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
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.
2 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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;
3 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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.
4 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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 Share of Capital investments (CI) in the overall structure of the expenditures Capital investments 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 Unspent OSR in 2015 or carried forward into the following year Own Source Revenues1 The relation between the plan and collection of revenues from the property tax Financing of capital Receipt of cash from external donors for capital projects projects by donors The level of expenses for official lunches against expenses for Goods and Services, their trend and comparison Representation and between Municipalities; mobile telephony The level of mobile telephony expenses against the overall expenses expenses out of the category of Goods and Services The average of expenses for fuel Contracts for special Amounts paid to employees hired under contracts for services special services Share of financial liabilities in relation to the overall Liabilities and Accounts expenditures of the Organization Receivable (AR) Ratio of uncollected euros compared to current collection Reviewing applications within the legal deadline Construction Licenses 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
5 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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;
6 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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 Measurement Limits and Conclusions on audited median information
Capital investments Share of Capital 4% to 40% From a total of overall CI Investment in total Median 23% expenditures of the (Appendix 1) expenditures of the Municipalities (388 million), Organization 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 trend of increase- -73% to 78% The average declining of CI decrease of Median -6% at first glance might seem not participation of CI so alarming, but needs to be compared to 2014 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.
7 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
The degree of spending 0% to 100% Out of 68,9 million of of OSR in Capital Median 57% expenditures financed from Investments 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 The level of carrying 14% to 57% Progress was made in the Revenues forward OSR in the Median 22% current year in terms of use following year of OSR when compared to (Appendix 2) the prior year figures. However, improvement measures are needed in some of the municipalities
regarding this.
Implementation of the 46% to 166% There is an inconsistency plan for collection out Median 92% between planning and of the category of collection. Overall planning property tax was 21.2 million while collection was 19.8 million.
Funding from Funds received by €0 to Most of municipalities have donors for capital external donors for €1,256,000 created contractual relations projects capital projects Median with external donors. €74,158 (Appendix 2)
Representation, Representation against 0.4% to 8% Significant variations of the mobile telephony expenditures of goods Median 2.4% degree of representation have and fuel expenses and services and their been identified. However, trend; there was a decrease (Appendix 3) compared to the prior year by 13%.
Mobile telephony 0.3% to 7% Significant variations were against expenditures on Median 2% also in mobile telephony, goods and services and while compared to the prior their trend; year there was an increase by 13%.
8 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
€6.6 to €15 Some municipalities do not Average expenditures Median €9 maintain adequate data on on fuel the rate of expenditures. Variations of expenditures incurred should be subject to rigorous reviews of the respective management.
Special service Amounts paid to €0 to €463,849 Attention should be given to contracts employees engaged Total municipalities that have paid under special service €1,659,843 significant amounts to a (Appendix 4) contracts small number of employees.
Liabilities and Share of liabilities in 0.03% to Liabilities have a direct Account total expenses of the 26.8% impact on future spending. Receivables organisation Median 3.4% Their management should be done at the drafting stage of (Appendix 5) the budget.
The coefficient of €1.2 to €6.01 In general, amounts uncollected revenues Median €2.42 uncollected have remained against current almost at the same level with collection those of the prior year.
Construction Review of applications Refer to There are various results on licenses (Appendix within the legal chapter on numbers of similar size. 6) deadline construction licenses
Scholarships Stimulating students €0 to €50,000 Most of the municipalities with study scholarships Median had included in their agenda (Appendix 7) €9,000 of expenditures stimulating of scholarships for students.
9 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
10 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
40%39%38% 34%33%33% 30%30%29%29%
20%20%18% 17%15% 10% 8% 5% 5% 4%
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.
11 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Graph 2 The degree of increase/decrease of CI compared to 2014
78%
44% 42% 26% 25% 24% 19% 13% 13% 9% -12%-14%-15%-16%-17%-19%-25%-41%-43%-73%
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.
12 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Graph 3 Municipalities with the highest/lowest degree of designation of OSR for capital projects
100% 89% 89% 82% 82% 78% 73% 68% 68% 63% 49% 46% 45% 43% 42% 42% 40% 36% 34%
0%
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.
