REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE - zka-rks.orgzka-rks.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Treguesit.e.performanc..s.s... · REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE No. Document:

REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO

NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE

No. Document: 22x.9-2015-08

FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE AND SERVICE DELIVERY IN

MUNICIPALITIES 2015

Comparative data and performance indicators

- DISCUSSION PAPER -

Prishtina, August 2016

ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL

2

1 Introduction

Despite the development of the accounting system of financial transactions and maintenance of

non-financial data, measurement of performance and accuracy of information remains a challenge

for each country or institution that handles such reporting.

NAO has started producing reports on financial and non-financial performance in certain areas of

local governance as of 2013. Results from these analyses have served as a measurement and self-

criticising instrument on as rational as possible use of public funds in municipalities. The content

of indicators has changed from year to year. This was done to further improve and adapt to the

reporting needs and make comparisons between municipalities, in order to achieve progress in

accountability of management of public money against services provided or expenses incurred. As

a continuation of initiatives on improvement of transparency and accountability to taxpayers and

stakeholders, this analysis strives to add a self-critical culture on the governance or even

interdepartmental measurement of budget organisation, on effectiveness, efficiency and economy

of economic transactions against services provided/received.

This report presents a comparative analysis of indicators in areas: Capital Investments, Own

Source Revenues, Financing from Donors, Representation Expenses, Mobile Telephony and Fuel,

Contracts on deed, Liabilities and Accounts Receivable, Construction Permits and Subsidising of

Students. The analysis aims to encourage a debate on how these key performance indicators can

be used in Kosovo to promote overall improvement of performance. Currently, performance of

municipal services is measured by the Ministry of Local Government Administration (MLGA), the

Division for Municipal Performance. It conducts surveys on citizen satisfaction whereby getting

their opinion on various elements of service delivery and municipal performance. In addition,

projects of USAID and Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation work with municipalities

in Kosovo to improve the quality and quantity of municipal services and responsibility towards

citizens.

We would like to clarify that despite the fact that a number of information is provided by the

Treasury General Ledger and Annual Financial Statements of municipalities, the collection of non-

financial data is done manually and as such is subject to accuracy risks. Therefore, despite the

verification of data by NAO auditors, we ask the reader to bear in mind the fact that the

information produced outside the KFMIS (non-financial information) may contain errors as the

number of indicators is very broad and the NAO was not able to confirm them entirely.

Under the supervision of the Assistant Auditor General Qerkin Morina, the report was prepared

by Ardita Salihu (team leader) and Valbona Pllana, and supported by the auditors of local

governance.

We thank all Mayors, their support staff and all our partners for their cooperation in this project.


3

1.1 Key findings

Regarding the further development of this process, in the following have been presented some key

findings and recommendations. A part of them is repeated from last year’s report.

Variations among municipalities of similar size/activity occur but do not get the proper

attention by senior management, employees, legislation bodies, citizens and civil society;

Due to the different size and complexity of municipalities, maintaining a consistency of

data quality poses a continuous challenge for municipalities. Producing qualitative and

reliable data is considered an important element of Good Governance in the public sector.

As such having reliable data is a requirement for effective decision-making processes;

While benchmarking needs to be tailored for individual municipalities depending on their

operations, a number of common issues affect all municipalities. For example - although

representation (hospitality) expenses count little toward overall budget expenses, this is a

sensitive issue to citizens as such it requires further justification behind such expenditure.

As such indicators on this behalf are welcomed by civil society, citizens and other

interested stakeholders;

Certain ranges of expenses are always difficult to measure and compare properly. For

example, when it comes to fuel expenses, several factors cause big variations on fuel

expenses such the geographical distance, the age and technical conditions of vehicles.”

Variations in performance are summarised below. Further details are provided in this discussion

paper in the supporting appendices.

1.2 Key recommendations

Following the publication of this report, we suggest that:

The management of Municipalities to make appropriate comparisons with other

Municipalities, analyse the findings of this report and take appropriate measures to

improve performance in areas where indicators have identified weaknesses or are

significantly below the sector’s average;

An improved process for reviewing and comparing individual performance and results

should be developed which can be applied at all Municipalities. This process could be led

by the Association of Kosovo Municipalities in order to initiate discussions and establish a

ground for exchanging good practices and knowledge’s between municipalities – by

randomly establishing work groups for unification of these practices;

Further improvement in the quality control of data produced manually by the public sector

organisations that could be supported by the development of interdepartmental indicators

within municipalities. This falls under the responsibility of individual organizations;

The development of a web based platform on real time basis allowing comparisons of

performance indicators involving all key stakeholders and a wider audience;


4

Performance indicators should be used as a basis for setting standards within a framework

of incentives and sanctions to promote good performance. For example financial benefits

should be reflected in the budget cycle for good performance;

To increase transparency of key performance indicators, consideration should be to include

these as a separate section in the Consolidated Annual Financial Statements of

municipalities, which would be a subject to audit.


5

2 Scope and audit of benchmarking data

This report covers eight areas of local government activities. As such, it answers the following

questions:

Comparative indicators Comparative indicators

Capital investments

Share of Capital investments (CI) in the overall structure of the expenditures

Trend of CI compared to 2014

The degree of capital projects financed out of Own Source Revenues (OSR), compared to total expenditures financed by the OSR

Own Source Revenues1

Unspent OSR in 2015 or carried forward into the following year

The relation between the plan and collection of revenues from the property tax

Financing of capital projects by donors

Receipt of cash from external donors for capital projects

Representation and mobile telephony expenses

The level of expenses for official lunches against expenses for Goods and Services, their trend and comparison between Municipalities;

The level of mobile telephony expenses against the overall expenses out of the category of Goods and Services

The average of expenses for fuel

Contracts for special services

Amounts paid to employees hired under contracts for special services

Liabilities and Accounts Receivable (AR)

Share of financial liabilities in relation to the overall expenditures of the Organization

Ratio of uncollected euros compared to current collection

Construction Licenses

Reviewing applications within the legal deadline

The number of licenses reviewed per employee in the Department for Urbanism

Subsidising of students Supporting of students with scholarships

This list it is not meant to be comprehensive but provides topics for discussion where the

Municipalities may review their performance against others. In order to support this comparison -

detailed appendixes are attached at the end of this report.

1 The focus remains at the revenues from property tax as a dominating category of own source at local level


6

2.1 Auditing of data

The information presented in this analysis was taken from the Annual Financial Statements,

Treasury notes, and data that NAO has and the data owned by respective municipal departments.

The data extracted from the AFS and KFMIS were verified by audit teams of Local Government,

whilst the data compiled by municipal officials were not subject to audit. Audit teams verified

data in order to reduce eventual inaccuracies.

Part of the data not subject to audit, relate to:

The quantity of fuel spent and kilometres travelled with official vehicles;

Register of construction licenses and efficiency in reviewing applications.

Therefore, stakeholders should consider limited level of assurance regarding the accuracy of the

results concerning the performance indicators above.

2.2 Key findings and recommendations

A considerable part of this report thoroughly presents maximum and minimum limits of the

results from examined indicators with other explanations where appropriate. In addition, in the

end is presented a summary of scoring per municipality, by rating all indicators with certain

weight, where their weighting has brought results from 1 to 3. The closer to 3 the higher is the

performance of a municipality (for more details refer to annex, page 29 for scoring of

municipalities).

Significant variations were noticed between the efficiency and cost of services between the

Municipalities. These could result from the size and complexity of the Municipalities, the quality

of services offered to citizens, municipal efforts in collection of OSR, the quality of planning and

budget execution or current infrastructure developments throughout the Municipalities.

Key findings are:

Significant variations were noticed in all areas of indicators, even in the Municipalities

with similar size;

Compared to prior year, this year is noticed a progress in use of Own Source Revenues;

It is important for OSR to be spent for capital projects so that the life of citizens is improved

for the taxes paid to the Municipality, but were noticed many variations;

Over-execution of budget for revenues from property tax as a result of poor planning, with

an emphasis on the Municipality of Junik, Mitrovica, Ranillug, Lipjan, Fushë Kosova,

Podujeva, Rahovec, Shterpce, Malisheva, Graqanica, Obiliq and Drenas;

Most of municipalities strive to establish contractual relations with external donors;


7

Current spending on official lunches has decreased compared to the prior year, but cannot

be said the same for the mobile telephony. In addition, variations in fuel expenditures

signal possible misuses;

There are reasons to consider as irregularity and misuse of the opportunity to apply the

article for special service contracts;

Poor performance in handling and collection of Accounts Receivable; and

Numerous variations have been noticed in the efficiency of handling construction licenses;

In the following table have been presented indicators based on the audited data.

