding slides.

26



The 10 ‘Biggies’

The ‘10 Biggies’ analysis suits:• New Council-Councillor briefings,• Outcomes planning, • funding reviews,• long term financial planning etc and• provides a snapshot of a Council’s

circumstances – both financial and non-financial and of its ‘dynamics’.

The following slide lists the ’10 Biggies’ topic headings that address these matters.

27



1. Organisational dynamics 2. Outcomes-Results3. Niceties to Amenities4. Ability to Pay5. Roading6. Financial position7. Debt levels8. Rating levels9. Local Issues (if any)10.Overall assessment

The following is a list of the ‘Biggies’ topic headings that address these matters:

The 10 ‘Biggies’

28



Brief overview of the {Kiwi} DC ‘Base Stats with Trendz’ reports and the

rationale for Council comparisons

The ‘Base Stats’ reports … cover the 200 or so key financial, economic, outcome, physical and eco - socio stats of every New Zealand Council… with ‘Trendz’ reports … shows five years … or more of history of this data … now in its tenth! year.Sources of the data StatsNZ, LTANZ, all Council’s Annual Reports, DIA and StatsNZ web sites etc …

29



Over 30 Council’s currently subscribe to the reports, many, just like the {Kiwi}DC for whom the reports were designed use these reports because these Councils do not have the ‘luxury’ of expensive analyst/policy people on their staffs. The rationale for comparisons … ‘there are no alternatives’ … see next slides



30



• The reports do not! benchmark, they ‘locate’ and ‘inform’ the issue with relevant comparative data

• Use of comparable peer groups … ‘standard’ and ‘customised’

• Based on size, population and character, for example rural or provincial/rural



31



• The rationale for comparisons … ‘there are no alternatives’ …

• ‘If you know your Council’s result how does that help? …very little by itself.

• But if you can compare it with ‘others’ then you can locate your data within a context and then begin to understand its significance …’



32



• The {Kiwi} customised ‘Base Stats’ group…’ {Kiwi}Grp’ selected by self and {Kiwi}DC management ‘for fit’

• Comprises {number} ‘similar’ Councils • Includes {if applicable a near neighbour?}

for reasons of ‘statistical spread’ and for comparisons…

• A subset of the {standard for eg provincial/rural} standard group.



33



Composition of ‘{Kiwi}Grp’Council Name(11 in all)

Indicative Population

*Kiwi 30,600*Ashburton 26,700Kapiti 46,200Manawatu 28,200*Masterton 23,300*Matamata-Piako 30,300Selwyn 30,800Waikato 42,400Waipa 41,500*Wanganui 46,300*Whakatane 34,000*Denotes 'Base Stats' Subscriber

{Note:Replace with your own customised group – see file ‘Groups’ Section}

34



‘Biggie No 1’Organisational dynamics

35



Organisational Dynamics

A Council’s organisational dynamics includes its geography, demographics, densities and other key determinants of its unique character.This first ‘biggie’ considers the Council dynamics under the following headings …

• Cohort size ranking graph• Densities• Relative Council revenues and

expenditures and• Representation

36



Cohort size ranking graph

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Your Council Ranking out of 11 Councils

Ran

kin

g

37



Organisational Dynamics – Densities

Findings:

{enter text here}

Persons resident per Sq Km

HoroGrp High 56 58 61 62 63HoroGrp Low 4 4 4 4 4

Ranking 2/11 2/11 2/11 2/11 2/11

Population Density

29 28 29 29 29

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Population Density HoroGrp Average Sector Average

Dwelling numbers per Sq Km


Ranking 2/11 2/11 2/11 2/11 2/11

Dwelling Density

13

14

14

14

14

14

15

15

15

15

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

10 11 11 11 110

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Dwelling Density HoroGrp Average Sector Average

14 14 14 15 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Ratepayer Density (Area) HoroGrp Average Sector Average

10 11 11 11 11

0

10

20

30

40

50

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004


38



Organisation Dynamics - Relative Council revenues and

expenditures

Total Council Operating Revenues per Ratepayer

HoroGrp High 3,706 2,467 4,417 3,323 3,980HoroGrp Low 1,122 1,167 1,206 1,299 1,452