13 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
52% 57% 48% 43% 45% 46% 36% 28% 29% 30% 18% 14% 15% 16% 16% 16% 17% 17% 17% 18%
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
166% 146% 138% 133% 133% 126% 123% 118% 118% 104% 103% 103% 100%
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 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 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
100%99% 96%93%92%91%91%90%89% 88%83%82%82%82% 79%75%74% 50%46%
0%
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.
15 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 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)
1,256
559 490 469
252 250 244 191 186 174 35 22 7 4 ------
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.
16 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
8.0%
5.7% 4.7%4.7% 4.1%4.5%4.5% 3.3%3.8%3.8%
1.1%1.3%1.4%1.4%1.5% 0.4%0.5%0.5%0.7%0.7%
Furthermore, when we look at the trend of the amount spent for representation from 2014, we notice:
17 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Graph 8 Degree of increase/decrease of representation expenses compared to 2014
114% 111% 104%
67%71% 58%59% 44% 31%33%
-68%-65%-61%-59%-51%-46%-36%-24%-23%-22%
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.
18 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Graph 9 Mobile telephony expenses against G&S for 2015
7.0% 5.9% 4.6%4.8% 4.0%4.1%4.1% 3.4%3.5%3.5%
1.1%1.3% 0.7%0.8%0.8%0.9%1.0%1.1% 0.3%0.6%
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
466%472%
136%
73% 41%45%48%54% 22%33% -50%-30%-28%-25%-24%-21%-19%-17%-13%-6%
19 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
14.8 13.1 13.6 13.7 11.6 9.9 10.2 10.8 10.8 11.3 8.2 8.2 8.8 8.8 8.8 6.6 6.8 6.9 7.3 7.5
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.
20 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
8,000 10 7,000 9 6,000 8 5,000 6 4,000 3,000 4 4 3 3 2,000 2 2 1,000 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shumat e paguara gjithsej për kontratat në vepër (2015) Numri i personave të angazhuar me kontratë në vepër (2015)
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
500,000 300 276 400,000 250 200 300,000 150 200,000 126 119 100 100,000 67 52 46 50 33 25 17 26 0 0
Shumat e paguara gjithsej për kontratat në vepër (2015) Numri i personave të angazhuar me kontratë në vepër (2015)
21 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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.
22 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Graph 14 The degree of financial liabilities against the overall expenses of the organisation
26.8%
17.1%
8.2%8.7% 5.5%5.6%6.0% 3.4%3.9%4.3% 0.0%0.0%0.4%0.6%0.6%0.7%0.7%0.8%0.8%0.9%
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.
23 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Graph 15 Municipalities with lowest/highest amounts of Accounts Receivable
6.0 6.0 5.3 5.4 4.4 4.0 4.1 4.3 3.3 3.3 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.0
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.
24 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Graph 16 Reviewing of applications for construction licenses per officer/degree of review of within the legal deadlines
80.0 69.7 120% 70.0 100% 60.0 50.0 80% 40.0 60% 24.7 30.0 22.5 40% 18.0 17.0 15.0 20.0 12.8 12.5 12.0 10.4 10.0 20% 0.0 0%
Leje ndërtimore për zyrtarë në Urbanizëm Shkalla e shqyrtimit të kërkesave ndërtimore brenda afatit
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
3.5 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.8 120% 3.0 2.4 2.2 100% 2.5 2.0 1.9 80% 2.0 1.5 1.1 60% 1.0 0.5 40% 0.5 20% 0.0 0%
Leje ndërtimore për zyrtarë në Urbanizëm Shkalla e shqyrtimit të kërkesave ndërtimore brenda afatit
25 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
60,000 300 50,000 250 40,000 200 30,000 150 20,000 100 10,000 50
0 0
Viti
Pejë
Istog
Gjilan
Obiliq
Lipjan
Ferizaj
Shtime
Drenas
Prizren
Kaçanik
Gjakovë
Vushtrri
Rahovec
Shtërpcë
Suharekë
Podujevë
Mitrovicë
Skënderaj
Malishevë
HaniElezit i Fushë Kosovë
Shuma e tërësishme dhënë për bursa studimit (2015) Numri i studentëve të subvencionuar me bursë studimit (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.