Table 1 Summary of indicators

Indicators based on audited information

Measurement Limits and median

Conclusions

Capital investments CI (Appendix 1)

Share of Capital Investment in total expenditures of the Organization The trend of increase-decrease of participation of CI compared to 2014

4% to 40% Median 23% -73% to 78% Median -6%

From a total of overall expenditures of the Municipalities (388 million), around 28% (114 million) were spent on capital investments. As an overall average is considered relatively good, but on the other hand, the variances between the municipalities were high.

The average declining of CI at first glance might seem not so alarming, but needs to be reminded that 2014 (as a comparative year) was not favourable at all for capital investments. The increase of salaries by 25% that had occurred in April 2014 has significantly reduced capital investments expenditures, where we see a decrease by 22% of capital expenditures compared to 2013.


8

The degree of spending of OSR in Capital Investments

0% to 100% Median 57%

Out of 68,9 million of expenditures financed from OSR, the value of 48.1 million is designated for capital investments or 70% as a whole, as an absolute amount for 35 municipalities.

Due to deficits in current expenditures, municipalities do not sufficiently convert the money of citizens into capital goods.

Own Source Revenues

(Appendix 2)

The level of carrying forward OSR in the following year

Implementation of the plan for collection out of the category of property tax

14% to 57% Median 22% 46% to 166% Median 92%

Progress was made in the current year in terms of use of OSR when compared to the prior year figures. However, improvement measures are needed in some of the municipalities regarding this.

There is an inconsistency between planning and collection. Overall planning was 21.2 million while collection was 19.8 million.

Funding from donors for capital projects

(Appendix 2)

Funds received by external donors for capital projects

€0 to €1,256,000 Median €74,158

Most of municipalities have created contractual relations with external donors.

Representation, mobile telephony and fuel expenses

(Appendix 3)

Representation against expenditures of goods and services and their trend;

Mobile telephony against expenditures on goods and services and their trend;

0.4% to 8% Median 2.4% 0.3% to 7% Median 2%

Significant variations of the degree of representation have been identified. However, there was a decrease compared to the prior year by 13%.

Significant variations were also in mobile telephony, while compared to the prior year there was an increase by 13%.


9

Average expenditures on fuel

€6.6 to €15 Median €9

Some municipalities do not maintain adequate data on the rate of expenditures. Variations of expenditures incurred should be subject to rigorous reviews of the respective management.

Special service contracts

(Appendix 4)

Amounts paid to employees engaged under special service contracts

€0 to €463,849 Total €1,659,843

Attention should be given to municipalities that have paid significant amounts to a small number of employees.

Liabilities and Account Receivables

(Appendix 5)

Share of liabilities in total expenses of the organisation

The coefficient of uncollected revenues against current collection

0.03% to 26.8% Median 3.4% €1.2 to €6.01 Median €2.42

Liabilities have a direct impact on future spending. Their management should be done at the drafting stage of the budget.

In general, amounts uncollected have remained almost at the same level with those of the prior year.

Construction licenses (Appendix 6)

Review of applications within the legal deadline

Refer to chapter on construction licenses

There are various results on numbers of similar size.

Scholarships

(Appendix 7)

Stimulating students with study scholarships

€0 to €50,000 Median €9,000

Most of the municipalities had included in their agenda of expenditures stimulating of scholarships for students.


10

Key recommendations are:

Each Municipality should review its relative position against sister organizations and

consider which actions should be taken to improve the performance indicators reported

where appropriate;

If current expenditures can be reduced, actions should be undertaken so that they are re-

designated for capital projects;

Making a realistic planning for property tax based on the trends in the last two years and

the potential of collection;

All Municipalities should produce policies/regulations for representation expenses, mobile

telephony, and official vehicles;

Cases where expenditures were made over the average for fuel should be subject to an

independent review and the reasons why exceeding occurred is communicated to the

Municipal Assembly and to the Mayor;

Contracts for special services should be used only for a certain purpose, planned fairly and

in line with the law;

Consider the age and availability of accounts receivable and apply a systematic process of

handling those debts which are considered as non-collectable. The same should considered

during the process of budget planning;

Developing policies and addressing them through appropriate mechanisms for settlement

of liabilities. Further on, the Municipalities should not enter into any potential liabilities

without accounting recognition within KFMIS2 (no commitment) and without budget

appropriation; and

Sufficient oversight should be placed in order to increase the efficiency in handling

construction permits.

2 Kosovo Financial Management Information System


11

3 Capital Investments

When it comes to the performance of Municipalities for capital projects, initially we have analysed

the share of CI3 in relation to the total costs of the Organization. The second part relates to how

much do the Municipalities invest from OSR in road infrastructure, facilities, water, sanitation,

recreational facilities and other capital projects, against overall expenditures that are financed by

the OSR.

Graph 1. Participation of CI against the overall expenditures

The share of around 30% of CIs in total expenditures of Organization represents a good

performance in executing of this category of expenditure, as averagely 50%-60% of current budget

of a Municipality is spent on Wages and Salaries of the employees. The average median of the

share of CI in total expenditures varies from 23% while the maximum and minimum limits are

40% (Prizren) and 4% (Kllokot).

Spending of public money on Capital Investments means better services for the citizens of the

Municipality; therefore, it is important that the above statement serves a model for other

municipalities during the budgeting process, and be a model for other municipalities.

In this regard we consider the degree of trend shifts of CI compared to 2014. In the overall level of

municipalities, there is an average decline of 6% of capital projects compared to 2014, while the

limits of increase/decline resulted in 78% (Mitrovica) and -73% (Kllokot). The average of decline

of CI at first glance can seem not so alarming, but needs to be remembered that 2014 (as a

comparative year) was not favourable at all for capital investments. The increase of salaries by

25% that had occurred in April 2014 has significantly reduced capital investments expenditures,

where we see a decrease by 22% of capital expenditures compared to 2013.

3 In some municipalities, there are expenses that were paid from the category of Capital Investments and some

categories of expenses that by nature do not belong to this category. Such examples are misclassifications such as: road maintenance, agreements with donors, treatment of stray dogs and other expenses. For more information about the classification of expenses of an individual organization, audit reports refer to 2015 AFS.

40%39%38%34%33%33%30%30%29%29%

20%20%18%17%15%10% 8%

5% 5% 4%


12

Graph 2 The degree of increase/decrease of CI compared to 2014

If we make a connection between the performances of municipalities that were part of the statistics

of the Graphs above, we notice that only the municipality of Partesh, which spent only 5% in CI,

appears to have increased the trend by 26% compared to the prior year.

The connection of “green bars” shows that some of the municipalities like Prizren, Pristina,

Gracanica Fushe Kosova and Sterpce, has increased CI, which were already at a a high degree of

participation of CI in relation to overall costs.

The connection of “red bars” shows that municipalities Hani i Elezit, Gjilan, Novoberde, Ranilug,

Kamenica, Klokot and Mitrovica North, besides having the lowest degrees of CI alongside general

expenses, they also represent a high decrease of CI compared to the previous year.

The rest of the indicators for CI, try to show at what extent are municipalities presented in terms

of designation of OSR in CI. Analyses have shown that there is an average of 57% of OSR that

were spent on capital investments. However, there are significant variations in the degree of

spending of OSR for capital projects. They range from 0% (Mitrovica North) to 100% (Mamusha4).

4 This means progress for Mamusha particularly, which last year was among the municipalities with the lowest degree

of designation of OSR for capital projects.

78%

44% 42%

26% 25% 24% 19%13% 13% 9%

-12%-14%-15%-16%-17%-19%-25%-41%-43%-73%


13

Graph 3 Municipalities with the highest/lowest degree of designation of OSR for capital projects

Municipalities have flexibility in preparing the budget of Own Source Revenues their designation.

While there are restrictions in interference of Municipalities’ categories of Wages and Salaries, and

is recommended that Municipalities spend revenues collected by focusing on priorities of citizens,

mainly in needs for capital investments.

In particular, the revenues from property tax as a dominant part and the main source of revenues

of a Municipality, should be returned by the Municipality to the citizens as public goods, mainly

in infrastructure. The part of property tax is explained in the next section.

4 Own Source Revenues

In order to cover their costs, the Municipalities’ main financing source is from Government’s

transfers. This includes General Grant, Grant for Education, Grant for Health, Grant for enhanced

competences (if available for the particular the Municipality) and other financing. In addition to

these transfers, the Municipalities are entitled, within the constraints of the economic policies and

aiming to achieve fiscal sustainability, to have its own financial resources which can be spent

where municipalities deems it is appropriate for executing municipal competencies. This part of

the budget depends on the collecting capacity of own source revenues. The major sources are

property tax, construction licenses and administrative fees.