Ranking 11/11 11/11 11/11 11/11 11/11

Council Revenue per Ratepayer

13

14

14

14

14

14

15

15

15

15

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

10% 10% 10% 10% 9.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Multi-unit Dwellings HoroGrp Average Sector Average

13

14

14

14

14

14

15

15

15

15

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

10 11 11 11 110

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004


14 14 14 15 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004


1,122 1,167 1,206 1,2991,452

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Council Revenue per Ratepayer HoroGrp Average Sector Average

Total Council Expenditure per Ratepayer

HoroGrp High 2,572 2,070 2,111 2,070 2,396HoroGrp Low 1,039 999 1,051 1,173 1,292

Ranking 11/11 11/11 11/11 11/11 11/11

Council Expenditure per Ratepayer

1,039 999 1,0511,173

1,292

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Council Expenditure per Ratepayer HoroGrp Average Sector Average

Findings:

{enter text here}

39



Organisation Dynamics – Representation

Number of Ratepayers for each Council Member

HoroGrp High 1,449 1,543 1,457 1,517 1,654HoroGrp Low 866 900 914 1,026 954

Ranking 2/11 2/11 2/11 3/11 3/11

Ratepayers for each Council Member

1,330 1,353 1,371 1,420 1,440

0200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,6001,800

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Ratepayers for each Council Member HoroGrp Average Sector Average

Findings:

{enter text here}

40



Biggie No 2‘Outcomes-Results’

41



Income Composite

Index –

A summary of

all of your

‘Income’ related

‘Outcomes-Results’


42



Economic Composite

Index –

A summary of

all of your

‘Economic’ related



43



Wealth Composite

Index –

A summary of

all of your

‘Wealth’ related



44



Composite (of composites) Index Summary –This aggregation of the three composites ‘tells it all!’ with one index covering the three separate, Income, Economic and Wealth factors of your Council.

Findings:

{enter text here}


45



Biggie No 3Niceties to Amenities

46



Niceties to Amenities

HoroGrp High 302% 183% 125% 127% 109%HoroGrp Low 60% 61% 62% 55% 55%

Ranking 4/11 4/11 4/11 5/11 5/11

Niceties as a percentage of Amenities

76%86% 88%

78% 80%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Niceties as a percentage of Amenities HoroGrp Average Sector Average

Findings:

{enter text here}

47



Biggie No 4Ability to Pay

48



Ability to Pay – Income Factors

Factor


Ability to Pay

Income FactorsFixed Income Earners / Ratepayers 2 Very LowFixed Income Earners / Population 1 Very LowHousehold Expenditure 11 Very LowVariance in Household Expenditure 11 Very LowHousehold Income 11 Very LowVariance in Household Income 11 Very LowComposite index of Income Factors Very Low

Findings:

{enter text here}

49



Ability to Pay – Economic Factors

Factor


Ability to Pay

Economic FactorsRegional Economic Growth 2 Very HighBuilding Consents Average Movement 11 Very LowBuilding Consents Current Change 10 Very LowWorkforce Unemployed 5 NeutralRatepayer Land Investment 10 Very LowRatepayer Capital Investment 11 Very LowRatepayer Land & Capital Investment 11 Very LowDebt Capacity 9 HighValuation Measure - No of Properties 4 HighValuation Measure - $ Value of Properties 8 LowComposite index of Economic Factors Low

Findings:

{enter text here}

50



Biggie No 5Roading

51



Roading

Some roading ‘stats’ of interest including …

Densities

• Expenditures (‘Trendz’ … significant activities)

• Subsidy issue

• Growth and future needs … shortfall at present?

52



Roading

• {Kiwi}DC roading …

• {Transfund (LTANZ) subsidy for the

{Kiwi}DC is ‘low’… ninth of 11 when

compared to peers … due no doubt to

…}

• {much! lower than peer comparative

roading expenditures … and below

subsidy rate? … 46% }

53



Roading Total district local roading kms per Ratepayer


Ranking 2/11 2/11 2/11 2/11 2/11

Roading Density

13

14

14

14

14

14

15

15

15

15

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

27 27 27 28 28

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

k.m

.