26 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Scoring of municipalities per weighted value
(2015)
(2015)
2015)
following following
elephony
t
sentation sentation
tion tion
obile obile
repre
(2015)
€/100km
year year
Performance
Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight of Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Weight Weight
n of property tax property of n
of m of
AR
Municipality Municipality
obile Telephony obile
Fuel
Representa
Service contracts contracts Service
rend
M
tions for capital projects capital for tions
Total
Construction licenses Construction
OSR in capital projects capital in OSR
Collectio
Financial Liabilities ( Liabilities Financial
The t The
Dona
The trend The
Scholarships for students for Scholarships
Transfer of OSR in the the in OSR of Transfer
CI against overall expenses expenses overall against CI
Increase of CI compared to the prior prior to the compared CI of Increase
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
27 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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
28 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Appendix 1. Budget of Capital Investments
No Municipality Final Total Total CI for 2015 CI for 2014 CI Difference Overall OSR spent The degree budget 2015 expenditures expenditures compared of CI expenses on CI of OSR 2015 2014 to overall compared financed spent on expenses to the prior by the CI (2015) year OSR
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%
29 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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% 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%
Indicator Indicator 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%
30 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Appendix 2. Own Source Revenues
N Municipality OSR Revenues Revenues Degree of The plan Collection Collectabili Spending Third Total o received carried that will be OSR for from ty of from funds parties (not investment during 2015 forward carried carried collection property tax revenues of external through the s from from 2014 forward to forward to of property for 2015 from donation for TSA) donors 2016 2016 tax 2015 property tax capital projects
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
31 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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 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
Indicator Indicator Minimum 1,170,795 379,934 365,386 26% 437,196 416,834 96% 68,391 83,850 152,241
32 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Appendix 3. Representation, mobile telephony and fuel
Nr Municipalit Expenses Expenses Increa Total Particip Total Partici Expens Expens Incre Particip Partici The The Nu Average y for for se / expenditu ation of expenditure pation es for es for ase / ation of pation amount number of mbe fuel official official decrea res on represe on goods of mobile mobile decre mobile of of litres kilometre r of costs for lunches lunches se in goods and ntation and repres telepho telepho ase telepho mobil spent s travelled vehi every (2015) (2014) repres services s in services for entati ny ny in ny at e for by official cles 100km entati for 2015 Goods 2014 ons at (2015) (2014) expe the teleph official vehicles travelled on and the nses level of ony at vehicle with expen Service level for G&S the s (2015) official ses s for of mobi (2015)) level vehicles 2015 G&S le of (2014) telep G&S ( hony 2014) 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
33 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
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 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 North 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 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
Indicator Indicator 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
34 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Appendix 4.Service contracts
No Municipality The number Total amount of persons paid for engaged service under service contract contract (2015) (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 Total 1,029 1,659,843
Minimum - - Maximum 276 463,849
Indicator Indicator Median 9 20,158 Average 29 47,424
35 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Appendix 5. Liabilities and Accounts receivable
No Municipality Outstandin The degree of Outstandin The degree Increase / The amount Accoun g liabilities liabilities g liabilities of liabilities decrease of Accounts ts invoiced against total invoiced against total Receivable Receiva up to expenses up to expenses (2015) ble 31.12.2015 (2015) 31.12.2014 (2014) compar ed to each € collecte d (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 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
Indicator Indicator 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
36 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Appendix 5. Construction licenses
No Municipality The The number The number Construction The degree number of of requests of officials licenses per of requests licenses for within the official in reviewed reviewed construction Department Urbanism within the within 30 licenses of Urban deadline days Planning
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% Total 1,960 3,192 291
Minimum - - - - 16% Maximum 260 872 50 24.67 100% Median 45 51 7 5.08 91%
Indicator Indicator Average 56 91 8 8 84%
37 ZYRA E AUDITORIT TË PËRGJITHSHËM – KANCELARIJA GENERALNOG REVIZORA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Appendix 6. Subsidising of students
No Municipality The number of The total The number of The total students amount given students amount given subsidised with for scholarships subsidised with for scholarships scholarships (2015) scholarships (2014) (2015) (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 Total 1,749 538,007 1,632 623,685
Minimum - - - - Maximum 256 50,000 242 79,920
Indicator Indicator Median 20 9,000 20 8,500 Average 50 15,372 47 17,820
38