It is worth mentioning that maximum collection of Own Source Revenues as well as spending

them in the respective year is equal in terms of importance. The following graphs show the level of

(non) spending of revenues or carrying forward to be spent in the coming year.

100%89% 89%

82% 82% 78% 73% 68% 68% 63%

49% 46% 45% 43% 42% 42% 40% 36% 34%

0%


14

Compared to last year’s measurements5 there is an overall improvement of average of OSR carried

forward to the following year by approximately 22%, which in 2014 was about 27%. The limits

resulted in 14% (Vitia) and 57% (Kllokot).

Graph 4 Municipalities with the highest/lowest degree of OSR carried forward

Property tax revenues represent the biggest part of Own Source Revenues. Property tax is a

municipal tax applied on all property within a territory of a Municipality. These revenues should

be designated mainly for improving of infrastructure in the respective territory.

Below we presented the Municipalities, which have executed over 100% of the planned property

tax revenues.

Graph 4 Municipalities with the highest level of execution on property tax collection

Although at first glance, it seems that some municipalities had a successful performance, not by

accident the first 12 municipalities in this graph were coloured red. We have noticed that the over-

execution resulted from a poor and unambitious planning, where planning for collection of

5 Refer to 2014 report on similar indicators: http://oag-

rks.org/repository/docs/Treguesit_e_performances_se_komunave_2014_Shqip_938871.pdf

14% 15% 16% 16% 16% 17% 17% 17% 18% 18%

28% 29% 30%36%

43% 45% 46% 48%52% 57%

166%146% 138% 133% 133% 126% 123% 118% 118%

104% 103% 103% 100%

http://oag-rks.org/repository/docs/Treguesit_e_performances_se_komunave_2014_Shqip_938871.pdf

http://oag-rks.org/repository/docs/Treguesit_e_performances_se_komunave_2014_Shqip_938871.pdf


15

property tax was much less than collection in previous year or even less than the previous years’

planning. Most significant cases were related to the following Municipalities:

Juniku - for 2015 planned €24,000, although in 2014 it collected €40,228;

Mitrovica - for 2015 planned €353,821 €24,000, although in 2014 it collected €547,729;

Ranillug - for 2015 planned €25,000, although in 2014 it collected €32,455;

Lipjan - for 2015 planned €513,000, although in 2014 it collected €721,748. For Lipjan this

remark was also given in the prior year;

Fushë Kosova - for 2015 planned €400,000, although in 2014 it collected €542,027;

Podujeva - for 2015 planned €312,000, although in 2014 it collected €363,990;

Rahovec - for 2015 planned €248,000, although in 2014 it collected €301,6986;

Strepce - for 2015 planned €78,782, although in 2014 it collected €102,303; For Strepce this

remark was also given in the prior year;

Malisheva - for 2015 planned €170,000, although in 2014 it collected €246,633; For

Malisheva this remark was also given in the prior year;

Gracanica - for 2015 planned €420,000, although in 2014 it collected €437,027;

Obilic - for 2015 planned €310,500, although in 2014 it collected €316,259; and

Drenas - for 2015 planned €320,000, although in 2014 it collected €353,500;

Figures from the chart below show the municipalities that have increased property tax collection,

against an ambitious plan for collection of property tax.

Graph 5 Collection of property tax against an ambitious collection plan

Property tax is the only tax that is decentralised at the municipal level, with some limitations by

the Centre in terms of legislation and collection function. Different levels of performance in the

collection have been caused by various factors. Despite the fact that it is municipalities’ obligation

to regularly update the database on properties, a large number of municipalities continue to use

6 Although Rahovec Municipality planned the amount of €248,000 in the reviewed budget of 2015, the reference amount

in their internal plan on property tax collection was €330,000.

100%99%96%93%92%91%91%90%89%88%83%82%82%82%79%75%74%

50%46%

0%


16

the same database of initial estimates with some improvements over the years. The inefficiency

upon recording new properties/or changes occurred creates room for inadequate performance

upon their collection.

Out of all comprehensive revenues that are under the jurisdiction of the municipality to be

collected, the importance of the category of revenues from property tax has a special role, not only

for the collection value, but their main aim is their investment in infrastructure in order to enhance

the wellbeing of the community. Based on expected legislative and policy changes at the central

level, the property tax will only become more important in the future.

5 External donors

In addition to financial resources from Government Grants and the share of OSR, municipalities

have the right to enter into agreements with other donors. We have collected data on expenditures

which were funded by donors on behalf of capital projects, whether through funds that has been

processed through the municipality, also the funds transferred directly by the donor to the

operator that carried out the works. The figures have been taken from individual financial

statements of municipalities.

Graph 6 Municipalities with the highest donations for capital projects (expressed in ‘000)

The graph shows that out of all municipalities, the municipality of Kllokot, Partesh, Ranillug,

Decan, Skenderaj and Prizren for 2015 have not financed any projects from external donors.

1,256

559 490 469

252 250 244 191 186 174

35 22 7 4 - - - - - -


17

6 Representation, mobile telephony and Fuel

Representation

The representation cost implies to official lunches coded in account 14310 in KFMIS. It is

important that as part of good governance, spending in this area to be justified on the basis of real

needs assessment for these costs. While they are part of current expenditures within the overall

government expenditures, it is worth to enhance attention to the trend of expenditures in this

category.

Since 2013, the overall level of costs for lunches has declined. In 2015, 35 municipalities have spent

€648,771 or 13% less than in 2014 (€741,595).

In general, representation costs are not subject to adequate controls. It is not clear whether the

municipalities sufficiently understand the nature and purpose of these costs. There is no limit

determining to what extent these costs can be made. This is illustrated with the fact that the

Municipality of Prishtina is the largest municipality and the capital of Kosovo, whilst it is ranked

6th in the rankings for these costs. Ten municipalities that have spent THE most representation

expenses are: Gjakova €46,746, Prizren €46,026, Fushe Kosova €33,423, Peja 32,059, Gracanica

€31,866, Prishtina €31,777, Malisheva €30,414, Decan €27,995, Mitrovica €24,876 and Skenderaj

€24,085.

However, for a more accurate comparison due to different sizes of municipalities, we have

analysed the degree of participation of representation against the total of the category of Goods

and Services (excluding Utilities). The overall average is 2.4%, with limits 0.4% (Prishtina) and 8%

(Hani i Elezit).

Graph 7 Representation against the G&S for 2015

Furthermore, when we look at the trend of the amount spent for representation from 2014, we

notice:

8.0%

5.7%4.7%4.7%4.5%4.5%4.1%3.8%3.8%3.3%

1.5%1.4%1.4%1.3%1.1%0.7%0.7%0.5%0.5%0.4%


18

Graph 8 Degree of increase/decrease of representation expenses compared to 2014

If we go back to last year’s report, we notice a progress in some municipalities. Out of the five

municipalities that had higher representation expenditures in 2014, a significant progress is

noticed in Gjilan, Prizren, Vushtrri and Gjakova in terms of decreased spending for this category.

Quite the opposite applies to municipalities like Hani i Elezit, Junik, and Decan. Despite the fact

that last year they were categorised among municipalities with highest costs, even this year they

had a growing trend.

Mobile Telephony

The rest of this indicator includes costs of mobile telephony by analysing the trend of

decrease/increase compared to the prior year. Despite the fact that in recent years the competition

in the mobile telephony industry has increased and progressive steps have been made towards

providing more favourable conditions for the users of this service, at the municipal level there was

an overall increase by 13% of mobile phone expenses7.

Ten following municipalities have spent the most in mobile telephony for 2015: Prishtina €63,749,

Prizren €44,350, Gracanica €37,657, Peja €34,450, Vushtrria €27,652, Istog €24,693, Klina €24,606,

Gjakova €23,606, Mitrovica €21,701 and Decan €20,910.

Just as in representation also concerning mobile telephony expenses we have analysed the

participation degree of mobile telephony against the total of the category of Goods and Services

(excluding utilities). The overall average has resulted in 2%, while the limits were 0.3% (Gjilan)

and 7% (Mamusha).

7 It is worth to clarify that in 2015 payments could be included invoices carried forward from the prior year. Similar

thing can be applied to invoices that can be followed-up from 2013 at 2014. Therefore, the comparison is based on the condition of payments executed regardless to what year they belong to.

114%111%

104%

71%67%59%58%

44%33%31%

-22%-23%-24%-36%-46%-51%-59%-61%-65%-68%


19

Graph 9 Mobile telephony expenses against G&S for 2015

From graph number 8 and 10 is noticed that municipalities Prishtina, Rahovec, Kacanik, Gjilan,

Podujeva have lower expenses of mobile telephony and representation.

While the opposite goes for municipalities Deçan, Novoberde and Kllokot. All three have incurred

higher expenses of mobile telephony and representation.