Roading Density HoroGrp Average Sector Average

13

14

14

14

14

14

15

15

15

15

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

10% 10% 10% 10% 9.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004


13

14

14

14

14

14

15

15

15

15

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

10 11 11 11 110

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004


14 14 14 15 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004


27 27 27 28 28

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

k.m

.


Local roads density (i.e. Kms of road per Sq Km) within the area of the District

HoroGrp High 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7HoroGrp Low 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Ranking 4/11 4/11 4/11 4/11 4/11

Local Road Density

0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Local Road Density HoroGrp Average Sector Average

54



RoadingThe percentage of local road that are unsealed


Ranking 8/11 8/11 8/11 8/11 8/11

Unsealed Local Roads

11% 11% 11% 11% 11%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Unsealed Local Roads HoroGrp Average Sector Average

The percentage of total local roads that are rural local roads.


Ranking 10/11 10/11 9/11 9/11 9/11

Rural Local Roads

72% 73% 73% 73% 73%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Rural Local Roads HoroGrp Average Sector Average

55



Roading

The average Km's of road between bridges


Ranking 5/11 5/11 5/11 5/11 4/11

Km's of Local Road per Bridge

9.8 9.8 9.8 9.9 10.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Km's of Local Road per Bridge HoroGrp Average Sector Average

Distance resealed as a % of total local Roads


Ranking 3/11 5/11 5/11 5/11 4/11

Resealed Roads

8%

5% 5%

6% 6%

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Resealed Roads HoroGrp Average Sector Average

56



Roading

Transfund roading subsidy per Km of local roads

HoroGrp High $4,424 $4,106 $6,801 $5,494 $15,150HoroGrp Low $865 $1,022 $1,212 $1,225 $1,241

Ranking 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11

Transfund Road Funding

1,858 1,929 2,1182,416

2,772

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

$(0

00

)

Transfund Road Funding HoroGrp Average Sector Average

Ranking 8/11 9/11 11/11 9/11 10/11

RoadsVariation on HoroGrp Average

-8.3% -8.7%

-3.3%

-6.7%

-10.0%

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Variation on HoroGrp Average

Findings:

{enter text here}

57



Biggie No 6Financial position

58



Financial position … general comments

• Can only be a ‘snapshot’…and of the

‘Council’ itself as at June 2004.

• Good ‘clean’ and understandable

disclosures

• Useful and interesting reports …the

CEO’s for example

• Excellent! performance reporting

59



Financial position … Council revenue and expenditures

• {$23 M revenue pa smallest … of ‘peer’ group

• Lowest revenue per ratepayer • Higher end … (3rd of 11) proportion of

rates collected within total revenue• Low ‘other’ revenue…no ‘pots of gold’• Operating costs/expenditures lowest of

peer group• High relative democracy costs (+ 3.3%)• Low relative roading costs (- 6.7%)}

60



Council Financial position… ‘balance sheet’

• {Ratepayers equity …the smallest of the ‘peer’ group at $257 M

• Reasonably strong ‘liquidity position’

• Low debt position at $3 M … ‘10th lowest’

• No big investment funds but some ‘accumulated cash and other surpluses’

• Internal borrowings … imminent conversion into external loans …}

61



Financial position

( Current Liabilities + Term Liabilities / Population numbers )

HoroGrp High 1,204 1,230 1,422 1,017 1,223HoroGrp Low 240 152 180 157 162

Ranking 9/11 8/11 9/11 9/11 10/11

Debt per Capita

343 314 283 260 269

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

$

Debt per Capita HoroGrp Average Sector Average

( Current Liabilities + Term Liabilities / Ratepayer numbers )


Ranking 10/11 9/11 10/11 10/11 10/11

Debt per Ratepayer

713 630 574 510 520

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

$

Debt per Ratepayer HoroGrp Average Sector Average

62



Financial position( Debt Servicing costs / Rating Revenue )


Ranking 5/11 8/11 7/11 5/11 9/11

Debt Servicing Ratio

0.06

0.04 0.040.05

0.010.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Debt Servicing Ratio HoroGrp Average Sector Average