Graph 10 The trend of increase/decrease of mobile telephony compared to 2014

7.0%

5.9%

4.8%4.6%4.1%4.1%4.0%

3.5%3.5%3.4%

1.3%1.1%1.1%1.0%0.9%0.8%0.8%0.7%0.6%0.3%

472%466%

136%

73%54%48%45%41%33%22%

-6%-13%-17%-19%-21%-24%-25%-28%-30%-50%


20

Fuel

When it comes to fuel expenditures, we have analysed litters spent for every 100km for official

transportation vehicles8. Average fuel consumption in Municipalities was €9 for every 100 km. The

lowest costs were €6.6 (Ferizaj) and the highest were around €15 (in Peja).

Graph 11 Fuel costs for official vehicles €/100km

High differences in the average of fuel costs could be affected by numerous factors, including the

age of vehicles, inadequate maintenance of records of official vehicles or increase the possibility of

misuse.

7 Special service contracts

The Kosovo legislation on expenses of the category of Wages and Salaries contains strict rules and

restrictions for public administration, especially for the local level. In accordance with government

strategic plans for categorization and limits of operational expenses, are defined the limits of

employees in the municipal administration. At the same time, the law on civil service9 allows

municipalities to engage experts for a limited period, to develop simplified recruitment

procedures, and that such contracts for special services are to be up to six months.

While various individual audit reports have revealed a number of irregularities regarding the

exercise of rights under this Article by a number of organizations, we have conducted an analysis

on expenses and the number of those engaged under special service contracts. The following data

do not show the reasons or irregularities made upon contracting10, but only handle the problem in

the context of payments and numbers.

8 Data on fuel spent compared to the kilometres travelled were collected manually by the Municipality’s responsible

persons and as such do not provide maximum assurance for their accuracy. The municipality of Decan, Dragash and Kllokot did not provide this information, while the municipality of Kacanik has provided disorienting information and was impossible to include it in the analysis.

9 Article 12, Clause 4 of Law 03/149 stipulates that: “Fixed-term appointments of less than six (6) months shall be governed by contracts called Special Service Agreements and shall be regulated by the Law on Obligations and a simplified recruitment procedure shall be applied”.

10 To see if the audit teams have reported on service contracts particularly, refer to individual audit reports.

14.8 13.7 13.6 13.1 11.6 11.3 10.8 10.8 10.2 9.9 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.2 8.2 7.5 7.3 6.9 6.8 6.6


21

In total, 35 municipalities have spent a total of €1,659,843 for around 1,029 people during 2015.

Graph 12 Municipalities with the lowest number/payment (and zero) of special service contracts

Out of all municipalities, during 2015 only the municipality of Klina, Shtime, NovoBerde and

Ranillug had not engaged employees under contracts for special services.

The above graph shows the municipality of Partesh, Mitrovica South, Mitrovica North, Hani i

Elezit, Skenderaj and Lipjan, which have not spent enormous budget in this regard.

Graph 13 Municipalities with the highest number/payment of special service contracts

3

9

2

43

10 0 0 0 0

2

4

6

8

10

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,000

Shumat e paguara gjithsej për kontratat në vepër (2015)

Numri i personave të angazhuar me kontratë në vepër (2015)

276

126 119

6752

33 25 1746

260

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

Shumat e paguara gjithsej për kontratat në vepër (2015)

Numri i personave të angazhuar me kontratë në vepër (2015)


22

While there should be a close connection between the number and payments, as there are

limitations on the duration of service contracts, municipalities not always respect that. The above

graph leads to the following conclusions:

Although the municipality of Prizren and Gjilan have an approximate number of those

engaged under service contracts, payments on their behalf have significant difference. This

means that Gjilan could have employed them with a higher compensation and/or had

them engaged throughout the entire year;

If we compare with Gjilan with Prishtina, we see that Prishtina had paid slightly more than

Gjilan, but for a double number of employees;

Although Kamenica had engaged a lower number under the service contracts, the amount

paid is higher than what Gjakova paid, even though the latter had nearly three times more

employees engaged;

Podujeva and Prizren do not have many differences in payments compensated, but the

number of those engaged varies. Therefore, Podujeva could have employed them with

higher compensation and/or throughout the year.

8 Liabilities and Receivable Accounts

Liabilities

All municipalities have created liabilities throughout the years. Financial liabilities are invoices

received by the Municipalities for works/services concluded by operators but which were not

paid. Besides financial liabilities, some of the Municipalities have contractual liabilities for works

that have already been completed and progress reports were delivered, but not invoiced by

operators yet.

We have shown the level of liabilities share into total expenditures of the Organization. The

overall average resulted in 1.5%, while limits were 0.3% (Mitrovica North) up to 26.8% (Kllokot).

The amount of liabilities in these 35 Municipalities reaches the value of €14,006,311, or 3.40% of

total expenditures for these municipalities.


23

Graph 14 The degree of financial liabilities against the overall expenses of the organisation

Accounts receivable

Accounts receivable are the opposite of liabilities. They represent uncollected debts over the years

of several types of revenues which mainly relate to receivables from property tax, rent revenues,

revenues from businesses and other fees.

The failure of Budget Organizations to collect this money could have an impact on the

Municipalities’ plans to meet its objectives and strategic plans.

By the end of 20015, the total amount of receivables for the Municipalities was €157,638,011. We

have analysed the share of receivables in revenues level of organisation. We will present the

indicator of how much Euros remain uncollected for each euro collected. Total average of this

indicator resulted in €2.42, while the limits were 6.01 (Podujeva) and 1.2 (Obilic) 11.

11 Mitrovica North had €0 Accounts Receivable, as it does not collect property tax, despite the fact that it is budgeted as a

revenue category.

26.8%

17.1%

8.7%8.2%6.0%5.6%5.5%

4.3%3.9%3.4%

0.9%0.8%0.8%0.7%0.7%0.6%0.6%0.4%0.0%0.0%


24

Graph 15 Municipalities with lowest/highest amounts of Accounts Receivable

As we have mentioned the largest part of AR consist of uncollected debts from uncollected

property tax.

9 Construction licences

Revenues from licenses for construction works represent a very important part of the

Municipality’s activity, considering both the economic purpose of the collection of revenues, and

the essence of being in compliance with the unique code of construction in the Republic of Kosovo.

According to the Law on Construction, the silence of an institution against an application for a

construction license represents an assertion. This guarantees a right to every person to undertake

an activity or action of a certain type, business, without obtaining the approval of the competent

authority, if an approval or rejection of the application is not provided within the time limits

foreseen by the law.

The following analysis presents the number of construction licenses reviewed per numbers of

officials engaged in urban departments within municipalities.12

12 The number of officials is presented based on the payroll system. Occasionally, municipalities could have engaged

additional officials under special services contracts, which are not included in the calculation.

0.0

1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.9 1.9

3.3 3.34.0 4.1 4.3 4.4

5.3 5.46.0 6.0


25

Graph 16 Reviewing of applications for construction licenses per officer/degree of review of within the legal deadlines

Out of ten abovementioned municipalities, Gracanica and Malisheva despite the fact that they had

a favourable degree of licenses reviewed per official, they have reviewed applications within the

legal deadline only to the extent of 66%.

While the opposite applies to the following municipalities

Graph 17 Review of applications for construction licenses per number/degree of review within the legal deadline

69.7

24.7 22.518.0 17.0 15.0 12.8 12.5 12.0 10.4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Leje ndërtimore për zyrtarë në Urbanizëm

Shkalla e shqyrtimit të kërkesave ndërtimore brenda afatit

3.2 3.1 2.9 2.82.4 2.2 2.0 1.9

1.10.5

0%20%40%60%80%100%120%

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

Leje ndërtimore për zyrtarë në Urbanizëm

Shkalla e shqyrtimit të kërkesave ndërtimore brenda afatit


26

10 Subsidising of students

While municipalities have flexibility to budget expenditures of the category of subsidies, it is

important that their designation is consistent with the strategic objectives of the territory, or at

least in areas where expenses leave room for redistribution of income.

One way to achieve this may be scholarships to students, which can affect the quality of education

and also present a redistribution of income.

For 2015, the situation was as follows:

Graph 18 Distribution of scholarships for 2015

For 2015, the municipality of Prishtina, Klina, Kamenica, Decan, Dragash, Gracanica, Mitrovica

North and Novoberde, Junik, Mamusha, Ranillug, Partesh and Kllokot have not subsidised their

students. Excluding Kamenica and Novoberde, other municipalities had not either awarded

scholarships in 2014.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Po

du

jev

ë

Fer

iza

j

Mit

rov

icë

Fu

shë

Ko

sov

ë

Vit

i

Pri

zren

Isto

g

Ob

iliq

Gji

lan

Gja

ko

vë

Dre

na

s

Rah

ov

ec

Sk

ënd

eraj

Kaç

an

ik

Ma

lish

evë

Pej

ë

Vu

shtr

ri

Han

i i

Ele

zit

Sh

tim

e

Su

har

ekë

Sh

tërp

cë

Lip

jan

Shuma e tërësishme dhënë për bursa studimit (2015)

Numri i studentëve të subvencionuar me bursë studimit (2015)


27

Scoring of municipalities per weighted value

Mu

nic

ipa

lity

CI

ag

ain

st o

ver

all

ex

pen

ses

(201

5)

Wei

gh

t

Incr

ease

of

CI

com

par

ed t

o t

he

pri

or

yea

r

Wei

gh

t

OS

R i

n c

apit

al

pro

ject

s

Wei

gh

t

Tra

nsf

er o

f O

SR

in

th

e fo

llo

win

g

yea

r

Wei

gh

t

Co

llec

tio

n o

f p

rop

erty

tax

Wei

gh

t

Do

na

tio

ns

for

cap

ita

l p

roje

cts

Wei

gh

t

Rep

rese

nta

tio

n

Wei

gh

t

Th

e tr

end

of

rep

rese

nta

tio

n

Wei

gh

t

Mo

bil

e T

elep

ho

ny

Wei

gh

t

Th

e tr

end

of

mo

bil

e te

lep

ho

ny

Wei

gh

t

Fu

el €

/10

0k

m

Wei

gh

t

Ser

vic

e co

ntr

act

s

Wei

gh

t

Fin

anci

al

Lia

bil

itie

s (2

015

)

Wei

gh

t

AR

(20

15)

Wei

gh

t

Co

nst

ruct

ion

lic

ense

s

Wei

gh

t

Sch

ola

rsh

ips

for

stu

den

ts (

201

5)

Wei

gh

t

To

tal

Per

form

ance

Drenas 2 0.1 3 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.1 2 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.03 3 0.03 2 0.03 3 0.03 2.45

Prishtina 3 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.05 1 0.05 3 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.03 2 0.03 2 0.03 1 0.03 2.43

Istog 2 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.1 2 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.03 3 0.03 3 0.03 3 0.03 2.33

Prizren 3 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.05 3 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.03 2 0.03 3 0.03 3 0.03 2.33

Rahovec 3 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.03 2 0.03 2 0.03 3 0.03 2.33

Shtime 2 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.05 3 0.05 2 0.05 3 0.05 2 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.03 3 0.03 1 0.03 3 0.03 2.30

Klina 2 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.05 3 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.05 3 0.05 1 0.03 2 0.03 2 0.03 1 0.03 2.25

Vushtrri 2 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.1 2 0.05 3 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.05 3 0.03 2 0.03 3 0.03 3 0.03 2.23

Lipjan 2 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.1 2 0.05 2 0.05 3 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 3 0.05 1 0.03 2 0.03 3 0.03 3 0.03 2.23

Shterpce 3 0.1 3 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.1 1 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 3 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.03 1 0.03 3 0.03 3 0.03 2.23

Suhareka 3 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 3 0.05 2 0.05 3 0.03 3 0.03 1 0.03 3 0.03 2.15

Mitrovica 2 0.1 3 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.05 3 0.05 2 0.05 3 0.05 2 0.03 1 0.03 2 0.03 3 0.03 2.15

Mamusha 3 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.1 1 0.05 3 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.03 1 0.03 2 0.03 1 0.03 2.15

Fushe Kosove 3 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.05 1 0.05 3 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 3 0.03 3 0.03 1 0.03 3 0.03 2.10

Ferizaj 3 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.05 2 0.05 3 0.05 1 0.05 3 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.03 3 0.03 2 0.03 3 0.03 2.08

Gracanica 3 0.1 3 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.05 3 0.05 2 0.05 3 0.03 3 0.03 1 0.03 1 0.03 2.05

Obilic 2 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.05 3 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.03 3 0.03 3 0.03 3 0.03 2.03

Junik 2 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.1 2 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.03 2 0.03 1 0.03 1 0.03 2.03

Gjakova 2 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.05 3 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.05 3 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.03 1 0.03 2 0.03 3 0.03 1.98

Gjilan 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.03 2 0.03 2 0.03 3 0.03 1.95

Peja 2 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.03 1 0.03 3 0.03 3 0.03 1.95

Viti 2 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.05 2 0.05 3 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.03 2 0.03 1 0.03 3 0.03 1.90

Novoberde 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.05 3 0.05 1 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.03 2 0.03 2 0.03 1 0.03 1.85

Kacanik 1 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.05 2 0.05 3 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.03 2 0.03 2 0.03 3 0.03 1.83

Partesh 1 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.03 1 0.03 2 0.03 1 0.03 1.83

Dragash 3 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.05 3 0.03 1 0.03 1 0.03 1 0.03 1.75


28

Malisheva 2 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.03 2 0.03 1 0.03 3 0.03 1.70

Podujeva 2 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.05 1 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.03 1 0.03 2 0.03 3 0.03 1.70

Hani i Elezit 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.05 2 0.03 2 0.03 1 0.03 3 0.03 1.60

Kamenica 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.1 1 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.05 3 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.03 2 0.03 3 0.03 1 0.03 1.60

Skenderaj 2 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.05 3 0.05 2 0.03 3 0.03 2 0.03 3 0.03 1.60

Ranillug 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.03 1 0.03 1 0.03 1 0.03 1.55

Mitrovica North 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.05 3 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.03 3 0.03 2 0.03 1 0.03 1.53

Decan 1 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.03 2 0.03 1 0.03 1 0.03 1.53

Kllokot 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.05 1 0.03 1 0.03 1 0.03 1 0.03 1.15

The legend of table and graphs in the main part of the report: Value 3, green = Good performance compared to other municipalities Value 2, orange = Average performance compared to other municipalities Value 1, red = Poor performance compared to other municipalities Weight of indicators First six indicators with weight 0.1=0.6 Second six indicators with weight 0.05=0.3 Last four indicators with weight 0.025~0.03=0.1 Total maximum scoring = 3


29

Appendix 1. Budget of Capital Investments

No Municipality Final budget 2015

Total expenditures 2015

Total expenditures 2014

CI for 2015 CI for 2014 CI compared to overall expenses (2015)