( Current Liabilities + Term Liabilities / Infrastructural Assets Net Book Value )


Ranking 5/11 6/11 4/11 6/11 7/11

Debt Asset Test

0.040.03

0.04 0.04 0.04

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Debt Asset Test HoroGrp Average Sector Average

63



Financial position( Current Liabilities + Term Liabilities / Total Land Value )


Ranking 6/11 6/11 8/11 8/11 7/11

"Adequacy of Rating Base" Test

0.00530.0046

0.00400.0029 0.0029

0.0000

0.0020

0.0040

0.0060

0.0080

0.0100

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

"Adequacy of Rating Base" Test HoroGrp Average Sector Average

64



Financial position( Current Liabilities + Term Liabilities / Number of Ratepayers )


Ranking 8/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 10/11

"Debt Capacity" Test

0.70.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

"Debt Capacity" Test HoroGrp Average Sector Average

65



Financial positionCurrent Debt as a percentage of Total Debt


Ranking 4/11 5/11 3/11 6/11 4/11

Current Debt / Total Debt

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

21%25%

41%

13%

18%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Current Debt / Total Debt HoroGrp Average Sector Average

66



Financial positionAverage Weighted Interest Rate

HoroGrp High 8.8% 8.4% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1%HoroGrp Low 6.9% 6.7% 6.6% 5.8% 2.4%

Ranking 2/11 2/11 1/11 1/11 1/11

Average Weighted Interest Rate

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

8.1% 8.2% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1%

0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%7.0%8.0%9.0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Average Weighted Interest Rate HoroGrp Average Sector Average

67



Financial position

Total Council Operating Revenues per Ratepayer

HoroGrp High 3,706 2,467 4,417 3,323 3,980HoroGrp Low 1,122 1,167 1,206 1,299 1,452

Ranking 11/11 11/11 11/11 11/11 11/11

Council Revenue per Ratepayer

13

14

14

14

14

14

15

15

15

15

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

10% 10% 10% 10% 9.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004


13

14

14

14

14

14

15

15

15

15

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

10 11 11 11 110

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004


14 14 14 15 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004


1,122 1,167 1,206 1,2991,452

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Council Revenue per Ratepayer HoroGrp Average Sector Average

Total Council Expenditure per Ratepayer

HoroGrp High 2,572 2,070 2,111 2,070 2,396HoroGrp Low 1,039 999 1,051 1,173 1,292

Ranking 11/11 11/11 11/11 11/11 11/11

Council Expenditure per Ratepayer

1,039 999 1,0511,173

1,292

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Council Expenditure per Ratepayer HoroGrp Average Sector Average

Findings:

{enter text here}

68



Biggie No 7 Debt levels

69



Debt Levels

( Current Liabilities + Term Liabilities / Population numbers )


Ranking 9/11 8/11 9/11 9/11 10/11

Debt per Capita

343 314 283 260 269

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

$

Debt per Capita HoroGrp Average Sector Average

( Current Liabilities + Term Liabilities / Ratepayer numbers )


Ranking 10/11 9/11 10/11 10/11 10/11

Debt per Ratepayer

713 630 574 510 520

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

$

Debt per Ratepayer HoroGrp Average Sector Average

70



Debt Levels

( Debt Servicing costs / Rating Revenue )


Ranking 5/11 8/11 7/11 5/11 9/11

Debt Servicing Ratio

0.06

0.04 0.040.05

0.010.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Debt Servicing Ratio HoroGrp Average Sector Average

( Current Liabilities + Term Liabilities / Infrastructural Assets Net Book Value )


Ranking 5/11 6/11 4/11 6/11 7/11

Debt Asset Test

0.040.03

0.04 0.04 0.04

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Debt Asset Test HoroGrp Average Sector Average

71



Debt Levels

( Current Liabilities + Term Liabilities / Number of Ratepayers )


Ranking 8/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 10/11

"Debt Capacity" Test

0.70.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

"Debt Capacity" Test HoroGrp Average Sector Average

Current Debt as a percentage of Total Debt


Ranking 4/11 5/11 3/11 6/11 4/11

Current Debt / Total Debt

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

21%25%

41%

13%18%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Current Debt / Total Debt HoroGrp Average Sector Average