Difference of CI compared to the prior year

Overall expenses financed by the OSR

OSR spent on CI

The degree of OSR spent on CI

1 Prishtina 81,335,971 64,525,481 56,801,207 24,411,616 16,916,696 38% 44% 28,649,340 23,626,328 82%

2 Prizren 41,947,836 36,316,641 33,265,428 14,523,467 11,635,326 40% 25% 5,599,921 4,364,916 78%

3 Ferizaj 27,059,441 25,128,033 24,438,363 8,518,165 8,283,697 34% 3% 3,363,989 1,858,296 55%

4 Peja 23,098,544 21,146,160 20,536,683 4,915,810 5,393,885 23% -9% 2,865,760 1,310,771 46%

5 Gjilan 23,194,382 21,768,114 21,127,253 3,270,515 3,831,717 15% -15% 3,464,444 2,000,003 58%

6 Gjakova 21,413,970 20,104,201 19,429,426 4,491,493 5,040,070 22% -11% 2,351,255 1,434,206 61%

7 Podujeva 19,220,813 17,924,829 17,609,542 4,767,312 5,568,333 27% -14% 1,068,317 362,353 34%

8 Mitrovica 18,528,235 17,422,833 15,051,980 3,605,637 2,025,417 21% 78% 1,486,007 774,302 52%

9 Vushtrri 15,801,289 14,941,592 14,103,855 3,716,732 3,964,920 25% -6% 1,435,047 840,144 59%

10 Suhareka 14,375,360 13,587,676 12,948,971 4,418,619 4,440,454 33% 0% 1,954,256 1,207,832 62%

11 Lipjan 13,775,572 13,186,023 12,035,270 3,121,342 2,858,763 24% 9% 1,913,768 1,210,831 63%

12 Drenas 12,828,040 12,246,369 11,356,778 3,180,174 2,811,208 26% 13% 1,102,164 660,901 60%

13 Malisheva 12,465,986 12,004,215 12,488,487 3,384,684 4,198,427 28% -19% 680,383 420,475 62%

14 Rahovec 12,024,398 11,473,317 10,463,702 3,460,406 3,268,937 30% 6% 1,003,588 821,978 82%

15 Skenderaj 11,636,860 11,234,620 11,279,618 2,705,925 3,080,269 24% -12% 670,198 356,870 53%

16 Viti 10,639,505 10,205,712 9,674,521 2,161,158 2,443,973 21% -12% 852,866 415,866 49%

17 Fushe Kosove 9,372,877 8,268,351 7,876,174 2,736,061 2,425,129 33% 13% 1,848,650 1,642,897 89%

18 Istog 9,212,022 8,878,415 8,176,752 2,059,623 2,206,726 23% -7% 1,134,740 568,669 50%

19 Klina 8,916,031 8,611,908 8,244,581 2,171,149 2,301,707 25% -6% 950,653 642,472 68%

20 Kamenica 8,399,219 7,816,036 7,680,836 426,460 752,797 5% -43% 894,213 324,782 36%

21 Decan 7,600,356 7,314,434 7,128,226 1,427,447 1,592,737 20% -10% 527,836 302,649 57%

22 Dragash 7,527,130 6,974,453 6,607,016 2,122,459 2,163,471 30% -2% 389,882 229,732 59%

23 Kacanik 7,245,910 6,942,159 6,545,962 1,386,274 1,454,299 20% -5% 565,554 281,010 50%

24 Gracanica 6,633,128 6,153,879 5,536,661 2,380,630 1,677,159 39% 42% 1,573,261 899,003 57%


30

25 Shtime 5,998,279 5,794,106 5,628,991 1,333,967 1,490,419 23% -10% 320,012 135,890 42%

26 Mitrovica North 5,975,258 2,795,947 4,427,037 472,403 796,017 17% -41% 20,182 0 0%

27 Obilic 5,861,682 5,511,351 5,179,911 1,252,010 1,358,881 23% -8% 1,240,577 906,654 73%

28 Shterpce 3,615,249 3,455,073 2,984,538 1,006,980 847,048 29% 19% 262,823 109,758 42%

29 Hani i Elezit 2,268,600 2,094,367 1,902,071 367,669 442,098 18% -17% 138,670 55,339 40%

30 Novoberde 2,199,435 2,095,488 2,114,079 211,074 281,279 10% -25% 210,725 113,558 54%

31 Junik 1,963,355 1,785,539 1,340,391 366,694 296,765 21% 24% 84,972 57,451 68%

32 Mamusha 1,446,056 1,359,737 1,301,899 393,066 378,944 29% 4% 61,200 61,200 100%

33 Ranillug 1,340,213 1,273,953 1,207,717 103,065 123,277 8% -16% 130,815 56,133 43%

34 Partesh 1,040,435 979,488 795,388 46,805 37,118 5% 26% 52,805 46,805 89%

35 Kllokot 967,209 852,533 816,101 36,635 136,614 4% -73% 82,139 36,635 45%

Ind

ica

tor

Total 456,928,645 412,173,033 388,105,414 114,953,526 106,524,578 28% 8% 68,951,015 48,136,709 70%

Minimum 967,209 852,533 795,388 36,635 37,118 4% -73% 20,182 - 0%

Maximum 81,335,971 64,525,481 56,801,207 24,411,616 16,916,696 40% 78% 28,649,340 23,626,328 100%

Median 9,212,022 8,611,908 8,176,752 2,171,149 2,206,726 23% -6% 950,653 420,475 57%

Average 13,055,104 11,776,372 11,088,726 3,284,386 3,043,559 23% -2% 1,970,029 1,375,335 58%


31

Appendix 2. Own Source Revenues

No

Municipality OSR received during 2015

Revenues carried forward from 2014

Revenues that will be carried forward to 2016

Degree of OSR carried forward to 2016

The plan for collection of property tax 2015

Collection from property tax for 2015

Collectability of revenues from property tax

Spending from funds of external donation for capital projects

Third parties (not through the TSA)

Total investments from donors

1 Prishtina 18,035,992 17,893,989 7,280,641 20% 6,300,000 5,623,479 89% 29,603 220,000 249,603

2 Prizren 5,275,953 1,848,423 1,524,455 21% 1,880,000 1,886,884 100% 0 0 0

3 Ferizaj 3,512,010 989,708 1,137,728 25% 1,900,001 1,569,063 83% 55,291 0 55,291

4 Peja 3,337,519 711,878 1,183,637 29% 1,500,000 1,374,377 92% 468,853 0 468,853

5 Gjilan 3,627,759 841,300 1,004,615 22% 1,360,953 1,221,167 90% 35,473 0 35,473

6 Gjakova 2,581,209 384,494 614,448 21% 1,377,811 1,165,236 85% 63,191 65,270 128,461

7 Podujeva 1,180,319 297,040 409,041 28% 312,000 393,158 126% 53,335 0 53,335

8 Mitrovica 1,517,743 259,895 291,631 16% 353,821 515,994 146% 55,542 0 55,542

9 Vushtrri 1,400,925 493,421 459,300 24% 446,000 427,209 96% 185,581 0 185,581

10 Suhareka 1,815,740 580,453 441,937 18% 675,500 554,829 82% 7,340 0 7,340

11 Lipjan 1,453,652 1,000,334 540,218 22% 513,000 681,290 133% 244,011 0 244,011

12 Drenas 893,350 409,638 200,824 15% 320,000 328,829 103% 0 1,256,000 1,256,000

13 Malisheva 586,364 236,941 142,922 17% 170,000 200,445 118% 74,261 0 74,261

14 Rahovec 969,696 281,748 247,857 20% 248,000 304,098 123% 52,054 87,000 139,054

15 Skenderaj 702,249 251,361 283,412 30% 145,800 115,510 79% 0 0 0

16 Viti 781,607 212,902 141,643 14% 411,716 308,832 75% 49,500 0 49,500

17 Fushe Kosove 2,034,210 859,859 1,045,419 36% 400,000 530,669 133% 118,429 0 118,429

18 Istog 941,133 411,741 218,134 16% 295,009 292,126 99% 0 490,000 490,000

19 Klina 790,640 366,511 206,498 18% 284,767 265,542 93% 0 137,498 137,498

20 Kamenica 759,595 447,100 312,481 26% 290,000 213,824 74% 173,836 0 173,836

21 Decan 616,304 53,311 141,779 21% 200,000 194,010 97% 0 0 0

22 Dragash 349,061 358,553 317,732 45% 173,230 141,642 82% 74,158 0 74,158

23 Kacanik 556,372 152,163 142,981 20% 265,850 218,179 82% 3,500 0 3,500


32

24 Gracanica 1,699,488 328,761 454,988 22% 420,000 435,232 104% 39,398 0 39,398

25 Shtime 334,729 49,657 64,374 17% 145,650 133,061 91% 33,464 131,958 165,422

26 Mitrovica North 27,400 7,872 15,089 43% 50,000 0 0% 21,988 0 21,988

27 Obilic 1,043,716 539,414 342,553 22% 310,500 320,244 103% 13,400 82,472 95,872

28 Shterpce 231,679 85,929 54,785 17% 78,782 93,024 118% 0 558,700 558,700

29 Hani i Elezit 223,521 44,243 129,094 48% 96,834 81,187 84% 53,954 0 53,954

30 Novoberde 187,189 92,711 69,174 25% 69,689 61,493 88% 47,778 0 47,778

31 Junik 77,579 23,850 16,457 16% 24,000 39,770 166% 210,366 42,000 252,366

32 Mamusha 52,763 74,994 66,557 52% 27,869 25,372 91% 190,602 0 190,602

33 Ranillug 112,337 68,366 49,889 28% 25,000 34,484 138% 0 0 0

34 Partesh 41,486 55,646 44,326 46% 24,384 11,257 46% 0 0 0

35 Kllokot 91,726 97,543 107,129 57% 68,500 34,321 50% 0 0 0

Ind

ica

tor

Minimum 57,843,015 30,811,748 19,703,749 9 21,164,666 19,795,834 94% 2,354,907 3,070,898 5,425,805

Maximum 27,400 7,872 15,089 14% 24,000 - 0% - - -

Median 5,275,953 1,848,423 1,524,455 57% 1,900,001 1,886,884 166% 468,853 1,256,000 1,256,000

Average 786,124 289,394 232,995 22% 287,384 278,834 92% 43,588 - 64,850

Minimum 1,170,795 379,934 365,386 26% 437,196 416,834 96% 68,391 83,850 152,241


33

Appendix 3. Representation, mobile telephony and fuel

Nr Municipality

Expenses for official lunches (2015)

Expenses for official lunches (2014)

Increase / decrease in representation expenses

Total expenditures on goods and services for 2015

Participation of representations in Goods and Services for 2015

Total expenditure on goods and services for 2014

Participation of representations at the level of G&S (2014)

Expenses for mobile telephony (2015)

Expenses for mobile telephony (2014)

Increase / decrease in expenses for mobile telephony

Participation of mobile telephony at the level of G&S (2015))

Participation of mobile telephony at the level of G&S ( 2014)

The amount of litres spent for official vehicles (2015)

The number of kilometres travelled by official vehicles

Number of vehicles

Average fuel costs for every 100km travelled with official vehicles

1 Prishtina 31,777 15,030 111% 9,008,154 0.35% 7,872,882 0.19% 63,749 55,431 15% 0.71% 0.70% 63,330 546,186 57 11.60

2 Prizren 46,026 111,878 -59% 2,448,555 1.88% 2,477,087 4.52% 44,350 39,565 12% 1.81% 1.60% 39,010 397,967 41 9.80

3 Ferizaj 21,881 18,404 19% 1,466,867 1.49% 1,919,774 0.96% 15,617 10,160 54% 1.06% 0.53% 17,687 269,025 18 6.57

4 Peja 32,059 32,053 0% 2,262,418 1.42% 2,260,801 1.42% 34,450 35,623 -3% 1.52% 1.58% 39,084 264,000 0 14.80

5 Gjilan 21,535 62,362 -65% 3,011,107 0.72% 2,890,858 2.16% 9,117 11,562 -21% 0.30% 0.40% 30,746 315,477 31 9.75

6 Gjakova 46,746 60,434 -23% 1,561,945 2.99% 1,404,276 4.30% 23,366 4,130 466% 1.50% 0.29% 27,517 379,500 23 7.25

7 Podujeva 5,117 2,511 104% 992,577 0.52% 953,258 0.26% 7,905 10,377 -24% 0.80% 1.09% 40,540 461,615 28 8.78

8 Mitrovica 24,876 11,639 114% 1,428,027 1.74% 1,565,467 0.74% 21,701 26,638 -19% 1.52% 1.70% 24,357 265,758 26 9.17

9 Vushtrri 22,968 35,723 -36% 1,374,075 1.67% 1,204,038 2.97% 27,652 16,014 73% 2.01% 1.33% 22,453 207,493 0 10.82

10 Suhareka 10,128 12,788 -21% 913,344 1.11% 921,359 1.39% 18,024 17,678 2% 1.97% 1.92% 20,146 298,159 0 6.76

11 Lipjan 20,357 15,948 28% 1,097,283 1.86% 935,195 1.71% 10,639 1,860 472% 0.97% 0.20% 23,431 229,495 20 10.21

12 Drenas 14,197 18,689 -24% 919,801 1.54% 944,456 1.98% 11,774 13,466 -13% 1.28% 1.43% 12,701 154,567 38 8.22

13 Malisheva 30,414 27,269 12% 793,343 3.83% 751,588 3.63% 10,862 7,346 48% 1.37% 0.98% 13,451 124,006 13 10.85

14 Rahovec 4,203 12,992 -68% 771,189 0.54% 634,577 2.05% 6,617 8,831 -25% 0.86% 1.39% 22,197 232,336 0 9.55

15 Skenderaj 24,085 16,774 44% 870,016 2.77% 921,811 1.82% 12,349 11,091 11% 1.42% 1.20% 26,969 239,237 31 11.27

16 Viti 23,013 25,674 -10% 941,113 2.45% 780,497 3.29% 5,858 2,478 136% 0.62% 0.32% 19,049 212,965 17 8.94

17 F. Kosove 33,423 19,563 71% 707,486 4.72% 645,117 3.03% 7,893 8,298 -5% 1.12% 1.29% 36,620 390,770 0 9.37

18 Istog 19,472 21,116 -8% 810,343 2.40% 629,647 3.35% 24,693 21,664 14% 3.05% 3.44% 25,268 282,964 17 8.93

19 Klina 17,467 32,396 -46% 620,164 2.82% 632,964 5.12% 24,606 17,397 41% 3.97% 2.75% 22,885 254,828 17 8.98

20 Kamenica 23,650 23,672 0% 506,706 4.67% 524,928 4.51% 11,277 9,207 22% 2.23% 1.75% 26,774 358,797 12 7.46


34

21 Decan 27,995 21,324 31% 618,952 4.52% 639,425 3.33% 20,910 18,765 11% 3.38% 2.93% 0 0 0

22 Dragash 15,238 9,627 58% 564,700 2.70% 308,582 3.12% 18,251 17,576 4% 3.23% 5.70% 0 271,334 22 -

23 Kacanik 5,913 5,593 6% 453,387 1.30% 488,117 1.15% 3,601 3,303 9% 0.79% 0.68% 2,978 301,944 14 0.99

24 Gracanica 31,866 26,248 21% 777,723 4.10% 836,271 3.14% 37,657 34,579 9% 4.84% 4.13% 48,965 555,564 43 8.81

25 Shtime 7,383 18,834 -61% 410,380 1.80% 421,110 4.47% 6,095 8,749 -30% 1.49% 2.08% 11,861 127,925 13 9.27

26 Mitrovica North

5,261 6,702 -22% 775,147 0.68% 369,630 1.81% 12,000 9,000 33% 1.55% 2.43% 9,986 112,450 10 8.88

27 Obilic 13,862 12,499 11% 437,866 3.17% 401,586 3.11% 15,135 16,127 -6% 3.46% 4.02% 36,924 270,039 23 13.67

28 Shterpce 22,903 23,710 -3% 400,619 5.72% 252,265 9.40% 9,577 13,307 -28% 2.39% 5.27% 13,925 155,373 0 8.96

29 Hani i Elezit 21,213 12,724 67% 264,566 8.02% 147,697 8.61% 7,641 7,631 0% 2.89% 5.17% 11,169 126,968 10 8.80

30 Novoberde 4,343 4,231 3% 130,156 3.34% 143,850 2.94% 5,400 10,790 -50% 4.15% 7.50% 10,408 76,419 0 13.62

31 Junik 5,690 4,266 33% 291,150 1.95% 114,664 3.72% 10,165 7,014 45% 3.49% 6.12% 8,127 81,707 6 9.95

32 Mamusha 4,532 9,280 -51% 100,327 4.52% 114,566 8.10% 7,003 5,874 19% 6.98% 5.13% 11,707 89,438 7 13.09

33 Ranillug 1,715 2,017 -15% 124,205 1.38% 118,197 1.71% 5,732 5,854 -2% 4.61% 4.95% 18,144 221,026 0 8.21

34 Partesh 2,792 1,760 59% 113,747 2.45% 69,243 2.54% 6,665 8,037 -17% 5.86% 11.61% 8,150 118,298 0 6.89

35 Kllokot 4,672 5,865 -20% 123,815 3.77% 75,974 7.72% 5,058 4,296 18% 4.09% 5.66% 0 0 0

Ind

ica

tor

Total 648,771 741,595 -13% 38,091,251 35,371,757 563,388 499,717 13% 746,560 8,393,630 537 300

Minimum 1,715 1,760 -68% 100,327 0.4% 69,243 0% 3,601 1,860 -50% 0.30% 0% - -

Maximum 46,746 111,878 114% 9,008,154 8.0% 7,872,882 9% 63,749 55,431 472% 7% 12% 63,330 555,564 57 15

Median 20,357 16,774 0% 775,147 2.4% 639,425 3% 11,277 10,377 9% 2% 2% 20,146 239,237 13 9

Average 18,536 21,188 7% 1,088,321 2.6% 1,010,622 3% 16,097 14,278 36% 2% 3% 21,330 239,818 15 9


35

Appendix 4.Service contracts

No Municipality The number of persons engaged under service contract (2015)

Total amount paid for service contract (2015)

1 Prishtina 276 463,849

2 Prizren 119 98,115

3 Ferizaj 52 82,292

4 Peja 67 84,959

5 Gjilan 126 321,546

6 Gjakova 46 50,486

7 Podujeva 33 79,613

8 Mitrovica 3 1,040

9 Vushtrri 16 21,484

10 Suhareka 37 13,085

11 Lipjan 3 6,903

12 Drenas 3 6,980

13 Malisheva 26 45,246

14 Rahovec 36 44,930

15 Skenderaj 9 6,618

16 Viti 15 18,975

17 Fushe Kosove 9 10,308

18 Istog 25 55,818

19 Klina 0 0

20 Kamenica 17 55,630

21 Decan 15 27,330

22 Dragash 5 26,000

23 Kacanik 9 14,165

24 Gracanica 12 24,726

25 Shtime 0 0

26 Mitrovica Veriore 4 3,921

27 Obilic 32 22,826

28 Shterpce 6 13,365

29 Hani i Elezit 2 4,800

30 Novoberde 0 0

31 Junik 8 20,158

32 Mamusha 9 11,391

33 Ranillug 0 0

34 Partesh 1 975

35 Kllokot 8 22,308

Ind

ica

tor

Total 1,029 1,659,843

Minimum - -

Maximum 276 463,849

Median 9 20,158

Average 29 47,424


36

Appendix 5. Liabilities and Accounts receivable

No Municipality Outstanding liabilities invoiced up to 31.12.2015

The degree of liabilities against total expenses (2015)