Findings:

{enter text here}

72



Biggie No 8 Rating levels

73



Rating levels

1,4631,387

1,3331,3101,2941,2781,2741,2401,2041,200

1,044

1,275

1,380

1,2721,2801,2551,2721,1981,2331,2281,203

1,163

1,035

1,229

WanganuiNelson HastingsNapierTaurangaRotoruaPalmerstonNorth

HamiltonInvercargillWhangareiTimaruAVERAGE

2004/05 2003/04

(Source – Napier City 2005 Annual Report)

74



Rating Levels

Number of Ratepayers in the Population

HoroGrp High 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.4HoroGrp Low 2 2 2 1.8 1.8

Ranking 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 10/11

Ratepayer Density within the District Population

13

14

14

14

14

14

15

15

15

15

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Ratepayer Density within the District Population HoroGrp Average Sector Average

13

14

14

14

14

14

15

15

15

15

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

27 27 27 28 28

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

k.m

.


13

14

14

14

14

14

15

15

15

15

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

10% 10% 10% 10% 9.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004


13

14

14

14

14

14

15

15

15

15

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

10 11 11 11 110

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004


14 14 14 15 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004


2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Ratepayer Density within the District Population HoroGrp Average Sector Average

( Rating Revenue / Total Operating Revenue )


Ranking 2/11 3/11 3/11 2/11 3/11

Rating Revenue Ratio

0.67 0.68 0.69 0.680.62

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Rating Revenue Ratio HoroGrp Average Sector Average

75



Rating Levels

Rating Income as a percentage of Total Operating Income


Ranking 2/11 3/11 3/11 2/11 3/11

Rating Revenue against Operating Revenue

13

14

14

14

14

14

15

15

15

15

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

10% 10% 10% 10% 9.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004


13

14

14

14

14

14

15

15

15

15

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

10 11 11 11 110

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004


14 14 14 15 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004


67% 68% 69% 68%62%

0%10%

20%30%40%

50%60%

70%80%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Rating Revenue against Operating Revenue HoroGrp Average Sector Average

Proportion of ratepayers on fixed incomes


Ranking 2/11 2/11 3/11 3/11 2/11

Fixed Income Earners / Ratepayers

94.3% 90.0% 85.6%80.6% 83.7%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Fixed Income Earners / Ratepayers HoroGrp Average Sector Average

76



Average Annual Household Income

HoroGrp High $46,448 $53,882 $56,037 $59,791 $64,173HoroGrp Low $32,365 $35,378 $36,793 $37,897 $39,906

Ranking 11/11 11/11 11/11 11/11 11/11

Household Income

$32,365$35,378 $36,793 $37,897 $39,906

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Household Income HoroGrp Average Sector Average

Rating Levels

Variance in Household Income from the National Average

HoroGrp High 17.1% 9.2% 15.5% 23.0% 13.1%HoroGrp Low -18.4% -28.3% -28.6% -23.0% -29.7%

Ranking 11/11 11/11 11/11 11/11 11/11

Variance in Household Income

-18.4%

-28.3% -28.6%

-23.0%

-29.7%

-35.0%

-30.0%

-25.0%

-20.0%

-15.0%

-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Variance in Household Income HoroGrp Average Sector Average

77



Regional Economic Growth


Ranking 3/11 1/11 7/11 10/11 2/11

Regional Economic Growth

4.3%

5.3%

3.7%

3.0%

4.7%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Regional Economic Growth HoroGrp Average Sector Average

Rating Levels

Findings:

{enter text here}

78



Biggie No 9Local Issues

79



Local Issues (if any)

Findings:{enter text here}

80



Biggie No 10Overall Assessment

81



Overall Assessment

Findings:{enter text here}

82



And now for ….



End of Presentation

{kiwi} district council presentation {date} our council’s … ‘vital stats’ larry. n. mitchell...

Documents

councils presentation

customised presentation

district council presentation

local issueslarry

base stats reports

district council base

trendz reports

key findings