Outstanding liabilities invoiced up to 31.12.2014

The degree of liabilities against total expenses (2014)

Increase / decrease

The amount of Accounts Receivable (2015)

Accounts Receivable compared to each € collected (2015)

1 Prishtina 1,142,513 1.77% 1,192,224 2.10% -4.17% 50,709,835 2.81

2 Prizren 2,023,000 5.57% 2,234,878 6.72% -9.48% 14,013,000 2.66

3 Ferizaj 1,504,697 5.99% 1,412,721 5.78% 6.51% 6,731,180 1.92

4 Peja 827,817 3.91% 609,000 2.97% 35.93% 14,473,940 4.34

5 Gjilan 1,898,238 8.72% 2,051,740 9.71% -7.48% 10,600,230 2.92

6 Gjakova 1,104,508 5.49% 1,361,380 7.01% -18.87% 8,522,000 3.30

7 Podujeva 172,802 0.96% 204,997 1.16% -15.71% 7,099,221 6.01

8 Mitrovica 462,695 2.66% 666,895 4.43% -30.62% 8,135,676 5.36

9 Vushtrri 63,483 0.42% 65,260 0.46% -2.72% 2,837,490 2.03

10 Suhareka 94,732 0.70% 47,886 0.37% 97.83% 2,577,141 1.42

11 Lipjan 1,081,000 8.20% 1,028,032 8.54% 5.15% 3,658,783 2.52

12 Drenas 187,791 1.53% 36,037 0.32% 421.11% 1,719,850 1.93

13 Malisheva 146,784 1.22% 166,626 1.33% -11.91% 1,834,940 3.13

14 Rahovec 332,759 2.90% 731,552 6.99% -54.51% 1,940,000 2.00

15 Skenderaj 290,616 2.59% 309,650 2.75% -6.15% 1,172,232 1.67

16 Viti 151,619 1.49% 99,000 1.02% 53.15% 2,003,221 2.56

17 F.Kosovë 63,572 0.77% 52,143 0.66% 21.92% 2,878,279 1.41

18 Istog 86,626 0.98% 142,000 1.74% -39.00% 1,136,120 1.21

19 Klina 293,064 3.40% 268,066 3.25% 9.33% 1,777,188 2.25

20 Kamenica 111,540 1.43% 198,200 2.58% -43.72% 1,865,620 2.46

21 Decan 1,248,760 17.07% 524,000 7.35% 138.31% 1,242,500 2.02

22 Dragash 2,769 0.04% 70,000 1.06% -96.04% 1,837,746 5.26

23 Kacanik 69,402 1.00% 19,141 0.29% 262.58% 1,348,940 2.42

24 Gracanica 51,841 0.84% 104,694 1.89% -50.48% 2,215,433 1.30

25 Shtime 33,354 0.58% 38,700 0.69% -13.81% 481,400 1.44

26 Mitrovica North 833 0.03% 0 0.00% 0 0.00

27 Obilic 121,837 2.21% 192,839 3.72% -36.82% 1,248,501 1.20

28 Shterpce 37,565 1.09% 1,011,017 33.88% -96.28% 1,385,216 5.98

29 Hani i Elezit 29,689 1.42% 47,193 2.48% -37.09% 497,557 2.23

30 Novoberde 19,877 0.95% 21,518 1.02% -7.63% 379,978 2.03

31 Junik 76,052 4.26% 84,645 6.31% -10.15% 159,957 2.06

32 Mamusha 30,569 2.25% 25,412 1.95% 20.29% 209,018 3.96

33 Ranillug 9,450 0.74% 12,450 1.03% -24.10% 370,380 3.30

34 Partesh 5,875 0.60% 24,731 3.11% -76.24% 168,342 4.06

35 Kllokot 228,581 26.81% 228,357 27.98% 0.10% 407,098 4.44

Ind

ica

tor

Total 14,006,311 15,282,984 157,638,011

Minimum 833 0.030% - - -96% - 0.00

Maximum 2,023,000 27% 2,234,878 0 421% 50,709,835 6.01

Median 121,837 1.49% 166,626 0 -9% 1,834,940 2.42

Average 400,180 3% 436,657 0 11% 4,503,943 2.73


37

Appendix 5. Construction licenses

No Municipality The number of licenses reviewed within 30 days

The number of requests for construction licenses

The number of officials within the Department of Urban Planning

Construction licenses per official in Urbanism

The degree of requests reviewed within the deadline

1 Prishtina 260 429 50 5.31 61%

2 Prizren 141 872 12 12.82 16%

3 Ferizaj 88 170 12 8.00 52%

4 Peja 150 174 13 12.50 86%

5 Gjilan 127 137 14 9.77 93%

6 Gjakova 141 159 17 8.81 89%

7 Podujeva 34 34 8 4.86 100%

8 Mitrovica 51 51 14 3.92 100%

9 Vushtrri 120 120 9 15.00 100%

10 Suhareka 20 20 8 2.86 100%

11 Lipjan 64 74 6 12.80 86%

12 Drenas 31 31 9 3.88 100%

13 Malisheva 136 207 9 17.00 66%

14 Rahovec 56 61 8 8.00 92%

15 Skenderaj 36 46 9 4.50 78%

16 Viti 17 17 7 2.83 100%

17 Fushe Kosove 52 57 10 3.06 91%

18 Istog 74 74 4 24.67 100%

19 Klina 45 55 6 9.00 82%

20 Kamenica 60 66 6 12.00 91%

21 Decan 11 28 6 2.20 39%

22 Dragash 15 17 9 1.88 88%

23 Kacanik 0 0 14 -

24 Gracanica 54 83 4 18.00 65%

25 Shtime 22 22 2 2.44 100%

26 Mitrovica Veriore 0 0 0

27 Obilic 45 64 3 22.50 70%

28 Shterpce 52 65 6 10.40 80%

29 Hani i Elezit 8 8 1 1.14 100%

30 Novoberde 24 24 5 4.00 100%

31 Junik 3 3 2 0.50 100%

32 Mamusha 0 0 0

33 Ranillug 19 19 6 3.17 100%

34 Partesh 0 0 0

35 Kllokot 4 5 2 2.00 80%

Ind

ica

tor

Total 1,960 3,192 291

Minimum - - - - 16%

Maximum 260 872 50 24.67 100%

Median 45 51 7 5.08 91%

Average 56 91 8 8 84%


38

Appendix 6. Subsidising of students

No Municipality The number of students subsidised with scholarships (2015)

The total amount given for scholarships (2015)

The number of students subsidised with scholarships (2014)

The total amount given for scholarships (2014)

1 Prishtina 0 0 0 0

2 Prizren 80 40,000 80 40,000

3 Ferizaj 100 50,000 100 50,000

4 Peja 54 19,400 75 37,250

5 Gjilan 131 32,630 159 55,650

6 Gjakova 50 30,000 0 0

7 Podujeva 172 5,100 165 49,650

8 Mitrovica 71 44,730 55 34,650

9 Vushtrri 42 15,000 35 14,000

10 Suhareka 8 3,680 49 22,250

11 Lipjan 8 2,300 5 1,750

12 Drenas 105 29,717 0 0

13 Malisheva 66 19,800 75 22,500

14 Rahovec 80 26,750 80 26,750

15 Skenderaj 256 26,350 93 37,200

16 Viti 135 40,500 0 0

17 Fushe Kosove 182 43,300 225 56,350

18 Istog 47 34,200 45 32,400

19 Klina 0 0 0 0

20 Kamenica 0 0 242 79,920

21 Decan 0 0 0 0

22 Dragash 0 0 0 0

23 Kacanik 50 20,000 40 20,000

24 Gracanica 0 0 0 0

25 Shtime 18 9,000 18 8,500

26 Mitrovica North 0 0 0 0

27 Obilic 68 33,000 13 8,000

28 Shterpce 6 2,550 33 6,965

29 Hani i Elezit 20 10,000 20 10,000

30 Novoberde 0 0 25 9,900

31 Junik 0 0 0 0

32 Mamusha 0 0 0 0

33 Ranillug 0 0 0 0

34 Partesh 0 0 0 0

35 Kllokot 0 0 0 0

Ind

ica

tor

Total 1,749 538,007 1,632 623,685

Minimum - - - -

Maximum 256 50,000 242 79,920

Median 20 9,000 20 8,500

Average 50 15,372 47 17,820

Documents

REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE - zka-rks.orgzka-rks.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Treguesit.e.performanc..s.s... · REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE No. Document: