THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE

Transcription

THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE
ANNUAL GENERAL REPORT OF THE CONTROLLER AND
AUDITOR GENERAL
On the Financial Statements of Local Government
Authorities for the Financial Year Ended 30th June, 2014
The Controller and Auditor General,
National Audit Office,
Audit House,
Samora Avenue/Ohio Street,
P.O.Box 9080,
Tel: 255 (022) 2115157/8
Fax: 255 (022) 2117527
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.nao.go.tz.
Dar es Salaam,Tanzania
ii
____________________________________
Office of the Controller and Auditor General
AGR/LG/2013/2014
ii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE
Office of the Controller and Auditor General, Samora Avenue, P.O. Box 9080, DAR ES SALAAM.
Telegram: “Ukaguzi", Telephone: 255(022)2115157/8, Fax: 255(022)2117527, E-mail:
[email protected], Website: www.nao.go.tz
In reply please quote;
Ref. No.FA.27/249/01/2013/14
Date: 26th March, 2015
Your Excellency Prof. Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete,
President of the United Republic of Tanzania,
State House,
P.O. Box 9120,
DAR ES SALAAM.
Re: Submission of Annual General Report of the Controller and
Auditor General on the Audit of Local Government Authorities (LGAs)
for the financial year ended 30th June, 2014
Pursuant to Article 143 (4) of the Constitution of the United Republic of
Tanzania of 1977 (revised 2005) and Sect. 48 of the Local Government
Finances Act No.9 of 1982 (revised 2000), together with Sect. 34 of the
Public Audit Act No.11 of 2008, I have the honor and privilege to submit
to you my Annual General Audit Report on Local Government Authorities
(LGAs) for the financial year ended 30th June, 2014 for your information
and necessary action.
I submit,
Prof. Mussa Juma Assad
CONTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL
iii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
iv
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................vii
Office of the Controller and Auditor General .................................................
...................................................................................................... xi
Our Core Values are: ............................................................................ xi
List of abbreviations ............................................................................xii
Foreword ......................................................................................... xvi
Acknowledgements ........................................................................... xviii
Executive Summary ............................................................................. xx
CHAPTER ONE ..................................................................................... 1
1.0BACKGROUND AND GENERAL INFORMATION ............................................. 1
1.1 Audit mandate, responsibility of CAG and audit objectives ......................... 1
1.2 Applicable Auditing Standards and reporting and procedures ....................... 5
1.3 Number of auditees and NAOT‟s set up.................................................. 7
1.4 Statutory responsibilities of LGAs in preparation and submission of financial
statements ......................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................... 12
2.0 AUDIT OPINION .............................................................................. 12
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 12
2.2 Definition of audit opinion ................................................................ 12
2.3 Types of audit opinion ..................................................................... 12
2.4 Overview of the audit opinion issued during the year ............................... 14
2.5 Overall Movement in audit opinions issued to LGAs .................................. 15
2.6 Improvement, unchanged and regressions in the audit opinion issued ........... 17
2.7 Basis for qualified and/or adverse opinion issued during the year ................ 18
CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................. 20
3.0 FOLLOW-UP OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PREVIOUS YEARS‟ AUDIT
RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 20
3.1 Outstanding matters from the previous years‟ CAG‟s recommendations ......... 20
3.2 Follow-up on the directives issued by the Local Authorities Accounts Committee
(LAAC) ............................................................................................. 24
CHAPTER FOUR................................................................................... 31
4.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS........................................................................ 31
4.1 Audit of Budget ............................................................................. 31
4.2 LGAs‟ Own Sources Revenue Collection trend against Approved Budgets ........ 31
4.3 Amount released in excess of the Approved Budget ................................. 33
4.4 Amount released below the Approved Budget ........................................ 33
4.5 LGA‟s Own Source Revenue Collection trend against Recurrent Expenditure ... 36
4.6 Unspent Recurrent Grants ................................................................ 37
4.7 Unspent Development Grants ............................................................ 38
4.8 Under collection of Own Sources Revenue ............................................. 39
v
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
CHAPTER FIVE .................................................................................... 42
5.0 ... KEY ISSUES FROM AUDIT OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EVALUATION OF
INTERNAL CONTROL ............................................................................. 42
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 42
5.2 Key issues from evaluation of Internal Control ........................................ 42
5.3 Revenue management ..................................................................... 50
5.4 Cash management .......................................................................... 59
5.5 Human Resources and Payroll Management ............................................ 62
5.6 Expenditure management ................................................................. 83
5.7 Asset Management ........................................................................ 103
5.8 Liabilities and Commitments .......................................................... 106
CHAPTER SIX .................................................................................... 110
6.1 Financial Performance ................................................................... 110
6.2 Capital Development Projects .......................................................... 112
6.3 Under release of funds for implementation of development activities 113
6.4 Physical performance evaluation review ............................................. 114
6.5 Other findings from development projects/programmes ......................... 117
CHAPTER SEVEN ................................................................................ 119
7.0 PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACT MANAGEMENT ...................................... 119
7.1 Introduction ............................................................................... 119
7.2 Overview of the Procurement made during the year .............................. 119
7.3 Compliance with Public Procurement Act, 2011 and its
Regulations of 2013 ................................................................. 120
7.4 Procurement audits results in the Local Government Authorities ............... 120
7.5 Funds deposited at the Medical Stores Department (MSD) ........................ 130
7.6 Inadequate contract management..................................................... 131
7.7
Review of PPRA performance evaluation report for the year
2013/2014 ...................................................................................... 134
CHAPTER EIGHT ................................................................................ 140
8.0 SPECIAL AUDITS ........................................................................... 140
8.1Salient issues raised from Special Audits .............................................. 140
8.2 Lesson Learnt from the Special Audits Conducted During the Year ............. 159
CHAPTER NINE ................................................................................. 161
9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 161
9.1 General Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................... 161
9.2 Recommendations to the Government under Sect 12 of PAA 2008 .............. 167
ANNEXURES ..................................................................................... 174
vi
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Number of auditees ................................................ 7
Table 2: Misstatements in the Financial Statements ................... 10
Table 3: LGAs which revised their financial statements ............... 10
Table 4: Opinion issued during the year .................................. 15
Table 5: Summary of audit opinions issued for four years period
(2010/2011 to 2013/2014) .................................................. 15
Table 6: Summary of implementation of CAG‟s previous years‟
recommendations ............................................................ 21
Table 7: Outstanding matters from individual audit reports .......... 22
Table 8: Trend of outstanding matters on previous year‟s audits .... 22
Table 9: Response rate on special audit reports ........................ 23
Table 10: Special audit reports with Management responses for the
year 2012/2013 .............................................................. 23
year 2011/2012 .............................................................. 23
Table 12: Summary of outstanding matters from special audits for four
consecutive years ............................................................ 24
Table 13: Trend of PMG responses on the recommendation issued by
LAAC ........................................................................... 25
Table 14: Directives issued by LAAC to individual Councils ........... 30
Table 15: Trend of Approved Budget vs Actual Collection ............ 32
Table 16: Trend of Unreleased Recurrent Grants ....................... 34
Table 17: Trend of Unreleased Capital Development Grants ......... 35
Table 18: Trend of Own Source Revenue collected against Recurrent
expenditure ................................................................... 37
Table 19: Trend of unutilized recurrent grants for five consecutive
years ........................................................................... 37
Table 20: Trend of Unutilized Development Grants .................... 39
Table 21: Councils with Under Collection of Property Tax ............ 40
Table 22: Trend of non-installation of Epicor 9.05 for two consecutive
years ........................................................................... 44
Table 23: Missing revenue earning receipts books ...................... 51
vii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Table 24: Unremitted collections from outsourced revenue sources for
four consecutive years ...................................................... 52
Table 25: Revenue from own sources not collected by LGAs ......... 53
Table 26: Revenue collected but not banked............................ 57
Table 27: Trend of outstanding items in bank reconciliation
statements .................................................................... 60
Table 28: LGAs which did not conduct surprise cash survey .......... 61
Table 29: List of LGAs with inadequate staff appraisal ................ 64
Table 30: Unclaimed salaries not remitted to Treasury and late
remittances ................................................................... 65
Table 31: LGAs paid salaries over and above PE Grants Received .... 68
Table 32: List of LGAs showing employees with unrealistic dates of
birth in the Treasury Master Payroll ...................................... 69
Table 33: Summary of deductions not remitted to respective
Institutions .................................................................... 71
Table 34: Missing Acknowledgements for Unclaimed Salaries and
Statutory Deductions paid .................................................. 72
Table 35: LGAs with Salary Advances not recovered ................... 73
Table 36: LGAs with employees not deleted in the master payroll .. 75
Table 37: List of LGAs with employees not confirmed for a long period
................................................................................. 77
Table 38: Outstanding pending legal Cases .............................. 82
Table 39: A comparison showing inadequately supported payments for
two years...................................................................... 84
Table 40: List of LGAs with unvouched expenditure ................... 85
Table 41: A comparison showing unvouched expenditure ............. 86
Table 42: Comparison of LGAs with wrong expenditure coding for two
(2) years ....................................................................... 87
Table 43: List of LGAs with unbudgeted expenditure .................. 88
Table 44: List of LGAs with payments not supported by electronic
fiscal device receipts........................................................ 90
Table 45: List of LGAs with Inter account transfer in a form of loans
not reimbursed ............................................................... 91
viii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Table 46: Inter account transfer in a form of loans not reimbursed
................................................................................. 92
Table 47: List of LGAs with deferred payments ......................... 93
Table 48: List of LGAs with non-deduction of withholding tax ....... 95
Table 49: List of LGAs with payments not pre-audited ................ 96
Table 50: List of LGAs with ineligible expenditures .................... 97
Table 51: List of LGAs with Overdrawn Deposits ........................ 99
Table 52: List of LGAs with uncontrolled payments made from deposit
................................................................................ 101
Table 53: List of LGAs with unapproved payments .................... 102
Table 54: Trend of Outstanding Payables for a period of four
consecutive years ........................................................... 107
Table 55: Summary of status of school infrastructures in Primary and
Secondary schools .......................................................... 109
Table 56: Financial performance for development rojects/programmes
and development activities ............................................... 111
Table 57: Financial performance for Capital Development Projects
(Figures in Millions) ......................................................... 112
Table 58: Under release of funds for implementation of development
project/programmes ....................................................... 113
Table 59: Councils with completed projects with defects............ 115
Table 60: Co-financing of 5% not contributed by the LGA ............ 116
Table 61: Volume of procurement carried out by LGA‟s during the year
................................................................................ 119
Table 62: List of Councils not complied with Public Procurement Act,
2011 and its Regulations of 2013 ......................................... 120
Table 63: Councils with uncompetitive procurement process ....... 121
Table 64: Councils procured goods and service from unapproved
supplier ....................................................................... 122
Table 65: Councils which procured goods and service without Tender
Board approval .............................................................. 123
Table 66: Councils with procured stores not taken on ledger charge124
Table 67: Councils which procured goods and services using imprest
................................................................................ 125
ix
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Table 68: Goods, works and services procured out of the procurement
plan ........................................................................... 126
Table 69: Councils received goods without inspection ................ 127
Table 70: Councils with procured goods but not delivered ........... 128
Table 71: Fuel not recorded in motor vehicle‟s logbooks ............ 129
Table 72: Irregularities noted on contract management........... 132
x
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
National Audit Office of the United Republic of Tanzania
The statutory duties and responsibilities of the Controller and Auditor General are under
Article 143 of the Constitution of the URT of 1977 (revised 2005) and further elaborated
in Sects. 45 and 48 of the Local Government Finances Act No. 9 of 1982 (revised 2000)
and in Sect.10 (1) of the Public Audit Act No. 11 of 2008.
Vision
To be a centre of excellence in public sector auditing
Mission
To provide efficient audit services in order to enhance accountability and value for
money in the collection and use of public resources.
Our Core Values are:
Objectivity: We are an impartial organization, offering services to our clients in an
objective and unbiased manner.
Excellence: We are professionals providing high quality audit services based on best
practices.
Integrity: We observe and maintain high standards of ethical behavior and the rule of
law.
People’s focus: We focus on our stakeholders‟ needs by building a culture of good
customer care and having competent and motivated work force.
Innovation: We are a creative organization that constantly promotes a culture of
developing and accepting new ideas from inside and outside the organization.
© This audit report is intended to be used by Government Officials. However, upon
tabling of this report in Parliament, the report becomes a matter of public record
and its distribution may not be limited.
xi
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
xii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
List of abbreviations
AFROSAI - E
AIDS
African Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions
for English Speaking Countries
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
ASDP
Agricultural Sector Development Programme
BoQ
Bill of Quantities
CAG
Controller and Auditor General
CC
City Council
CDCF
Constituency Development Catalyst Fund
CHF
Community Health Fund
DADPs
District Agricultural Development Programme
DC
District Council
EFD
Electronic Fiscal Device
EGPAF
Elizabeth Glasier Paediatric AIDS Foundation
GIZ
German Cooperation Office
HBF
Health Basket Fund
IFAC
International Federation of Accountants
IFMS
Integrated Financial Management System
INTOSAI
IPSASs
International Organization of Supreme Audit
Institutions
International Public Sector Accounting Standards
ISA
International Standards on Auditing
ISSAIs
IT
International Standards of Supreme Audit
Institutions
Information Technology
LAAC
Local Authorities Accounts Committee
xiii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
LAAM
Local Authorities Accounting Manual, 2009
LAPF
Local Authority Parastatal Fund
LGAs
Local Government Authorities
LGCDG
Local Government Capital Development Grant
LGDG
Local Government Development Grants
LGFA
LGFM
Local Government Finances Act, 1982 (revised
2000)
Local Government Financial Memorandum, 2009
MC
Municipal Council
MoHSW
Ministry of Health and Social Welfare
MSD
Medical Stores Department
NAOT
National Audit Office of Tanzania
NHIF
National Health Insurance Fund
NMSF
National Multi Sectorial Strategic Framework
No.
Number
NSSF
National Social Security Fund
OPRAS
Open Performance Review and Appraisal System
PAA
Public Audit Act, 2008
PEDP
Primary Education Development Programme
PFM
Participatory Forestry Management
PFMRP
Public Financial Management Reform Programme
PHSDP
Primary Health Service Development Programme
(MMAM)
Paymaster General
PMG
PMO-RALG
PMU
Prime Minister‟s Office – Regional Administration
and Local Government
Procurement Management Unit
xiv
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
PO-PSM
President‟s Office Public Service Management
PPA
PPE
Public Procurement Act No.21, 2004 (revised
2005)
Property, Plant and Equipment
PPF
Parastatal Pensions Fund
PPR
Public Procurement Regulations, 2013
PPRA
Public Procurement Regulatory Authority
PSPF
Public Sector Pension Fund
RAS
Regional Administrative Secretary
Reg.
Regulation
Sect.
Section
SEDP
Secondary Education Development Programme
SIDA
Swedish International Development Agency
TASAF
Tanzania Social Action Fund
TC
Town Council
TRA
Tanzania Revenue Authority
ULGSP
URT
Urban Local Government Strengthening
Programme
United Republic of Tanzania
WSDP
Water Sector Development Programme
WYDF
Women and Youth Development Fund
xv
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Foreword
In accordance with my responsibilities as stipulated
under Article 143 of the Constitution of the United
Republic of Tanzania of 1977 and as amplified by
section 34(1) of the Public Audit Act No. 11 of 2008
and section 48 of the Local Government Finances Act
No. 9 of 1982, it is my pleasure to present my Annual
General Report for the year ended 30th June, 2014 in
respect of the audit of Local Government Authorities.
This report presents a compiled version of individual
audit reports of the Local Government Authorities audited for the
financial year ended on 30th June, 2014. The details of summarized
matters can be read from the individual audit reports issued to the
respective Local Government Authorities, Honorable chairpersons and
Accounting Officers of the entities audited.
This financial year‟s audit covered a total of 163 Local Government
Authorities in the country. I am happy to report that all the 163 Local
Government Authority accounts in the country were audited by my office.
This report gives overall audit findings on the state of financial
performance of the Local Government Authorities, their internal controls
and whether they have complied with the laws, regulations and
International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS)-accrual basis of
accounting in the preparation and presentation of the financial
statements at the year end.
The report aims at providing our stakeholders who include, the
Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, the Parliament of the
URT, the Local Government Authorities, the Local Authorities Accounts
Committee of the National Assembly, Judiciary, Development Partners,
Civil Society Organizations and the General Public with a summary of
xvi
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
findings arising from the audit of the Local Government Authorities. We
appreciate the time that key stakeholders have taken to engage with us,
the manner in which they have engaged, and the insights that they have
provided.
Evidence of the effectiveness of this relationship building, and of the
confidence that key stakeholders have in the independence of the NAOT
and the quality of our work can be seen in the flow of requests from
parliamentary committees, members of parliament and public in general
for the conduct of audit work. Those requests also demonstrate that our
work is highly relevant, and that the Parliament looks to us for objective
assurance on financial reporting by Government entities and the
administration of government policies and programs.
I hope that the National Assembly will find the information contained in
this report useful in holding our Government more accountable for its
stewardship of public funds and its delivery of improved public services to
the Tanzanians. In this regard, my focus remains on delivering high
quality and insightful assurance services to Parliament, driving real
improvement in public services. This Annual Report shows that we are
well placed to do so into the future.
Prof. Mussa Juma Assad
CONTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL
Office of the Controller and Auditor General,
National Audit Office,
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
26th March, 2014
xvii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to His Excellency the President of
the URT Prof. Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete for appointing me to be the
Controller and Auditor General of the URT with effect from November,
2014.
Also my sincere appreciation is extended to the former Controller and
Auditor General, Mr. Ludovick S. L. Utouh for steering this office with
utmost professionalism during his term and finally handed it to me. Such
stability enables us to complete all planned audit assignments and to
fulfill my Constitutional obligations.
I also appreciate the respect shown to the office by the key stakeholders
we engage with, including the Parliament and its Oversight Committees
particularly the Local Authorities Accounts Committee (LAAC), and the
Prime Minister‟s Office-Regional Administration and Local Government for
the great effort in insisting on accountability of Public Funds through
instructing every Regional and District Commissioners, Mayors,
Chairpersons and Executive Directors on the implementation of the
auditor‟s recommendations.
I wish to thank all NAOT staff and those who work with us for their skills,
knowledge and dedication, and for the strong support given to me this
year, to allow me to discharge my statutory responsibilities. I am obliged
to thank my family and the families of my staff members for their
tolerance during our long absence from them in fulfilling these
constitutional obligations.
Further, my sincere thanks are extended to the donor community in
particular; the Swedish National Audit Office (SNAO), the Government of
Sweden through SIDA, the World Bank through the PFMRP project,
AFROSAI – E Secretariat, the German Cooperation Office through GIZ who
are carrying a couching work in strengthening the internal control
systems in the Local Government Authorities in the country, and all wellxviii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
wishers who have contributed immensely towards the transformation of
my office. Their contributions in developing human resource, information
technology systems and physical assets have tremendous impact on our
success.
It would be unfair if I did not appreciate the role of media in
disseminating the contents of my reports to the general public.
Lastly but not least, I would like to offer special thanks to the Tanzania
general public whom we ultimately serve. I strongly encourage the
Tanzanian public to always continue demanding and pushing for greater
transparency and accountability on the use of public resources in the
country.
As we acknowledge the contributions of all our stakeholders, also we will
retain our clear commitment and professionalism to quality audit
services, better public administration and better outcomes for Tanzania.
xix
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Executive Summary
The purpose of this General Report is to present a summary of the salient
issues observed during the audit of LGAs for the accounts of 2013/2014.
This part of the report gives an overview of the audit outcomes followed
by highlighting the key findings noted during the course of this year‟s
audit and summary of recommendations.
Highlights of the Audit Outcomes
The statutory audit on the financial statements of the 163 LGAs existing
in the country for the financial year ended 30th June 2014 has been
completed. Summary of the main findings of the audit is contained in this
General Report and details of the same are covered in depth in the
Management Letters issued separately to the respective LGAs.
The number of LGAs has increased from 140 in the last year to 163 in
2013/14. The new LGAs in this year are; Kyerwa DC, Kakonko DC,
Buhigwe DC, Uvinza DC, Nsimbo DC, Mlele DC, Chemba DC, Nyang‟hwale
DC, Mbogwe DC, Butiama DC, Gairo DC, Momba DC, Wanging`ombe DC,
Kalambo DC, Nyasa DC, Msalala DC, Ushetu DC, Ikungi DC, Mkalama DC,
Itilima DC, Busega DC, Bumbuli DC Kaliua DC and Tarime TC. However,
Kahama Dc is no longer in existence after being dissolved to form two
new Councils namely Ushetu DC and Msalala DC.
General trend of audit opinions issued to LGAs
This part aims to analyze the trend of audit opinions issued to LGAs for
the years 2009/10, 2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/2014. Rationale
for this presentation is to determine trends of financial performance and
accountability of LGAs for the period of five years, inclusive of the year
under audit.
Trend of Audit Opinions issued to LGAs for the five consecutive financial
years is as shown below:
xx
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Opinions
Years
2013/14
2012/13
2011/12
2010/11
2009/10
Unqualified
Qualified
Adverse
Total
Total
%
Total
%
13
27
29
56
64
8
19
21
42
48
0
1
0
5
4
0
1
0
4
3
150
112
104
72
66
%
92
80
78
54
49
Disclaimer
Tot
%
al
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
Total
LGAs
163
140
134
133
134
As indicated in the table above, the number of LGAs increased from 140 in
year 2012/13 to 163 in year 2013/14. Despite the increase of 23 LGAs,
there has been a visible improvement in the types of opinions issued to
LGAs. The number of Unqualified Opinions has increased from 112 (80%) in
the year 2012/2013 to 150 (92%) during the year under review. However,
the number of Qualified Opinions has decreased from 27 (19%) in the year
2012/13 to 13 (8%) during the year under review.
There has been improvement as regards to the Adverse Opinion issued
because no LGA has been issued with Adverse Opinion in the year under
review whereas one Adverse Opinion was issued in the year 2012/2013.
Like the situation in the previous year, no LGA was issued with a
Disclaimer of Opinion during the year under review.
What is being depicted above is a demonstration of flexibility in the
improvement registered in the accountability process of LGAs in the
Country.
This achievement has been attained due to the following reasons:(a)
Local Government Reform Programme (LGRP) undertaken in the
Government,
(b)
Seriousness in implementing CAG‟s recommendations and
enforcement on the use of IFMS EPICOR version 9.05 in LGAs.
(c)
Revision of the Financial Statements after being audited and noted
to contain a lot of errors which could have resulted into
xxi
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
misstatements had those errors not corrected and the revised
version of the Financial Statement issued.
Specific trend of audit opinions issued to LGAs
The following has been noted from the trend of audit opinions issued to
LGAs for a period of five years:
(i)
The status of unqualified audit opinions for five years continuously
has been maintained by 22 LGAs, namely; Kisarawe DC, Mufindi DC,
Njombe DC, Biharamulo DC, Missenyi DC, Muleba DC, Hai DC, Same
DC, Siha DC, Lindi DC, Nachingwea DC, Simanjiro DC, Serengeti DC,
Kilombero DC, Ulanga DC, Masasi DC, Newala DC, Tandahimba DC,
Nanyumbu DC, Mtwara MC, Maswa DC and Muheza DC
(ii)
Improvement has been noted in 20 (14%) LGAs whereby qualified
and adverse audit opinions were issued to them in the previous
years but in the current year, they were issued with unqualified
audit opinion. These LGAs include: Arusha DC, Meru DC, Arusha CC,
Mafia DC, Rufiji DC, Chamwino DC, Bukoba MC, Kigoma DC, Kigoma
MC, Rorya DC, Mbozi DC, Magu DC, Misungwi DC, Bukombe DC,
Mpanda TC, Shinyanga DC, Busokelo DC, Shinyanga MC, Bariadi DC
and Pangani DC.
(iii)
Six LGAs equal to 4% have regressed from the previous years where
they were issued with unqualified audit opinions but in the current
year they have been issued with qualified opinions. The LGAs are:
Bukoba DC, Sumbawanga DC, Songea MC, Namtumbo DC, Mbinga
DC, Iramba DC and Kiteto DC.
Improvement in the Local Government Authorities‟ performance is mainly
attributed to the following main reasons:
 Disclosures made in a number of the submitted financial statements
as per the requirements of IPSASs accrual basis of accounting have
registered a remarkable improvement.
xxii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014



There has been a slight improvement in the compliance with the
existing internal control systems, laws and regulations in some LGAs.
The Local Authorities Accounts Committee (LAAC) which is one of the
Parliamentary Oversight Committees entrusted to oversee the accounts
of LGAs has done a commendable job by enforcing accountability to all
Accounting Officers of LGAs who had not demonstrated good
performance in this aspect.
Involvement of Regional Commissioners by making close follow up to
the LGAs‟ Management on the progress in the implementation of the
CAG‟s recommendations. This includes chairing of the Full LGAs‟
meetings to discuss the CAG‟s reports.
Highlights of the salient issues in the current year’s audit of LGAs:
Major irregularities and weaknesses noted during the course of my audit
this year include the following:
Outstanding recommendations
(i)
Individual LGAs reports
140 LGAs had 7474 recommendations made in the year 2012/2013,
amounting to TZS.461,551,894,819. However, 3217 (43%) out of
them were implemented, 2171 (29%) were under implementation
and 2086 (28%) were not implemented. There are also some
qualitative matters which remained outstanding.
Non clearance of long outstanding matters may lead to recurrence
of the same anomalies in the subsequent years which may cause
loss of public resources. In addition, failure by LGAs to act on the
audit recommendations deters the effort to improve internal
control environment and management of LGAs‟ resources.
(ii)
General Report
I have received response to my General Report for the financial
year 2012/2013 from the Government through the Paymaster
xxiii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
General on 5th November, 2014. Review of the responses received
noted that out of 25 recommendations issued in the previous year,
no recommendation was fully implemented, 10 were under
implementation and 15 were not implemented at all.
(iii)
Special Audits
During the previous years‟ audit, various recommendations were
made to six (6) LGAs on major findings raised from special audits
conducted on them. However, out of six (6) LGAs audited,
responses from two (2) LGAs were received and further
investigations are in progress by other responsible organs in
accordance with the requirements of Sect. 27 of the Public Audit
Act, 2008. The remaining four (4) LGAs have not responded to-date.
(iv)
The Local Authorities Accounts Committee (LAAC) report
In coming up with the structured responses on the audit report on
the Financial Statements for the year ended 30th June 2013, which
were presented to the National Assembly in January, 2015 the PMG
did not take into account the LAAC recommendations as required
by Sect. 40 of Public Audit Act No.11 of 2008.
However, up to the time of writing this report (March, 2015), no
responses have been received from the Paymaster General on the
twelve (12) recommendations issued by LAAC. I still recommend
that more efforts and measures be taken by the Government to
ensure all recommendations are appropriately attended for better
performance and accountability of LGAs in the country.
The summary of the LAAC recommendations which were issued are
as follows:
(a)
The Committee revealed existence of agreements which had no
value/interest to the Government (LGAs) because they subjected
the respective LGAs to huge losses as it was learnt in the project of
East African Meat Company, an Investment in Oysterbay Villas and
xxiv
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Collection of parking fees in all LGAs in Dar es Salaam Region
whereby the Committee urged the Government to: Explain thoroughly about how the East African Meat Company
came into existance and how LGAs had benefited from the
unutilized donated contributions.
 Describe in detail the benefits that Kinondoni Municipality has
been earning and will continue to earn from the investment
made in Oysterbay Villas Company.
 Describe strategies designed to promote domestic revenue from
parking fees in all LGAs of Dar es Salaam Region.
(b)
The Committee requested the esteemed Parliament to urge the
Government to explain on her arrangements to strengthen domestic
revenue collection in LGAs in order to improve social services in
their areas.
(c)
The Government was ordered to explain what specific strategy she
has in dealing with the problem of payment of wages to ghost
employees which currently seems to be chronic and featuring
frequently in audit queries and recommendations of the Local
Authority Accounts Committee.
(d)
The Committee requested the Government to explain why LGAs
were not implementing the directive requiring them to contribute
10% of their revenue to Women and Youth Development Fund.
(e)
The Government was urged to give reasons for non-compliance with
laws, regulations and public procurement procedures which is
among the reasons which led to the issuance of many audit queries
to a considerable number of LGAs in the Country.
(f)
The Committee recommended to the Government to strengthen its
revenue collection and exercise control over unnecessary
expenditures such as purchase of luxury cars in the Government in
xxv
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(g)
order for the domestic revenue to contribute to the
accomplishment of development projects which were noted to be
completed late in many LGAs due to delayed release of funds.
The Committee requested the Government to solve the problem of
Shortage of staff in many LGAs particularly Internal Auditors and
lawyers.
(h)
The Government was advised to have specific time to do a research
of public servants who are acting in their posts in order to reduce a
loss in terms of acting allowances which might be caused by them
acting for so long.
(i)
The Government (PMO-RALG) was requested to evaluate herself on
her mechanism she uses to transfer and promote staff who have
been suspended on suspicion of being involved in embezzlement of
funds in some of the LGAs.
(j)
The Committee urged the Government to execute its activities in
line with the existing priorities which are in every annual budget of
the LGA because it was noted that among the factors that affect
financial discipline in the use of funds in the Local Government is
adhoc planning of the Central Government in Local Government
planning.
(k)
The Committee urged the Government to respond on the
Parliamentary Committee issues in writing in order for the
Committee and the Parliament as a whole to be in a better position
to monitor their implementation.
(l)
The Committee recommended to the Parliament that
Government be advised to provide all money needed to fund
Office of National Assembly so that the Parliament and
Committees can discharge their functions more effectively for
benefit of the nation.
xxvi
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
the
the
its
the
Current year’s audit findings
(i)
Improper Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements
Financial Statements by 135 LGAs had various irregularities such as
understatements and overstatements of figures. The magnitude of
the total errors and omissions in the Financial Statements were
understatements by TZS.357,687,188,942 which is equivalent to
11% of the total expenditure and overstatement by
TZS.248,951,299,472
which is equivalent to 8% of the total
expenditure.
The affected LGAs withdrew their Financial Statements and resubmitted revised ones for audit.
(ii)
Analysis of financial performance of LGAs
When reviewing the analysis of financial performance
have noted various weaknesses including the following:




of LGAs, I
163 LGAs budgeted to collect revenue amounting to
TZS.400,389,496,906 from own sources. However, a total of
TZS.353,530,397,453 was collected ending up with under
collection of TZS.46,859,099,453 equivalent to 12%.
Total approved budget for recurrent expenditure in 36 LGAs was
TZS.711,787,702,046 whereas the total exchequer issues
received amounted to TZS.800,149,852,340 resulting into an
over release of
TZS.88,362,150,294.
Total approved budget for development expenditure in 21 LGAs
was TZS.72,595,203,235 as compared with the amount received
of TZS.95,189,886,121 resulting into an over release of
TZS.22,594,682,886.
Total approved budget for recurrent grants in 126 LGAs was
TZS.2,755,118,626,066 whereas the amount released was
TZS.2,337,889,784,223
reflecting
an
under-release
of
TZS.417,228,841,843 equivalent to 15%.
xxvii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014





(iii)
137 LGAs budgeted TZS.743,215,699,222 for development
expenditure during the year under review. However, exchequer
issues received amounted to TZS.431,178,620,091 resulting into
an under-release of TZS.312,037,079,131 equivalent to 42%.
163 LGAs own sources revenue collection amounted to
TZS.353,514,526,384 compared with recurrent expenditure of
TZS.3,264,872,488,097 which is equivalent to 11% implying that
the LGAs cannot sustain their recurrent expenditures without
depending on subsidies from Central Government and Donors.
Recurrent grants spent by 150 LGAs amounted to
TZS.3,111,989,730,119 compared with the recurrent grants
available of TZS.2,982,063,854,808 resulting into unspent
balance of TZS. 129,925,875,311 equivalent to 4%.
157 LGAs had funds amounting to TZS.734,721,779,087 for
implementation of development projects and amount spent
amounted to TZS.531,594,614,629 equivalent to 72% leaving
unspent balance of TZS.203,127,164,458 equivalent to 28%.
10 LGAs collected a total of TZS.2,062,586,013 from Property
Tax against the budget of TZS.2,926,644,042 or 70% reflecting
under collections of TZS.864,058,029 equivalent to 30% of the
total
budget.
Furthermore,
42
LGAs
collected
TZS.14,300,448,911 from produce cess against the budget of
TZS.22,008,697,524 equivalent to 65% reflecting an under
collection of TZS.7,708,248,613 or 35%.
Evaluation of Internal Control System and Governance Issues
 Inefficiencies in accounting system-Epicor Version 9.05
An assessment of effectiveness of Epicor financial management
system and controls in 90 LGAs, revealed that, despite the
recommendation made in the last year‟s audit report, still there
are weaknesses which exist as follows: EPICOR does not align with International Public Sector
Accounting Standards (IPSAS)-accrual basis of accounting
used by LGAs. The EPICOR accounting package operates as a
xxviii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
cash-commitment control tool which captures cash
transactions only and ignores the accrual transactions.
Therefore, to finalize the Council‟s final accounts, manual
adjustments and consolidation of accounts have to be done.

Reconciliations cannot be done with EPICOR computer
installed at the Council, pressing the need for accountants to
travel to Dodoma (PMO-RALG Office) at the end of every
quarter in order to prepare three months reconciliations.
 Currently, PlanRep (an MS Access database application) is
used by LGAs for budget and planning. However, the
information captured in PlanRep has to be re-entered
manually in the General Ledger in EPICOR (financial
management system) due to lack of an automated interface.
 Network problem affects timely generation of reports from
the system.
 Underutilising of the Epicor Accounting Systems in such a way
that assets Management and procurement modules are not
put into use.
 27 LGAs were not installed with Epicor Version 9.05 as a
result they were operating under manual accounting system
 Shortfalls noted in IT control environment
An assessment of IT control environment in 107 LGAs revealed
the following shortcomings: The LGAs have no IT policy which may lead to inadequate
management and handling of IT infrastructure including
computer software and hardware.
 Neither the disaster recovery plan nor disaster recovery tests
were done. In absence of a disaster recovery plan it will be
difficult to restore the system in a timely manner and there
will be no tested sources of data for restoration and no
xxix
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
specific persons responsible for the restoration. This poses a
risk to business continuity of the LGAs.
 There is no formally documented and approved user
management standards and procedures in the organization.
 Insufficient preventive mechanism to ensure that both
Application hardware and application software are
adequately protected through use of equipment like fire
extinguishers, fire suppression system, smoke detectors and
fireproof safe.
 Lack of skilled staff and/or on job training to the existing
staff at the IT Units.

Inadequate performance of Internal Audit Units in LGAs
Evaluation of the effectiveness of Internal Audit Unit in 125
LGAs during the year under review was done and noted the
following weaknesses: There is no continuing capacity building plan in basic
auditing principles and practices, IT skills especially training
in EPICOR and inter personal skills to improve performance
of their duties.
 Insufficient number of staff compared to the workload
available and Geographical location of LGAs hence limiting
the scope of internal audit functions.
 Internal Audit Units in most of the Councils lack transport
facility which is necessary for them to carry out their duties
effectively.
 Non preparation of audit Programme that describes audit
procedures to be performed while executing the planned
audit works.
 Absence of quality review process

Inefficient performance of Audit Committees in LGAs
I evaluated the performance of Audit Committees in 110 LGAs to
assist in their challenging functions to identify good governance,
xxx
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
risk management and internal controls observed. The following
deficiencies were observed:
 The Committees in 35 LGAs failed to meet regularly (at least
once per quarter) resulting into not discharging their
oversight duties effectively.
 The Committees have not reviewed the risk management
policies of LGAs because they were not in place in order to
appropriately address material weaknesses in internal
control environment identified during the year.
 No evidence that the Audit Committees reviewed the
external
auditors‟
Management
Letters
including
management responses.
 Review of the design and implementation of internal control
procedures in LGAs for major areas including assets,
expenditure and revenue management were not undertaken.
 Lack of capacity building to enhance knowledge of Audit
Committee members
 No Audit committees were evidenced to be established in 3
LGAs.

Risk management assessment
Seventy five (75) sampled LGAs had no formally documented
Risk Management Framework as well as recent risk assessment
conducted to identify existing and emerging risks which would
adversely affect service delivery.

Fraud prevention and control
62 LGAs‟ management did not document and approve fraud
prevention plans, and there were no processes put in place by
the LGAs‟ Management to identify and respond to the risk of
fraud.
xxxi
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(iv)
Weaknesses in revenue management from own revenue sources
Proper management of revenue collection from internal revenue
sources of LGAs is still a challenge. A summary of weaknesses
noted in this area for the year under audit include the following:
 A total of 474 revenue receipt books from 47 LGAs were missing
and therefore could not be availed for audit examination.
 54 LGAs had unremitted revenue amounting to
TZS.4,843,414,724 from the Revenue Collecting Agents.
 A total of TZS.17,168,528,904 being own sources revenue was
not collected by 60 LGAs.

Feasibility studies on revenue collections not performed
I noted that LGAs did not conduct feasibility study on all
potential own revenue sources prior to outsourcing them to
collecting agents. In many LGAs, the contracted amount was
based on the previous year reported collection rather than
making an assessment on the capability of the actual collection
that can be obtained from a particular revenue source.
Consequently, there is a high possibility of ending up in a
situation where an agent keeps the significant portion of
revenue collected.
Another problem was inadequate administration and monitoring
of revenue collecting contracts, whereby it was noted some of
the LGAs prepare weakly revenue collecting contracts with
unclear clauses hence making it difficult to enforce the
agreements whenever there is a breach of terms of contract.
This is one of the major reasons for some of the collecting
agents to fail to remitting the agreed amount, or for untimely
payment of the agreed amount.
Other LGAs did not perform evaluation on the outsourced
revenue collection in order to determine whether agents
executed efficiently their responsibilities or to trace and
identify weaknesses and problems they faced in order to rectify
them. It was also noted in some LGAs that other revenue
xxxii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
collecting agents collected own source revenue on behalf of the
LGA without having binding contracts.

Revenue collection totaling TZS.323,231,453 collected by 19
LGAs from various revenue sources were not evidenced to be
banked in the Council‟s bank account.

11 LGAs were found not maintaining a data base or register for
particular type of a source of revenue which is a significant
weakness on controlling, recording and reporting of revenue
collected. This is contrary to Order 23(3) of LGFM, 2009.

A total of TZS.1,197,777,287 was not returned to 32 LGAs by
the Ministry of Lands and Human Settlements being 30%
revenue collected from lands rent which was supposed to be
returned to the respective LGAs according to Paragraph 8 of
Circular No.CBD.171/261/01/148 of 19th November, 2012.
(v)
Inadequate cash management
Management and control of cash are critical in ensuring all cash due
to LGAs are properly collected, banked and recorded. The following
matters were noted in 2013/2014 audit:
 34 LGAs did not either arrange or conduct any surprise checks of
cash in hand.
 19 LGAs were noted to have not set a maximum limit for cash
holding.
(vi)
Weaknesses noted in expenditure management
It is a best practice to exercise controls over expenditure systems
in order to ensure that, all expenses incurred are correctly paid,
recorded and reflect a reality. Specific matters identified in the
2013/2014 audit include:-
xxxiii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014

80 LGAs made payments which were not properly supported
(improperly vouched expenditure) with a total amount of
TZS.3,878,602,680.

20 out of 163 audited LGAs made payments totalling
TZS.756,730,755 whereby their respective payment vouchers
were not made available for audit purposes, hence limiting the
scope of my audit.

Total payments aggregating to TZS.2,385,712,357 were charged
to wrong expenditure codes in 47 LGAs without prior approval of
the Full Council for reallocation which is contrary to Para 15.7
of the LAAM, 2010.

There were unbudgeted expenditures made in 26 LGAs to cater
for various activities while there were no funds budgeted for
such expenditures which is contrary to Order 23 (1) of LGFM of
2009.

22 LGAs made payments amounting to TZS.4,638,581,282 for
acquisition of goods and services without demanding electronic
fiscal device receipts. This is contrary to Section 29(4) of Value
Added Tax Act 1997, CAP 148 (as amended by Finance Act 2010)

A total amount of TZS.1,806,854,285 was paid by 28 LGAs as
Inter account transfers in a form of loans but was noted to have
not been refunded to the lender accounts as at the time of
audit.
xxxiv
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014

Payments totaling TZS.1,047,563,266 were made by 35 LGAs to
settle previous year's liabilities. However, no evidence was
availed to
justify if the payments formed part of the
2012/2013 creditors. This is contrary to Order 22(1) of LGFM,
2009.

15 LGAs made payments to suppliers of goods and services
without
deducting
withholding
tax
amounting
to
TZS.207,587,326 contrary to Section 83A of the Income Tax Act,
2004 (Revised 2008)

Payments amounting to TZS.1,047,693,784 were noted in 22
LGAs to have been authorized before being pre-audited which is
contrary to Order 10(2) of LGFM, 2009.

18 LGAs effected payments amounting to TZS.669,549,213 which
were provided for specific activities but incurred for
implementation of other activities not initially planned for.

Nugatory expenditure are payments made by an entity such as
demurrage charges, penalties/interests for failure to comply
with contractual obligations and the like from which the LGA in
particular has received no value. During the year under review,
a total of TZS.81,583,979 was paid by Dar es Salaam CC being
interest charged on late payment of land rent for failure to
impose land rent on time and remit it to the Permanent
Secretary, Ministry of Land and Human Settlement
Development; TZS.45,000,000 was paid by Mpanda TC as
compensation after losing in civil Cases No. 12/2010 and
No.2/2011 and likewise TZS.50,595,450 was paid by Mwanza CC
as compensation and damage for breach of contract in Civil
case Nos. 42 of 2011, 93 of 2003 and 1 of 2010 after the case
being decided against the Council.
xxxv
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(vii)

Examination of payment vouchers and relevant supporting
documents together with deposit registers for the year
2013/2014 revealed that, a sum of TZS.613,295,522 was paid by
5 LGAs from the deposit accounts to meet various expenditures
without having favourable balances meaning that other deposit
items were overdrawn by that amount.

There were uncontrolled payments made by 15 LGAs from
deposit accounts totaling TZS.4,496,504,235 whereby there was
no receipt numbers quoted as evidence showing that funds were
initially deposited to meet such expenditures which is contrary
to para 5.19 of Local Authority Accounting Manual of 2009.

13 LGAs effected payments amounting to TZS.1,090,890,518
from various accounts for implementation of activities which
were not approved by relevant authorities

Three (3) LGAs namely; Longido DC, Momba DC and Kalambo DC
had various errors, omissions, non-disclosures, and improper
disclosures which led to misstatements of their Financial
Statements.

The Financial Statements together with their supporting
schedules for the year ended 30th June, 2014 disclosed
outstanding
payables
in
146
LGAs
amounting
to
TZS.136,773,783,996 which had not yet been cleared as at the
year.
Assets Management
Asset management is a systematic process of operating,
maintaining, monitoring, upgrading, and disposing of assets in a
cost-effective manner with the objective of providing the best
possible service and derive economic benefits for LGAs. Review of
xxxvi
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
asset management processes in
deficiencies as illustrated below:

the
LGAs,
noted
various
Non maintenance of non-current assets registers and review of
residual value and useful life
24 LGAs did not properly maintain and update their non-current
assets register to ensure all relevant information is recorded
therein. This is contrary to Order 103 (1) and (2) of LGFM, 2009. In
addition, residual value and useful life of non-current assets in
respect of 28 LGAs were not reviewed contrary to the requirement
of IPSAS 17 paragraph 67.

Grounded and un-serviceable non-current assets
27 LGAs disclosed existence of 117 motor vehicles, 13 trucks, 9
plants and 5 motor cycles which were not road worthy, grounded
for a long time and unserviceable without identifying and disposing
them off. This is contrary to Order 45 (1) of Local Government
Financial Memorandum (LGFM), 2009 and IPSAS 21 paragraph No.26.

Property, Plant and Equipment and other financial assets lacking
ownership documents
Property, Plants and Equipment and other financial assets relating
to 27 LGAs lacked evidence of ownership which resulted into failing
to obtain assurance on their existence, ownership, accuracy and
validity despite reporting them in the LGAs financial statements.

Outstanding receivables and prepayments
Receivables represent the amounts that are owed to an entity,
whilst prepayments represent payment in excess of expenditure for
the period. Major components of debtors in most of the LGAs
include; various prepayments, account receivable from revenue
collecting agents, staff advances and imprest and Women and
Youth loans.
xxxvii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Review of LGAs financial statements and their supporting schedules
disclosed outstanding receivables in 161 LGAs amounting to
TZS.141,648,528,746 which had not been collected.
(viii) Liabilities and Commitments
It is important to maintain good reputation and harmony between
LGAs, staff and suppliers of goods and services through settlement
of creditors in time hence creating confidence to staff and the
society they serve.
161
LGAs
had
outstanding
payables
amounting
to
TZS.143,833,939,924 which had not yet been cleared as at the year
end.
LGAs with huge amounts include; Kinondoni MC
(TZS.7,370,078,653), Ilala MC (TZS.6,810,999,712), Dar es Salaam
CC (TZS.3,514,332,000), Tabora MC (TZS.3,495,068,232) and Bunda
DC (TZS.3,384,285,000)
(ix)

Other observations
37 LGAs did not transfer a total amount of TZS1,431,370,129 to
villages to cover the revenue gaps of the abolished taxes as
directed.
Shortage of physical infrastructure and Teachers in Primary and
Secondary Schools
The main task of schools is to provide education which involves a
series of programmes and activities. The successful conduct of
these programmes and activities depends mainly upon the
availability of proper infrastructure in the school. The term
'Physical Infrastructure' stands for the physical facilities of the
school. It refers to buildings, playing grounds, furniture and
apparatus along with equipment essential for imparting education.
Assessment on the performance of education sector for LGAs
particularly at Primary and Secondary Schools noted that, there is
significant shortage of school infrastructures both in Primary and
Secondary schools. In addition I noted both Schools having a
shortage of teachers which greatly affects quality of education.
xxxviii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(x)


Weaknesses in Human Resource management and payroll
controls
There are challenges which still exist in human resource
management and controls in most LGAs requiring management‟s
attention. As reported in the previous years, even in this year,
various weaknesses were noted including the following:
17 LGAs had no efficient and adequate Open Performance Review
and Appraisal conducted during the year under review contrary to
Order D.42, D.62 and D.63 of the Standing Orders for the Public
Service of 2009. Absence or inadequate performance evaluation
results into ineffective mechanism for monitoring performance and
implementation.
Non maintenance and updated employees registers
During review
I noted that, 5 LGAs namely; Bariadi, Hanang,
Kakonko, Maswa and Ushetu District LGAs had not adequately
maintained employee registers. As a result, Treasurers through
salaries sections had not been updated with employees‟
information leading to payments of salaries to employees who are
no longer in service. This is contrary to Order 79 (1) of LGFM, 2009.

Unclaimed salaries amounting to TZS.1,140,329,769 in respect of 33
LGAs were not remitted to Treasury. Likewise, salaries totaling
TZS.1,348,490,740 were remitted late after expiration of fourteen
days contrary to Order 79 (6) of LGFM, 2009.

A total of TZS.1,009,605,195 in 36 LGAs was paid as salaries to
absconded, deceased, retired and dismissed employees. This is a
reflection of non-compliance with the requirements of Order 79 (8)
of the LGFM, 2009.
In addition, a sum of TZS.845,445,888
pertaining to 32 LGA was paid as deductions to different
institutions such as Pension Funds, Financial Institutions, NHIF and
TRA in respect of the same employees.
xxxix
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014

A comparison made between actual salaries paid and actual
exchequer issues received for Personal Emolument for the financial
year 2013/2014 in respect of 8 sampled LGAs revealed that, there
was under release of TZS.292,402,808. Likewise, there was an over
release of TZS. 74,097,073 pertaining to 3 LGAs which was
supposed to be refunded to Treasury though no evidence was
availed indicating that the refund was effected.

Apart from the same issue of unrealistic birth dates being reported
in the prior years, the same has recurred in the year under review
whereby 24 LGAs were tested and revealed that, birth dates of 623
employees in the master payroll were unrealistic because they
were recorded as 1/02/1960 for 21 employees of Arusha DC and
birth dates for five employees in Tandahimba DC appeared as
7/1/1900. This is a decrease in number of employees with
unrealistic dates when compared with 2,345 employees reported in
15 LGAs for the year 2012/2013. Despite the decrease, there is an
increase in number of LGAs reported from 15 to 24 which implies
that, controls have not been strengthened to eliminate this
anomaly.

A review of 11 LGAs showed that, deductions amounting to
TZS.230,162,686 were not remitted to the respective Institutions
such as LAPF, PSPF, NSSF, PPF and TRA. In addition, it was noted
that Kahama TC and Sumbawanga DC did not even deduct statutory
amounts due from their employees‟ salaries amounting to
TZS.34,916,000 and TZS.25,995,600 respectively.

A sum of TZS.689,921,538 in respect of unclaimed salaries
surrendered to Treasury through RAS offices and statutory
deductions to the respective institutions by 16 LGAs was not
supported by with acknowledgement receipts for the amounts paid.
This is contrary to Section 78 (5) of the Public Finance Regulations,
G.N. No. 132 of 2001
xl
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014

16 LGAs had outstanding salary advances of TZS.286,032,964 as
compared to TZS.520,484,151 for 25 LGAs in the year 2012/2013
and TZS.312,089,918 for 10 LGAs which were not recovered in the
financial year 2011/2012. Existence of outstanding salary advances
for the three years consecutively is contrary to Order 41 (1) of
LGFM, 2009 and indicates inadequate follow up by the LGAs‟
management.

A total of 340 persons who were no longer in the public service
from 14 sampled LGAs were still appearing in the payroll. This is a
decrease compared with 510 terminated employees reported in 6
LGAs in the year 2012/2013. The reason for non-deletion of the
names was lack of timely updating of employee register and prompt
communication between LGAs and the Treasury for immediate
action before salaries were paid.

Audit of 102 LGAs noted that, establishment showed the
requirement of staff was 263,814 but the actual number available
was 200,915 resulting into a shortage of 62,899 staff equivalent to
24% of the required number.
LGAs with extreme shortage were Babati DC (55%) followed by
Nyasa DC (53%) and Kyerwa DC (46%). Also, out of ten leading
LGAs, seven (7) were the newly established ones which are Nyasa
DC (53%), Kyerwa DC (46%), Buhigwe DC (45%), Mkalama DC (43%),
Kaliua DC (43%), Uvinza DC (41%) and Busokelo DC (40%).


5188 employees in 19 LGAs had not been confirmed for more than
two years without formal notification to extend their confirmation
period. This is contrary to Standing order Nos. D.40, D.43 and D.45
(1) of Standing Orders for Public Service of 2009.
65 LGAs reviewed disclosed that, 464 staff were working in an
acting capacity as either Heads of Department, Units or even
xli
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Accounting Officers for more than six months contrary to Standing
Order D24 (3) of 2009. In addition, 19 Posts in 11 LGAs were vacant
for the whole year.
Further scrutiny noted that, the newly established LGAs were on
the lead in having a large number of acting Heads of Department
and Units as compared to the existing LGAs. For instance, among
the required 19 Heads of Department and Units as per PMO-RALG
organization structure, Tarime TC in Mara Region and Kaliua DC in
Tabora Region had 16 and 15 acting staff respectively.

(xi)


A review of 4 LGAs namely; Arusha CC, Longido, Meru and
Chamwino District LGAs had 19, 11, 8 and 3 employees respectively
who did not take their annual leave for a period exceeding two
years. The Finance Department was noted to have many employees
who did not go on annual leave contrary to paragraph H.1 (1) of the
Standing Order for Public Service, 2009. Reasons given among
others were shortage of human resources compared with the work
load.
Environmental Issues
Paragraph 101 of the National Environmental Policy, 1997
acknowledges that, Local Government Authorities are the
determining factor in fulfilling the environmental policy objectives
since so many of the environmental problems and solutions have
their roots in Local Authorities.
In this year‟s audit, different weaknesses on environmental
management in 32 LGAs were noted and some of them are as
summarized below:7 LGAs did not identify types of projects requiring environmental
assessment and audit before implementation.
5 LGAs did not establish efficiently functioning of Standing
Committee on Economic Affairs Works and Environment.
xlii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014



(xii)
There was increase in firewood/charcoal harvesting for domestic
and commercial use without adequate measures being taken to
establish and expand reforestation accompanied by sensitization on
the use of alternative sources of energy.
Lack of working facilities for implementation of environmental
activities like dumps, garbage collection vehicle and garbage
collection points/containers.
Inadequate understanding and participation of community on
protection and management of Environment.
Litigations against LGAs which may affect sustainability of
service delivery
A sample of 39 LGAs showed that, they will still go on suffering
from contingent liabilities amounting to TZS.40 billion resulting
from 250 pending litigations as compared with TZS.74 billion
reported on 78 LGAs in the year 2012/2013. Furthermore, it was
noted that many of these pending legal cases are the result of
termination of contracts between LGAs and contractors and land
disputes. Mbeya and Dar es Salaam Cities were leading with many
cases among the sampled LGAs with 35 and 33 court cases
respectively.
(xiii) Audit of development projects/programmes
LGAs implement their projects/programmes/activities by using own
sources revenue and grants from the Government and Donors as
well as from community contributions.
During the financial year 2013/2014 LGAs implemented various
development projects financed under Local Government Capital
Development Grant (LGCDG), Primary Health Sector Development
Programme (PHSDP), Primary Education Development Programme
(PEDP), Secondary Education Development Programme (SEDP),
Urban Local Government Strengthening Programme (ULGSP),
Participatory Forestry Management (PFM), Woment and Youth
xliii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Development Fund (WYDF), Community Health Fund (CHF),
National Multsectoral Strategic Framework (NMSF), Elizabeth Glaser
Pediatric AIDS Foundations (EGPAF) and Constituency Development
Catalyst Fund (CDCF).
Other projects which were implemented by LGAs were through
TASAF, HBF, ASDP, WSDP and Roads Fund. Physical and financial
performance evaluations of these projects were reported in the
separate General Report for Development Projects. The financial
performance of projects implemented by LGAs was as follows:

Financial Performance of Development Projects/Programme
I made an assessment of financial performance in some of the LGAs
and noted that, the assessed LGAs had a total amount of
TZS.102,697,992,948 for implementation of various Development
Projects/Programmes and other development activities. As at 30th
June 2014, there was unspent balance of TZS.29,177,817,748
equivalent to 28% of the available funds.

157 LGAs had TZS.718,749,785,161 total funds available to carter
for Capital Projects. However, the amount spent as at 30th June,
2014 was TZS.532,156,786,062 leaving unspent balance of TZS
186,592,999,099 equivalent to 26% of the available funds.

20 LGAs had a budget of TZS.29,584,847,175 for implementation of
development projects under PHSDP, NMSF, PEDP, SEDP, PFM and
LGCDG. However, amount released was TZS.7,724,013,217 resulting
into under release of TZS.21,860,833,958 equivalent to 74%

Planned project activities valued at TZS.6,182,097,810 in a sample
of selected of 42 LGAs in respect of LGDG, CDCF, PHSDP, SEDP
PEDP and NSFM were not implemented at all during the year under
review despite the availability of funds.
xliv
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014

A review made on physical implementation of Development
Projects (CDCF, LGDG, PHSDP and SEDP) in 68 LGAs noted a delay
in the completion of various projects worth TZS.14,942,868,731
which were mainly facilitated by inadequate planning and
supervision of projects, late release of funds from the financers and
non-availability of community contributions.

An assessment on physical implementation of Construction Projects
in 11 LGAs was noted to have various defects including, execution
of substandard works, skipping of BOQ items during constructions,
usage of material of a type and quality not agreed in the original
contracts and constructions of structures contrary to agreed
specifications and approved drawings.

Para 3.3 of LGCDG Implementation and Operations Guide 1st release
of July 2005 requires LGAs to provide co-financing corresponding to
a minimum of 5% of the CDG amount received. However, a sample
of 7 LGAs tested did not meet the co-financing conditions during
the year 2013/2014.
(xiv) Other findings from Development Projects/Programmes
 Review of operational performance of the Revolving Fund in 104
LGAs noted that they did not contribute to the Fund a total of
TZS.38,741,094,214 equivalent to 10% of their own source revenue.

41 LGAs had not recovered loans issued to Woman and Youth
Development Fund amounting to TZS.1,426,955,884 despite the
contracts due dates to have elapsed.
(xv)
Procurement and contract management
Procurement is a process involving buying, purchasing, renting,
leasing or acquiring any goods, services, works or consultancy by a
procuring entity, selection and invitation of tenders and
preparation and award of Contracts as defined by Section 3(b) (iii)
xlv
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
of the Public Procurement Act No. 7 of 2011. Given the fact that
huge amount of Government resources is used for procurement of
goods, services, works and consultancy, it is therefore important
that financial discipline and transparency throughout procurement
process are observed by LGAs in order to achieve optimal level of
value for money.

The total expenditure incurred for procurements in 162 LGAs during
the year amounted to TZS.1,190,156,489,276 which is an increase
of 14% compared with expenditure incurred on procurements of
TZS.1,043,364,884,514 during the year 2012/2013 in 140 LGAs. Out
of the total expenditure incurred during the year,
TZS.447,611,014,199 equivalent to 38% were for the procurement
of supplies and consumables, TZS.176,441,034,463 (15%), for
maintenance expenses and TZS.566,104,440,614 (47%) were for
assets and construction works.

In accordance with Section 48(3) of the Public Procurement Act
No.7 of 2011, I am required to state in my annual audit report
whether or not the audited entity has complied with the provisions
of the law and its Regulations. In regard to this responsibility, I
noted that out of 163 LGAs 127, LGAs equivalent to 78%
satisfactorily compiled with the procurement law, while 36 LGAs
(22%) did not satisfactorily comply.

I noted during the year under review that procurements without
competitive bidding have decreased by 54% from 13 LGAs reported
in the previous year to 6 LGAs. Likeweze, the total amount incurred
in the previous year of TZS.254,040,434 has decreased by 30% to
TZS.176,919,303 reported in the current year.

A trend of goods and services procured by LGAs from unapproved
suppliers decreased by 27% from 26 LGAs reported in the previous
year to 19 LGAs revealed during the year. The decrease in number
of LGAs has a positive correlation in the movement of reported
amount as the reported amount of goods and services procured
xlvi
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
from unapproved suppliers fall by 58% from TZS.755,813,087 to
TZS.318,160,711 indicating that there is a satisfactory improvement
in procurement procedures involving procuring goods from
approved suppliers.

Goods and services procured without Tender Board approval
decreased by 50% from 16 LGAs reported in the previous year in 8
LGAs . Despite the LGAs decrease by 50%, the reported figure also
decreased from TZS.344,129,357 reported in previous year to
TZS.201,377,615 in the current year, implying that there is a
positive progress of about 41% towards ensuring that procurements
are approved by Tender Board.

LGAs reported to have stores purchased but not taken on ledger
charge increased by 35% from 18 LGAs reported in the previous year
to 28 LGAs reported during the year whereas the amount reported
decreased by 24% from TZS.665,721,997 to TZS.504,297,029
implying that the current status of goods procured and taken on
ledger charge is somehow satisfactory which require LGAs
management to continuing making follow up on ensuring there is
accountability on goods procured.

22 LGAs paid a total amount of TZS.323,716,079 as imprests to
various officers for procurement of goods and services above the
obligatory limit set out in Reg. 166 and the Seventh Schedule of the
PPR, 2013. This practice encourages violation of public
procurement process with fundamental principles of transparency,
competition, economy, efficient, fairness and accountability of
public funds.

A test check on 7 sampled LGAs revealed that goods, works and
services worth TZS.4,237,790,791 were procured out of the annual
procurement plan contrary to Regulation 69(3) of PPR, 2013. This
practice is fruitless for successful results to the Government to
xlvii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
achieve procurement objectives and deliver best value for money
over the whole life cycle of goods and services. Also, this practice
contributes to unplanned procurement activities and uncompetitive
procurements.

Goods worth TZS.338,994,365 procured in 7 LGAs were not
inspected by Acceptance and Inspection Committee contrary to
Regulations 244 and 245 of PPR, 2013. This practice creates a
possibility of procuring goods of low standard with high value
without following specifications provided in the contract.

Goods worth TZS.156,710,739 ordered and paid for in 7 LGAs were
not delivered which is an increase of 4% compared with goods
worth TZS.150,649,237 ordered and paid but not delivered in the
previous year. This practice is contrary to Order 70 of the Local
Government Financial Memorandum of 2009. Although this problem
appears to grow at a slower pace, but there is a need of putting
more efforts to ensure that this problem is eliminated in order to
save public money.

Purchased fuel valued at TZS.300,397,825 by 15 LGAs during the
period under review was not recorded in the vehicles logbook
contrary to Order 89 (3) of the Local Government Financial
Memorandum of 2009 which requires logbook for each journey to
record the date and time of use, the start and end destination, the
start and finish kilometer reading, the total kilometer travelled and
any fuel or oil obtained for the vehicles.

162 LGAs closed with a balance of TZS.12,039,486,805 being stock
of medicines and medical supplies not received from MSD. This
situation accelerated the LGAs to procure from private suppliers at
higher prices compared to a given price list from MSD. As a result,
this practice discredits the purpose for establishing MSD. A
Comparison of previous year reported balance of stock due to LGAs
shows an increase of 20% from TZS.10,051,646,850 reported in the
xlviii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
previous year to TZS.12,039,486,805 indicating that, there is
inadequate improvement in service delivery to their major
customers (LGAs) which creates doubt about MSD as a going
concern.
(xvi) Results of special audits
 Salient issues raised from Special Audits
During the year under review, six (6) special audits were conducted
which include; Mbinga DC, Ilala MC, Kinondoni MC, Mwanza CC,
Bariadi DC, and Mbozi DC. Salient issues emanating from special
audits are given hereunder:
Procurement management
The following weaknesses were noted in this area which include:
 Procurement made without being incorporated in the budget
 Lack of Inspection and Acceptance Committees.
 Procurements of goods by cash
 Procurement without approval of the Tender Board
 Procurements made from unapproved suppliers
 Implementation of projects activities not in the annual
procurement plan
Contract management
 Non-performance of post-qualification assessment being among
the evaluation criteria.
 Advance payment made to contractors to facilitate mobilization
of equipments which were not found at site.
 Substandard work related to construction works
 The Council selected the contractor who was in Class V instead
of the required Class IV.
 Slow pace in the implementation of project.
 Missing Tender documents
 Contracts entered into prior to conducting feasibility study
xlix
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014

Weaknesses in preparation and evaluation of tender documents
Expenditure management
 Fraudulent payments of subsistence and extra duty allowance
 Inter account transfers in a form of loans not refunded
 Settlement of creditors who were not identified and disclosed in
the creditors control register
 Missing expenditure supporting documents
 Missing payment vouchers
 Transfer of funds without approval of the Finance Committee
 Diversion of funds without approval from the relevant
authorities
 Salaries paid to casual laborers without contract agreements
Revenue management

Revenue collections not confirmed to have been remitted to
the Council by Revenue Collecting Agents.

Penalties not charged to revenue collecting agents for a delay
in remitting revenue collections to the LGAs


Missing revenue receipt books

Revenue collected from rental charges were below compared
with the market price that prevailed by then

By-laws governing own source revenue collections were not
updated
Rates charged for collection of property tax were below the
rates approved by LGAs.
Internal control system
 Inefficient performance of Audit Committees
l
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014


Inefficient performance of Internal Audit Units
Inefficient performance of Legal Office Units
Human resources management
The following weakness was noted in this area:
The Head of Finance Department frequently delegated his
responsibilities to the Expenditure Accountant even if he was in the
office.
(xvii) As evidenced above, special audit carried out in five (5) LGAs out of
six (6) revealed that, there was inadequate management of
contracts which did not take into consideration the aspect of “Best
Value for Money” and “the Interest of LGAs”. In this case the LGAs
either failed to deliver intended service timely or caused to incur
huge losses which could be avoided if the contracts were properly
managed. For instance, during the special audit in Mbozi DC, I
noted a case whereby the Council issued letters of acceptance to
revenue collecting agents instead of entering into formal contract
agreements. Also, in the special audit conducted in Kinondoni MC, I
noted cases whereby the Council incurred a big loss for the
contract entered with the investor due to inadequate preparations
for evaluation criteria to be used to obtain investors who meet
interests of the Council.
(xviii) I noted that there was inadequate recording of stores items due to
the fact that the final utilization records were not availed for audit
which again restricted the scope of my audit. For instance, a
special audit conducted in Mbinga DC where procurement of fuel
and foodstuffs was not confirmed to be utilized due to absence of
final utilization records.
li
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(xix)
Lessons Learned from the Special Audits Conducted in
2013/2014:
Internal Control System
Responsibility for instituting and overseeing the system of internal
control as per Order 11 through 14 of the LGFM, 2009 rests with the
Management of the respective LGAs.
It is notable that there are major weaknesses in the LGAs
management on the deployment and management of a consistent
Internal Control System. This situation has led the LGAs
Management to be involved in one way or another in overriding the
system of internal control; some of the indicators are as follows:
 Laxity of LGAs‟ managements in securing and safeguarding
accountable documents which of limitted the scope of my audit.

Despite the existence of internal controls, some LGAs
Management lack integrity; this could be the main reason for
the widely reported instances of insufficient management of
public funds which leads to their misappropriation.

LGAs Treasurers have the responsibility of ensuring and
overseeing all matters pertaining to finances and their
respective controls as well as managing the Finance
Department. The situation has been different in the audited
LGAs; for example, in all audited LGAs except Mbinga DC, I
noted failure of revenue collecting agents to remit revenue as
agreed in the contract of which one of the reason was nonperformance of feasibility study.
Irregularities in the Procurement and Contracts management
Procurement Management Unit in collaboration with user
departments are responsible for managing all procurement issues
and due consideration should be given to the following:
(a) Best Value for Money,
(b) Fairness, integrity and transparency,
lii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(c) Effective competitive tendering,
(d) The interest of the Procuring entity.
Budget Management
The budget is a key tool for effective financial management and
control, reflecting the financial characteristics of an entity's plans
for the forthcoming period, and is the central component of the
process that provides the oversight of the financial dimensions of
an entity.
Following the special audit conducted, I noted that there was
ineffective budgetary control since out of the six (6) special audits,
four (4) LGAs incurred expenditure out of approved budget. Also,
the special audit conducted in Mwanza CC, there was a case where
payments were charged to wrong expenditure codes which also
affected budget performance.
Summary of recommendations
Apart from the detailed recommendations issued to the
management of every LGA through the issued management letters,
for this year of audit, I have the following recommendations:
(a) LGAs/PMO-RALG and Ministry of Finance are advised to consider
budget as a guiding tool and any adjustments should follow
established laws and regulations including resubmission of
estimates for supplementary budget to the Parliament.
(b) As recommended in prior years, the budget process needs to be
re-assessed in all stages to come up with adequate objectives and
priorities that can be attained, monitored and evaluated on a
timely basis. If there are significant deviations corrective
measures have to be taken.
liii
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(c) The Central Government is advised to continue releasing both
recurrent and development funds timely to LGAs while LGAs are
urged to increase utilization of funds received late by allocating
funds according to priorities in the budget and action plan and
close monitoring and supervision on implementation of planned
activities to reduce the level of unspent balance at the year end.
(d) LGAs are advised to analyze and evaluate collectability of sources
of revenue available in their localities which will enable adequate
monitoring of outsourced revenue contracts and reduce non
remittance of amount contracted. In addition, LGAs have to
conduct regular supervision on outsourced revenue contracts and
identify any indicator of defaulting before the tenure of the
contract period expires.
(e) LGAs are advised to strengthen controls over revenue collected
including regular checks and reconciliations and adequate
documentation of all books used for revenue collection to
mitigate any possibility of late banking and utilization of revenue
collected before banking.
(f) As recommended in the previous year, LGAs are urged to continue
planning and reviewing strategies for widening revenue base and
decrease the existing dependence level on the Central
Government financing.
(g) I recommend to management of LGAs to strengthen review
mechanism for employees‟ records by updating them regularly
through involvement of Heads of Department and Units. In
addition, information on employees sent by LGAs to Treasury and
PO-PSM need to be acted upon in a timely manner to avoid loss of
public money through payment of salaries to ghost workers.
liv
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(h) LGAs in collaboration with PO-PSM are advised to adequately plan
on the reduction of acting officers by either appointing acting
officers or new officers with qualifications to head the posts and
also fill the vacant posts.
(i) I recommend to LGAs to enhance controls over payments such as
having an efficient pre-audit units and budget officers for
thorough examination of payments before they are effected. In
addition, an officer has to be assigned for custody of payment
documents other supporting documents so as to assist in
validation of payments and proving audit trail.
(j) LGAs/PMO-RALG and Treasury are advised to consider preparing
comprehensive IPSAS policies on treatment of items reported in
the financial statements which will be updated from time to
time.
(k) LGAs and PMO-RALG are advised to continue training not only
accountants but also other staff like Heads of Department and
Units on preparation of IPSAS compliant financial statements
which will enable adequate documentation of important
information and data needed for preparation of financial
statements.
(l) I recommend to LGAs to strengthen Tender Boards and
Procurement Management Units in order to increase their
compliance level with Procurement Legislations through training
them and other stake holders and ensure there is adequate
staffing with appropriate procurement qualifications.
(m)
I recommend to management of LGAs to enhance efficient
record keeping for important documents in respect of
procurement like tender documents, tender board minutes,
contract documents, evaluation reports, stores ledgers and the
like.
lv
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(n) LGAs are advised to involve targeted communities at all levels of
project planning and implementation which will not only
encourage participation in implementation of the project but also
for sustainability purposes. Contracts should be closely supervised
for timely completion and with expected quality and thereafter
be put into use to allow realization of the intended benefits.
(o) As recommended in the prior year, Councils‟ Engineers, Planning
Officers, Internal Auditors and Inspection Committees within the
LGAs are required to strengthen routine monitoring and
evaluation system to ensure that projects are efficiently
implemented and take action to contractors who performed
below standards including reporting them to the Contractor‟s
Registration Board for disciplinary action.
(p) LGAs are required to transfer amounts required to Women and
Youth Funds and supervise groups and individuals through
sensitization on the importance of the revolving fund which in
turn can enhance timely recovery of the outstanding loans already
issued. Other stakeholders also be included in sensitizing
beneficiaries of these funds like the Councillors.
lvi
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
CHAPTER ONE
1.0
BACKGROUND AND GENERAL INFORMATION
1.1
Audit mandate, responsibility of CAG and audit objectives
1.1.1 Audit Mandate
This report is issued in accordance with provisions of Article 143 of
the Constitution of the URT, and Sect. 45(1) of the LGFA No. 9 of
1982 (Revised 2000) together with Sect. 10(1) of the Public Audit
Act No.11 of 2008, which requires the CAG to be a statutory auditor
of all Government revenue and expenditure, including revenue and
expenditure of LGAs.
Pursuant to Article 143(2) (c) of the Constitution of the URT, I am
required to audit at least once in every year, and submit an audit
report on the financial statements of the Government of the URT;
financial statements prepared by all officers of the Government of
the URT; financial statements of all Courts of the United Republic
and financial statements prepared by Clerk of the National
Assembly.
Furthermore, Sect. 45(5) of the LGFA No.9 of 1982 (Revised 2000)
gives the CAG the authority to check any cash, investments or other
assets in the possession of the Local Government Authority and to
have access at all times to all its accounts and all books, vouchers
and papers relating to them.
Moreover, Sect. 48(1), (2) and (4) of the LGFA No. 9 of 1982
requires the CAG to prepare and sign a report on the LGAs accounts
and the annual balance sheet (Statement of Financial Position) and
statement or abstract, and one copy of each of the report together
with the annual balance sheet and statement or abstract or a copy
of it shall be sent to the Minister, Regional Commissioner and the
Director who is required to table the same before the Full Council.
1
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
The same section requires the CAG to draw attention to every item
of expenditure charged in the accounts which is not authorized by
law or which has not been sanctioned by the LGA. The CAG shall
also draw attention to any deficiency or loss incurred by negligence
or misconduct of any person and to any sum which was supposed to
have been brought to account by that person, but has not been
done.
The submitted financial statements of the LGAs were prepared in
compliance with IPSASs-accrual basis of accounting and Part (iv) of
the LGFA No. 9 of 1982 (Revised 2000), and in accordance with the
provisions of Order 31 (4) of LGFM, 2009 which is the applicable
reporting framework for LGAs. A complete set of financial
statements prepared according to IPSASs–accrual basis of
accounting, which is supposed to be submitted by all LGAs for
audit, includes the following:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Statement of Financial Position.
Statement of Financial Performance.
Statement of Changes in Net Assets/Equity.
Cash Flow Statement.
Statement of Comparison of Budget Vs Actual Amount by
Nature.
F) Statement of Comparison of Budget Vs Actual Amount by
Function.
G) Notes to the Financial Statements.
For transparency and accountability reasons, Sect. 49 of the LGFA
No. 9 of 1982 (Revised 2000) as amplified by Order 31 (9) of the
LGFM, 2009 requires that, every LGA shall, at its own offices and in
such other manner as may be directed by the Regional
Commissioner, publish within its area of jurisdiction the following:
(i) The audited Consolidated Statement of Financial Position
(Balance Sheet) and Statement of Financial Performance
(Income and Expenditure)- abstract of accounts;
(ii) Any report on the accounts made and signed by theauditor,
within six months after closure of the financial year to which
2
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
the accounts relate or within six months of receipt of the report
of the auditor, as the case may be.
I consider adoption of the above financial reporting frameworks and
the publication of statements of accounts and audit reports by LGAs
as an opportunity for LGAs to encourage greater communication
and awareness of its subjects as well as increasing accountability in
the use of public resources.
1.1.2 Responsibility of the Controller and Auditor General
My responsibility as an auditor is to express an opinion on the
financial statements based on my audit. I conducted my audit in
accordance with, International Standards of Supreme Audit
Institutions (ISSAIs) and such other procedures I considered
necessary in the circumstances. These standards require that, I
comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit
to obtain reasonable assurance whether the financial statements
are free from material misstatements. An audit involves performing
procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected
depend on the auditor‟s judgment, including the assessment of the
risks of material misstatements of the financial statements,
whether due to fraud or error. In making the risk assessments, I
considered internal control relevant to the LGAs‟ preparation and
fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design
audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not
for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the
LGAs‟ internal control. The audit also includes evaluating the
appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness
of accounting estimates made by management, as well as
evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
In addition, Sect. 10 (2) of the PAA No.11 of 2008 requires me to
satisfy myself that, the accounts have been prepared in accordance
with the appropriate accounting standards and that; reasonable
precautions have been taken to safeguard the collection of
revenue, receipt, custody, disposal, issue and proper use of public
3
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
property, and that the law, directions and instructions applicable
thereto have been duly observed and expenditure of public monies
have been properly authorized.
Further, Sect 48 (3) of the Public Procurement Act No.7 of 2011
requires me to state in my annual audit report whether or not the
auditee has complied with the provisions of the Law and its
Regulations of 2013.
1.1.3
Audit objectives
The main objective of conducting the audit is to enable me as CAG
to express an independent audit opinion on the financial statements
of the LGAs for the financial year ended 30th June, 2014 and
establish whether they were prepared in all material respects, in
accordance with the applicable reporting framework and, in
particular to:
 Determine whether all funds as approved by Parliament were
received and used exclusively and judiciously for eligible
expenses as per approved budget and regulations controlling
government expenditure.
 Determine whether all revenue collected by LGA‟s were
properly brought to account.
 Ascertain whether all necessary documents, books, registers,
accounts, financial data and information have properly been
kept in respect of all transaction and balances.
 Ensure that all relevant financial statement items have properly
been presented and disclosed.
 Evaluate and test the relevant controls within the LGAs by
ascertaining the adequacy and effectiveness of the internal
control system including the related IT control environment.
 Determine the risk of audit error (audit risk).
 Determine whether the desired results or benefits are being
achieved and whether the objectives established by Parliament
or other authorizing bodies are being met.
 Assess and evaluate the Council‟s compliance with the Public
Procurement Act No. 7 of 2011 and its Regulations of 2013.
4
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014

Ensure whether good governance has been enforced in the day
to day operations of the LGAs and in carrying out their overall
strategy and how management has addressed the social and
environmental issues arising thereon.
1.2 Applicable Auditing Standards and reporting and procedures
1.2.1 Applicable Auditing Standards
NAOT is a member of the International Organization of Supreme
Audit Institutions (INTOSAI), African Organization of Supreme Audit
Institutions (AFROSAI) and African Organization of Supreme Audit
Institutions–English Speaking Countries (AFROSAI-E) which promotes
and develops exchange of ideas and experience among SAIs of the
world in the field of public sector auditing.
Being a member of these international organizations, NAOT is
obliged to comply with the requirements of the INTOSAI standards
which are the International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions
(ISSAIs) and International Standards on Auditing (ISA) issued by IFAC
when carrying out audits of the financial statements of LGAs.
1.2.2 Reporting procedures
Various steps which involve communication with management of
the audited entity have been taken before issuing this report.
Therefore, it is worth pointing out that these steps are important
for users of this report to know in order to have a clear
understanding of its contents and general reporting procedures that
are being followed. These steps include the following:
(i) Issuing Engagement Letter to LGAs before the audit
commences which explains the nature and scope of the audit
expected to be conducted and defines roles and
responsibilities of the auditor and management of LGAs.
(ii) Preparing Overall Audit Strategy which explains the audit
approach to be followed based on preliminary evaluation of
the audited entity.
5
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(iii) Conducting entrance meeting with management of the audited
entity to explain about goals and objectives for performing the
audit.
(iv) Conducting interim audit as a way of minimizing the overall
time for auditing and ensure early completion of the audit
reports.
(v) Issuing interim audit findings to management by way of letters
or audit queries and requires management of the audited
entity to respond on the audit findings in writing within a
given timeframe.
(vi) Conducting audit of the financial statements to establish
whether the financial statements are prepared in accordance
with the applicable financial reporting framework.
(vii) Conducting exit meeting to communicate audit results to the
auditees and provide an opportunity for management to
comment on the audit findings before issuing final
Management Letters.
(viii) Issuing final Management Letters to inform the audited entities
of all significant issues found during the audit and provide
management with an opportunity to respond. This also forms
the basis for preparation of audit reports and Annual General
Report for LGAs.
(ix) Preparing Annual General Report for LGAs and tabling it to the
Parliament through the President of the United Republic of
Tanzania as required by the provisions of Article 143 (4) of the
Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania.
(x) Making follow-up on the matters raised in the audit report as
stipulated under Sect.40 of the Public Audit Act, 2008 so as to
identify and report on whether the respective LGAs have come
up with an action plan or implemented the recommendations
made out in the audit report as well as including
implementation status in the next audit report as required by
Sect.40 (4) of the Public Audit Act, 2008.
In summary, the diagram below depicts the audit steps that are
normally followed in auditing LGAs.
6
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Figure 1: LGA Audit Process Flow
1.3 Number of auditees and NAOT’s set up
1.3.1 Number of auditees
During the financial year of 2013/2014, there were 163 LGAs in
Tanzania mainland of which, each was issued with an individual
audit report. These LGAs have different status from District
Council, Town, Municipal and City Councils as shown on Table 1
below:
Table 1: Number of auditees
S/N
1.
2.
3.
4.
Total
LGAs
City Councils
Municipal Councils
Town Councils
District Councils
Total
5
18
11
129
163
Percentage (%)
3
11
7
79
100
1.3.2 NAOT’s administrative set up for LGAs
A total of 163 LGAs were audited by 28 Regional Audit Offices
across the country. These Regional Offices are headed by Chief
7
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
External Auditors who report to the Assistant Auditors General of
the respective zones. For the purpose of auditing LGAs in the
country, these Regional Offices are grouped into five administrative
zones namely Lake, Northern, Central, Southern and Coast which
are headed by Assistant Auditor General who reports to Deputy
Auditor General responsible for Local Government Division.
According to the organization structure of NAOT, the Deputy
Auditor General (Local Government) reports directly to the CAG as
shown in the organogram extract below:
Figure 2: NAOT’S ORGANOGRAM EXTRACT FOR LGAs
1.4
Statutory responsibilities of LGAs in preparation and submission
of financial statements
Management of each LGA is responsible for preparation and fair
presentation of the financial statements and for establishing
appropriate internal controls as management considers necessary,
to enable preparation of financial statements that are free from
material misstatements, whether due to fraud or error.
8
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Sect. 40 (1) of the LGFA No. 9 of 1982 (Revised 2000) points out
that, „‟every LGA shall cause to be provided, kept and maintained
books of accounts and records with respect to:
a) The receipt and expenditure of money and other financial
transactions of the authority.
b) The assets and liabilities; and income and expenditure of the
authority‟‟.
The above Section has also been amplified by Order 11 through 14
of the LGFM, 2009 which requires LGAs to establish and support a
sound system of internal control within the LGA. In addition, Order
31 places responsibility on the LGAs‟ management to prepare
financial statements in accordance with the laws, regulations,
directives issued by the Minister responsible for Local Governments,
the LGFM and the IPSASs accrual basis of accounting.
Apart from the responsibilities on the preparation of the financial
statements, Sect.49 of the LGFA No. 9 of 1982 (Revised 2000) and
Order 31 (9) of the LGFM, 2009 requires every LGA to publish the
audited financial statements within their areas of jurisdiction.
Furthermore, Order 31(1) of LGFM, 2009 and Sect 45(4) of the Local
Government Finances Act 1982 require Accounting Officers to
prepare final accounts and submit them to the Controller and
Auditor General for audit purposes on or before 30 th September of
each financial year. However, during the year under review,
through letter issued by CAG with reference No. A D.235/30/ 011
dated 2 September, 2014, the submission time was extended to 15th
October, 2014 following a request made by PMO-RALG to enable
proper closure of accounts given the fact that the year under audit
was marking the end of five years period for LGAs to fully adopt
IPSAS accrual basis of accounting.
During the financial year ended 30th June, 2014, 163 LGAs
submitted their financial statements in compliance with the
statutory due date.
9
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
However, in the course of audit of the submitted financial
statements, it transpired that some of the submitted financial
statements contained significant and fundamental errors and
omissions which implied that they were submitted to meet the
statutory submission deadline. The submitted financial statements
from 135 LGAs had various irregularities such as understatements
and overstatements of figures. The magnitude of the total errors
and omissions in the submitted financial statements were
understatement by TZS.357,687,188,942 which is equivalent to 11%
of the total expenditure and overstatement by TZS.248,951,299,472
which is equivalent to 8% of the total expenditure as summarized in
Table 2 below. A detailed list of LGAs with misstatements of
figures is as shown in Annexure (i).
Table 2: Misstatements in the Financial Statements
Details
Total Expenditure
Total errors
Percentage (%)
Understatement
(TZS.)
3,233,770,929,439
357,687,188,942
11%
Overstatement
(TZS.)
3,233,770,929,439
248,951,299,472
8%
Due to such errors, omissions and irregularities which led to
understatement and overstatement of figures in the financial
statements, the affected LGAs had to withdraw their financial
statements
and
re-submitted
revised/adjusted
financial
statements. Table 3 below is a trend analysis of the revised
financial statements for the five years period:
Table 3: LGAs which revised their financial statements
Financial
Year
2013/2014
2012/2013
2011/2012
2010/2011
2009/2010
2008/2009
No. of
LGAs
Audited
163
140
134
133
134
133
No. of LGAs
revised/adjusted
financial statements
135
102
67
60
44
24
Percentage (%)
83
73
50
45
33
18
10
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
The above trend is a demonstration that the audit process is
becoming more rigorous and that the understanding of financial
statements prepared based on IPSASs accrual basis of accounting by
the Auditors has increased Auditor‟s ability to criticize LGAs
financial statements resulted to many adjustments and revisions
done on these statements which has largely contributed in
improving their presentation.
It is recommended that in the coming years, LGAs should introduce
quality control and assurance process for preparation of financial
statements to ensure their accuracy before submission for audit
purposes. In addition, PMO-RALG is advised to conduct periodical
trainings so as to build capacity of staff involved in the preparation
of financial statements in order for the accounting /auditing staff
to keep abreast with contemporary developments in the accounting
profession.
11
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
CHAPTER TWO
2.0
AUDIT OPINION
2.1
Introduction
The main purpose of conducting the annual audit is to provide the
users with an assurance on whether the Financial Statements were
fairly presented, in all material respects, the key financial
information for the reporting period, in accordance with the
financial framework and applicable legislation. The audit provides
the users with the degree of assurance at which the Local
Government Authorities‟ Financial Statements are reliable and
credible, based on the audit procedures performed.
2.2
Definition of audit opinion
Audit opinion is an independent auditor‟s judgment that expresses
a view as to whether or not the Financial Statements audited have
been prepared consistently using appropriate accounting policies, in
accordance with relevant legislations, regulations and applicable
accounting standards
2.3
Types of audit opinion
International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAIs)
classify audit opinion in the following manner:
Unqualified
Opinion:
Qualified
Opinion:
An unqualified opinion is issued when the Financial Statements give a
true and fair view or are presented fairly in all material respects, in
accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework and
applicable accounting principles and standards. However, issuance of
an unqualified opinion does not mean that the entity has 100%
efficient and effective systems of internal control. It only means that
nothing material has come to my attention to warrant a qualified
opinion.
I can express a qualified opinion when:
(a) I have obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence, which
concludes that misstatements, individually or in aggregate, are
material, but not pervasive, to the Financial Statements; or
(b) I am unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence on
which to base the opinion, but I conclude that the possible effects on
the Financial Statements of undetected misstatements, if any, could
be material but not pervasive.
12
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Adverse
Opinion:
Disclaimer of
Opinion
An adverse opinion can be issued when having obtained sufficient
appropriate audit evidence, I conclude that misstatements,
individually or in aggregate, are both material and pervasive to the
Financial Statements.
A disclaimer of opinion is issued when I am unable to obtain sufficient
appropriate audit evidence on which to base the opinion and the
possible effects on the financial statements so prepared and
submitted or in the situations involving multiple material
uncertainties that are significant to the financial statements as a
whole. In this case, the situation has material effect on the financial
statements such that I am unable to express my opinion on the
financial statements.
This type of opinion is only issued if there are serious factors that
makes it impossible for me to confirm the reliability and
completeness of the information provided in the financial statements.
In the circumstances that disclaimer of opinion is issued on the
financial statements, disclosure is made of any unknown material
misstatements or other reservations about the fair presentation of
the financial statements in conformity with the applicable reporting
framework
2.3.1 Basis for modified audit opinion
Whenever the auditor expresses an opinion that is other than
unqualified, a clear description of all the substantive reasons should
be included in the report (ISSAI 1705.16; 17). The auditor‟s report
should state the audit evidence the auditor has obtained is sufficient
and appropriate to provide a basis for the auditor‟s qualified or
adverse opinion. Consequently, when a disclaimer of opinion is issued
it needs to be stated that evidence could not be obtained (ISSAI
1705.26; 27). The basis or circumstances that may lead to express a
qualified or adverse opinion include:
(a) If there is a limitation on scope of audit imposed by
management
(b) If there is a material misstatement of the Financial Statements
that relates to specific amounts in the Financial Statements
including quantitative disclosures, narrative disclosures and nondisclosure of information required to be disclosed. (ISSAI 1705.
17; 18; 19; 20; 21)
13
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
2.3.2 Salient issues not affecting audit opinion
Standards, laws or generally accepted practice in a jurisdiction may
require or permit the auditor to elaborate on matters that provide
further explanation of the auditor‟s responsibilities in the audit of
the Financial Statements or of the auditor‟s report thereon. Such
matters may be addressed in separate paragraph following the
auditor‟s opinion as described below:
Emphasis of matters
Other matters
2.4
Refers to a matter appropriately presented or disclosed in the
Financial Statements that, in the auditor‟s judgment, is of such
importance that it is fundamental to users‟ understanding of the
Financial Statements (ISSAI 1706.5).
Includes findings relating to matters relevant to the users of the
report but not presented or disclosed in the Financial Statements
(ISSAI 1706 P5). Other matters may include non-compliances with
legislation and weaknesses in the internal controls of the auditee in
so far as they do not affect the fair presentation of the Financial
Statements, in other words, matters without financial impact.
Overview of the audit opinion issued during the year
For the purpose of comparability, I am going to consider 139 Councils
which were given an audit opinion in the financial year 2012/2013
excluding Kahama DC which is no longer in existence after being
dissolved to form two new Councils namely Ushetu DC and Msalala
DC.
After concluding my audit, 163 audit opinions had been issued in
respect of Local Government Authorities for the financial year ended
30th June, 2014. Table 4 below shows that, 150 Councils equivalent
to 92% received unqualified opinion, 13 Councils (8%) received
qualified opinion. List of 163 LGAs with their Audit Opinions for five
concecutive years is shown in Annexture (ii).
14
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Table 4: Opinion issued during the year
Unqualified
Opinion
(%)
Qualified
Opinion
(%)
Adverse
Opinion
%
Total
2.5
City
Councils
4
Municipal
Councils
17
District
Councils
118
Town
Councils
11
Total
150
80
1
94
1
91
11
100
0
92
13
20
0
6
0
9
0
0
0
8
0
0
5
0
18
0
129
0
11
0
163
Overall Movement in audit opinions issued to LGAs
Despite the increase in number of LGAs audited from year
2010/2011 (133) to year 2013/2014 (163), there has been a change
in opinions issued. The analysis below shows overall movement in
audit opinion for each category of LGAs:
Table 5: Summary of audit opinions issued for four years period
(2010/2011 to 2013/2014)
Opinion
Category of LGAs
City Councils
Municipal Councils
District Councils
Town Councils
Total
F/Year
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
Unqualified
Opinion
No.
%
4
80
3
60
3
60
2
40
17
94
14
78
13
76
7
41
118
91
86
80
84
79
58
55
11
100
9
90
4
67
4
67
150
92
112
80
104
78
Qualified
Opinion
No.
%
1
20
1
20
2
40
2
40
1
6
4
22
4
24
9
53
11
9
21
20
21
20
44
41
0
0
1
10
2
33
2
33
13
8
27
19
29
22
Adverse
Opinion
No.
%
0
0
1
20
0
0
1
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
Disclaimer
Opinion
No.
%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Total
5
5
5
4
18
18
17
17
129
107
106
106
11
10
6
6
163
140
134
15
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Opinion
Category of LGAs
F/Year
2010-11
Unqualified
Opinion
No.
%
71
53
Qualified
Opinion
No.
%
57
42
Adverse
Opinion
No.
%
6
5
Disclaimer
Opinion
No.
%
0
0
Total
133
Table 5 above shows an overall improvement of 12% (from 2012/13 to
2013/2014) for the Councils issued with unqualified opinion compared
to an increase of 2% noted from 2011/2012 to 2012/2013. The same
applies to qualified opinion, number of Councils issued with qualified
opinion decreased by 14% from year 2012/13 to 2013/2014 compared
to decrease of 2% from year 2011/2012 to 2012/2013. Also
improvement was noted for Adverse Opinion whereby no Adverse
Opinion which was issued during the year.
Analysis of opinions based on the categories of LGAs is as detailed
below:
City Councils
In the case of City Councils, there has been little change in
unqualified and adverse opinion issued while no changes have been
noted in qualified opinion issued. Results on the movement of opinion
issued show that out of five City Councils audited, four (80%) City
Councils were issued with unqualified opinion which is an increase of
20% from three (60%) unqualified opinion issued last year, one (20%)
City Council was issued with qualified opinion the same as previous
year signifying that no improvement has been made. During the year,
no adverse opinion was issued which is an improvement by 20%
compared to one adverse opinion issued in the previous year.
Municipal Councils
Municipal Councils give an impression of positive movement despite a
slight improvement of 16% as 17 Municipal Councils (94%) were
awarded unqualified opinion compared to 14 Councils (78%) in the
previous year. This ranks similar to qualified opinion issued as one
Municipal Council (6%) received qualified opinion which is a decrease
of 16% from four qualified opinion issued last year.
16
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
District Councils
The number of unqualified opinion issued in District Councils have
increased by 11% in that, 118 District Councils equivalent to 91% were
awarded unqualified opinion as compared to 86 Councils (80%) last
year. Despite the „unqualified opinion‟ being achieved by many
District Councils this year compared to previous year, the number of
District Councils issued with qualified opinion dropped by 11% as 11
District Councils equivalent to 9% compared to 21 Councils (20%) in
previous year received qualified audit opinions.
Town Councils
Town Councils appeared to perform well as 11 Town Councils
equivalent to 100% were given unqualified opinion which is an
increase of 10% from the prior year‟s performance. This is a great
achievement for Town Councils as compared to the last year whereby
out of 10 Town Councils, 9 (90%) were able to get unqualified opinion
and 1 (10%) got a qualified opinion. This means that the Financial
Statements of these auditees were free from material misstatements
and no material findings were reported in respect of performance
objectives or compliance with laws and regulations.
2.6
Improvement, unchanged and regressions in the audit opinion
issued
The overall movement described above as further illustrated below
was as a result of improvements, unchanged and regressions trend of
audit opinions compared to the financial year 2012/2013 involving a
total of 139 opinions for comparison. Movements and major trends of
Councils with improved, unchanged and regressed in audit opinions
issued between the current and the previous year is elaborated
below:
Improvements
Out of 139 Councils, 23 Councils (17%) moved from qualified opinion
to unqualified opinion, 1 Council (1%) improved slightly from adverse
opinion to qualified opinion.
List of Councils which improved from
Arusha DC
Chamwino DC
Meru DC
Bukoba MC
Arusha CC
Kigoma DC
Mafia DC
Kigoma/Ujiji MC
Rufiji/Utete DC Rorya DC
qualified to unqualified opinion
Mbozi DC
Mpanda TC
Busokelo DC
Shinyanga DC
Magu DC
Shinyanga MC
Misungwi DC
Bariadi DC
Bukombe DC
Pangani DC
17
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Kibondo DC
Ilemela MC
Ukerewe DC
Mwanza CC: Made a progress from adverse to qualified opinion.
Regressions
Six Councils equivalent to 4% regressed from the prior year‟s
unqualified opinion to qualified opinion this year.
List of Councils which regressed from unqualified to qualified
opinion
Kiteto
DC
Songea MC
Unchanged
2.7
Bukoba DC
Iramba DC
Namtumbo DC
Mbinga
DC
Audit opinions on 109 Councils equivalent to 78% remained
unchanged from previous year 2012/2013. 105 of these Councils
equivalent to 96% maintained an unqualified opinion while 4
Councils equivalent to 4% remained with qualified opinion.
Sengerema DC had maintained the status of modified Audit Opinion
(Qualified) for five years.
Basis for qualified and/or adverse opinion issued during the year
As shown in Table 4 above, during the year under review 13 Councils
received a Qualified Opinion, which means that they were incapable
to sufficiently and correctly account for all the financial effects of
the transactions and activities they conducted. In this regard, the
Financial Statements presented were unreliable in certain areas.
Basis for qualified and adverse opinion issued during the year are
summarized hereunder and further details in Annexture (iii)
Revenue:
 Revenue earning receipt books were not submitted for audit
purposes when called for.
 Understatement/overstatement of own source revenue collected
and amortization of recurrent grants.
18
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Expenditure:
 Expenditure not adequately supported by documents (Improperly
vouched expenditure).
 Missing payment vouchers.
 Fund transfers documents (fund transfer requests and details of
financial activities) not submitted for the audit.
 Payment of salaries, and related statutory deduction in respect of
absconded, retired and deceased staff.
Non-current assets:
 Overstatement and understatement of property, plant and
equipment
 Inconsistency in disclosure of Property, Plant and Equipment in
the Statement of Financial Position as at 30 June, 2014
 Overstatement and understatement of depreciation charge
Current assets:
 Understatement of receivables
 Understatement of cash and cash equivalent
 Unconfirmed figure for Debtors
 Understatement of inventories
Liabilities:
 Understatement of payables.
 Unconfirmed existence of payables.
The LGA‟s management is strongly advised to strengthen internal
control over financial reporting by complying with IPSASs accrual
basis of accounting and established LGAs rules and regulations to
ensure financial statements are fairly presented.
19
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
CHAPTER THREE
3.0
FOLLOW-UP OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PREVIOUS YEARS’
AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS
This section provides information on the outstanding matters from
the previous year‟s CAG‟s recommendations and General directives
issued by the Local Authorities Accounts Committee (LAAC) to the
managements of the respective LGAs.
3.1
Outstanding matters
recommendations
from
the
previous
years’
CAG’s
3.1.1 Outstanding matters from General Report
Sect. 38(1), (2) and (3) of the Public Audit Act No. 11 of 2008 as
amended in 2013 give guidance on the preparation of consolidated
report of responses and action plan of the intended remedial actions
to the CAG‟s annual audit reports. According to these sections, the
Paymaster General (PMG) is supposed to consolidate responses and
action plan received from the Accounting Officers and submit a
consolidated report to the Minister who is supposed to lay the report
to the National Assembly concurrently with the report of the
Controller and Auditor General. The law further gives the PMG
obligation to submit a copy of consolidated report to the CAG.
Upon receipt of these responses, CAG is obliged to include an
implementation status of the Government action plan in the next
annual audit report as per the requirement of Sect 40 of Public Audit
Act No. 11 of 2008 as amended in 2013.
I received responses from the Paymaster General on the
recommendations made in the General report for the year ended 30 th
June, 2013 on 5th November, 2014. Status of implementation of the
recommendations is given in Table 6 below:
20
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Table 6: Summary of implementation of CAG’s previous years’
recommendations
Year
Number of
recommend
ations
Imple
mented
%
Under
implemen
tation
%
Not
implem
ented
%
2012/2013
25
0
0
10
40
15
60
From Table 6 above, it can be noted that the Government responses
towards CAG‟s recommendations were not satisfactory. Objectives of
issuing the recommendations was to improve Public Financial
Management in LGAs, thus the Government needs to take steps to
ensure that these recommendations are appropriately implemented
for better performance and accountability of LGAs. Details of the
outstanding recommendations are given in Annexure (iv) to this
report
3.1.2 Outstanding matters from individual audit reports
This paragraph shows the implementation status of various
recommendations made on the observations raised by the auditors on
the previous individual reports. Out of 7474 recommendations made
to 140 LGAs in the year 2012/2013, 3217 (43%) recommendations
were implemented, 2171 (29%) were under implementation and 2086
(28%) were not implemented.
Status of implementation of these recommendations for each
individual LGA is given in Annexure (v)
A comparison made with the previous year noted an increase in
number of unimplemented recommendations as shown in Table 7
below:
21
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Table 7: Outstanding matters from individual audit reports
Year
No. of
LGAS
2012/13
2011/12
140
131
Total
recommen
dations
7474
6332
Implemented
3217
2857
under
implement
ation
2171
1460
Not
implem
ented
2086
2015
Table 7 above shows that, there was inadequate follow up on
recommendations made to LGAs as there is an increase in number of
unimplemented recommendations by 71 from 2011/2012 to
2012/2013.
Trend of outstanding matters on previous year‟s audits for a period of
four years is shown in Table below:
Table 8: Trend of outstanding matters on previous year’s audits
Financial year
2012/2013
2011/2012
2010/2011
2009/2010
No. of LGAs involved
140
131
131
130
Amount of outstanding
matters (TZS)
461,551,894,819
341,081,810,170
78,489,936,013
105,263,165,967
Non clearance of long outstanding matters may lead to recurrence of
the same reported anomalies in the subsequent years culminating
into inefficiencies and lack of accountability in the LGAs. In addition,
continuance of this practice deters the effort to improve the internal
control environment and management of Councils‟ resources.
3.1.3
Outstanding matters from special audit reports
As per the requirement of Sect.36 of the Public Audit Act No.11 of
2008, I conducted special audit on 6 LGAs during the year 2013/2014,
out of six (6) LGAs, responses for two (2) LGAs were submitted, and
other four (4) Councils did not submit their responses on the major
findings from these special audit reports.
22
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
A comparative analysis of responses from the LGAs on the
recommendations made in respect of special audit reports noted a
decline in the response rate in this year as compared to last the year
as shown in Table 9 below:
Table 9: Response rate on special audit reports
Financial
year
No. of
reports
(A)
2013/2014
6
2012/2013
14
Time taken to respond
(Months)
1-3
3-6
More than 6
Total
respon
ded(B)
% of
responded
reports
(B/A)%
0
0
2
2
33
0
1
5
6
43
Special audit reports with Management responses for the year
2012/2013 and 2011/2012 are shown in Table 10 and 11 respectively.
year 2012/2013
S/No.
1
2
Name of the
LGA
Mufindi DC
Geita DC
Date report
was issued
30/08/2013
23/04/2014
Date responses were
received
18/12/2014
09/01/2015
Delays
(Month)
15
8
year 2011/2012
S/No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Name of the LGA
Dodoma MC
Kilindi DC
Muheza DC
Mvomero DC
Temeke MC
Songea DC
Date report was
issued
10/12/2012
14/01/2012
10/01/2013
20/06/2012
02/05/2012
11/02/2013
Date responses
were received
13/11/2013
05/01/2015
02/12/2014
28/06/2014
01/10/2012
24/05/2013
Delays
(Month)
22
35
22
24
5
5
23
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Table 12 below shows the trend of outstanding matters which
resulted from special audit reports for the period of four years
2009/10, 2010/11 2011/12 and 2012/13.
Table 12: Summary of outstanding matters from special audits for
four consecutive years
F/ Year
2012/2013
2011/2012
2010/2011
2009/2010
Total
No. of
LGAs
6
14
13
7
Total No. of
Qualitative
outstanding
matters
146
302
69
40
Total amount of
quantitative
Outstanding
matters (TZS)
35,717,988,924
66,471,126,999
31,408,213,793
43,012,029,632
3.2 Follow-up on the directives issued by the Local Authorities
Accounts Committee (LAAC)
3.2.1 Matters from LAAC annual report presented to the
Parliament
Sect. 38 of the Public Audit Act, 2008 (as amended 2013) requires the
PMG, when preparing the responses and action plan on the reports of
the CAG to take into account the observations and recommendations
of the Parliamentary Oversight Committees.
Report on the key findings and their respective recommendations on
the accounts of the Local Government Authorities for the year ended
30th June, 2013 was presented to the parliament by the LAAC
Chairman on 28th January, 2015 whereby 12 recommendations were
issued
Up to the time of writing this report, no responses to those
recommendations have been received from the Paymaster General.
This implies that trend of office of the PMG in responding to the
recommendations made by LAAC is not satisfactory as shown
hereunder. For the last 4 years, no responses have been received in
respect of recommendations issued by Local Authority Accounts
Committee
24
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Table 13: Trend of PMG responses on the recommendation issued
by LAAC
Date Presented to
Parliament
28th January, 2015
6th December, 2013
17th April, 2012
4th April, 2011
Financial year
concerned
30th June,
2013
30th June,
2012.
30th June,
2011
30th June,
2010
Number of
recommend
ations
12
10
15
7
Response from
PMG office
No
responses
No
responses
No
responses
No
responses
Table 13 above shows that despite the continuing efforts by the Local
Authority Accounts Committee in issuing recommendations which
would help to improve operations of the LGAs, no responses have
been received from the Government which is an indication of lack of
commitment by those entrusted with stewardship of ensuring that
public resources are managed to the best interest of the people of
Tanzania.
Recommendations issued by LAAC are given below:
3.2.1.1 Contracts with no benefits to the Government (Council)
LAAC made a revelation of existence of fruitless agreements entered
into with the Government (Councils), when it visited the project
called East African Meat Company, Investments in Oyster Bay Villas
and Collection of parking fees in all Councils in Dar es Salaam Region.
Following the said revelation, the Committee requested the
Parliament to require the Government to:
a) Explain in detail how the East African Meat Company came into
being and how the Councils have benefited from earnings that this
company has been generating during its existence as a business
entity.
25
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
b) Describe in detail the benefits that Kinondoni Municipality has
been getting and will continue to get due to investment made by
Oyster Bay Villas Company on Plot number 322, Ruvu Road and
Plot number 277, Mawenzi Road (Dar es Salaam).
b) Describe the strategies designed to promote domestic revenue
from
Parking fees in all Councils of Dar es Salaam Region, given the fact
that there is a significant increase in private motor vehicles and
therefore high demand for parking areas.
3.2.1.2 Weaknesses in internal revenue collection
Since the Council`s domestic revenues are important for financing
various services such as sanitation of cities, traffic lights and loans
for women and youth, and since the revenue collection has not been
good to contribute to the above mentioned services, the Committee
requested the esteemed Parliament to urge the Government to
explain what arrangements are in place or planned to strengthen
domestic revenue collection in Local Governments in order to
improve delivery of social services to the citizens.
3.2.1.3 Payment of wages to ghost employees
The Committee noted that staff absenteeism from work has been
common due to various reasons such as retirement, death or
dismissal but the concerned individuals have continued to earn
wages, which amounts to misappropriation of public money.
Therefore, the Committee requested the Parliament to require the
Government to explain specific strategies that are in place to deal
with this problem which has featured prominently in the audit
queries and recommendations of the Local Authority Accounts
Committee.
26
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
3.2.1.4 Funds for Women and Youths Fund
The Committee revealed that many Councils in the Country have not
been contributing 10% of its revenue to Women and Youth
Development Fund and noted that failure by Councils to effectively
contribute to the Fund affects development of women and youths
and in one way or another has been a driving force for the rise in
crime level among the youths. Therefore, the Committee requested
the Parliament to urge the Government to account for the Councils
failure to make lawful contributions to Women and Youths Fund and
explain measures that will be taken to ensure that funds are
allocated to reach the targeted beneficiaries
3.2.1.5 Public Procurements is a major source of audit issues
The Committee noted that, procurements which do not comply with
laws, regulations and public procurement procedures are the reasons
for many audit queries being issued to Councils in the Country. The
Committee further noted that a breach of these procedures has been
the cause for the CAG issuing “qualified audit opinions”.
Government to give the reasons for such irregularities and come up
with strategies to ensure that Councils comply with these
regulations.
3.2.1.6 Delay in releasing projects funds
The Committee's investigation revealed that most of the
development projects in the Councils have been completed late due
to delayed release of funds allocated to these projects.
Consequences of the delay include weakness in utilization of the
funds and non-realization of the expected results by the citizens for
whom the projects were intended to serve.
Therefore the Committee proposed to the Parliament to require the
Government to strengthen revenue collection and control over
unnecessary expenditures such as use of luxury cars in the
27
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Government in order to save and contribute towards accomplishment
of development projects on time.
3.2.1.7 Lack of Experts
The Committee noted that some of the Councils lack experts like
Internal Auditors and lawyers, which contributes to mismanagement
of Council funds and engaging in unfruitful contract agreements;
The Committee requested the Parliament to engage the Government
to establish the magnitude of this problem and employ the prescribed
qualifications.
3.2.1.8 Acting in various posts
The Committee has revealed that many Council departments across
the Country are led by staff on acting capacities and the explanation
for this has been that, vetting takes too long to be concluded.
The Committee requested the Parliament to require the Government
to set specific time for vetting public servants who are in the acting
positions in order to reduce the negative consequences of acting for
so long without being confirmed.
3.2.1.9 Transfer of the suspected/accused Staff
Given the fact that the majority of Council staff with various charges
including abuse of office and misappropriation of public funds have
been transferred from one Council to another as it was the case for
Mwanza CC, Kwimba and Kilosa Districts, and that the transfers can
be interpreted by them as a gift or an assistance to conceal
misappropriation evidence.
Government (PMO-RALG) to evaluate herself on its current
arrangements of transferring and promoting staff that have
embezzled funds or involved in ethical misconduct in Councils.
28
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
3.2.1.10 Instructions given by Central Government on Councils Planning
The Committee's investigation noted that among the factors which
affect financial discipline in the use of public funds in Local
Government is ad hoc planning by Central Government in Local
Government planning,
In connection with the foregoing, the Committee requested the
Parliament to require the Government to discharge its duties in line
with the existing priorities which are in every annual budget of the
Local Government or bring new plans and funding for the
implementation of such programs.
3.2.1.11
Government not responding to the Committees Issues
Since the accountability framework (Accountability loop) in
democratic Countries requires the Parliament to supervise the
Government but also the Government to explain to the Parliament on
how she implements or has discharged its obligations, and since it is
three consecutive years now, since the Government has not been
responding to LAAC issues in the Parliament following the procedure
of Treasury Notes,
Therefore, the Committee has requested the Parliament to require
the Government to answer Parliamentary Committee issues in writing
in order for the Committee and the Parliament as a whole to be in a
better position to monitor implementation of its recommendations
issued to the Government.
3.2.1.12
Funding of the Committee’s visits
The interest of LAAC and the Parliament as a whole is to advise the
Government effectively in order to enable it discharge its roles
efficiently.
Government to provide the needed funds to finance the Office of the
National Assembly in order for the Parliament and its Parliamentary
29
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Committees to be able to discharge their oversight roles effectively
for the benefit of the nation.
3.2.2 Directives issued by LAAC to individual Councils
Review of implementation of directives issued by LAAC to individual
Council shows that various Councils were noted to have made
inadequate implementation of the outstanding matters. In the
previous year‟s audit, 123 LGAs had 1146 previous years‟ outstanding
directives with Kyela DC having the largest number of 79 directives.
Summary of implementation is shown in Table 14 below
Table 14: Directives issued by LAAC to individual Councils
No. of LGAS
Year
2012/13
123
Total
recomme
ndations
1146
Imple
mented
536
under
implement
tation
240
Not
implemented
370
The purpose of these directives to the auditees was to assist them in
rectifying matters of concern in the LGAs with a view to improving
the financial management and control of resources of the Council.
Non-responding to the LAAC directives is a serious malpractice on the
part of the Accounting Officer and management of the concerned
LGAs.
The consequences of not reacting to LAAC directives may lead to the
recurrence of the anomalies observed in subsequent financial
reporting years, this can also reflect lack of commitment on the part
of the Accounting Officers and management of the LGAs concerned.
Details of the implementation status of these directives for each
individual LGA are shown in Annexture (vi)
30
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
4.1
Audit of Budget
A budget is a quantitative expression of a plan for a defined period of
time. It expresses what is to be undertaken and allocates financial
and other resources that are needed to achieve the targeted
objectives. Budget is a key tool for effective financial management
and control and it provides decision makers with the best possible
financial information.
Sect. 43(1) of the Local Government Finances Act, 1982 stipulates
that, every Local Government Authority shall, not less than two
months before the beginning of every financial year, at a meeting
specially convened for the purpose, pass a detailed budget of the
estimates of the amounts respectively (a) expected to be received
and (b) expected to be disbursed, by the Authority during the
financial year, and whenever circumstances so require, an authority
may pass a supplementary budget in any financial year.
During the year under review, the following key issues were observed
while performing audit of LGA‟s budget:
4.2
LGAs’ Own Sources Revenue Collection trend against Approved
Budgets
LGAs‟ own revenue sources is revenue which is budgeted for and
collected by the LGAs themselves from their different identified
sources including money collected from local taxes, fees, fines,
penalties and licenses and other revenue in the year under review.
Revenue collected from Own sources are used by LGAs together with
grants received from Central Government and donors in
implementing LGA‟s day to day activities. In the year under review,
163 LGAs budgeted to collect revenue amounting to
31
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
TZS.400,389,496,906 from their own sources. However, the actual
collection was TZS.353,530,397,453 indicating that, there was under
collection of own source revenue by TZS.46,859,099,453 equivalent
to 12% of revenue budgeted to be collected. For details refer to
Annexure (vii).
Table 15 below shows a five-year trend of approved budgets and
actual collections for LGAs‟ own revenue sources.
Table 15: Trend of Approved Budget vs Actual Collection
Financial
year
Approved Budget
(TZS.)
2013/14
2012/13
2011/12
2010/11
2009/10
400,389,496,906
310,707,485,716
297,383,435,946
183,470,314,765
136,673,109,767
Actual
collection
(TZS.)
353,530,397,453
268,636,147,917
236,716,345,736
184,344,284,252
137,416,106,722
Variance (TZS.)
%
(46,859,099,453)
(42,071,337,799)
(60,667,090,210)
873,969,486
742,996,955
12
14
20
1
1
In the financial year 2009/10 and 2010/11, own revenue source
collection exceeded the budget by a margin of 1%. However, in the
financial year 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14, actual collections were
less than the approved budgets by a variance of 20%, 14% and 12%
respectively as shown in Table 15 above.
Further analysis shows that there has been an increase in both the
budget and actual collection since 2009/10 to 2013/14. Own revenue
source budget for the financial year 2013/14 increased by 29% and
actual collection increased by 32% comparing with that of the
previous year.
LGAs are advised to conduct feasibility studies to explore new
potential sources of revenue and put in place strong strategies to
boost own source revenue collection that will eventually enable
Councils to sustain at least their recurrent operations more
effectively, as well as reducing the level of dependency on Central
Government grants.
32
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
4.3 Amount released in excess of the Approved Budget
4.3.1 Over released Recurrent Grants TZS.88,362,150,294
The current financial year total approved budget for 36 LGAs
recurrent account was TZS.711,787,702,046 whereas total exchequer
issues received by LGAs amounted to TZS.800,149,852,340 resulting
to over release of TZS.88,362,150,294. Details of the over released
amount for individual LGAs are shown in Annexure (viii).
In absence of authorized supplementary budget, the amount overreleased might be mis-allocated or end up being misappropriated.
I recommend that retrospective approval be sought from relevant
authority before spending such monies.
4.3.2 Over released Development Grants TZS. 22,594,682,886
The current financial year total approved budget for 21 LGA‟s Capital
Development Grant account was TZS.72,595,203,235 and the LGAs
received exchequer issues amounting to TZS.95,189,886,121 resulting
to over release of TZS.22,594,682,886. Details of over released
amount for individual LGAs are shown in Annexure (ix).
The Treasury did not release funds as approved by the Parliament;
this practice may lead to mismanagement of over released funds as
the same does not have budgetary provisions.
Retrospective approval should be sought from proper authority and
supplementary budget need to be prepared to accommodate over
released funds to ensure they are solely utilized on planned
activities.
4.4 Amount released below the Approved Budget
4.4.1 Unreleased Recurrent Grants TZS.417,228,841,843
In the current financial year, total approved budget for recurrent
grants in 126 LGAs was TZS.2,755,118,626,066 but total amount
33
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
released to these respective LGAs was TZS.2,337,889,784,223
reflecting under-release of TZS.417,228,841,843 which is equivalent
to 15% of the approved budget.
The under-release of recurrent grants has an adverse impact on the
financial capacity of LGAs to meet their day to day operating costs.
Individual Councils and their corresponding unreleased amounts are
given in Annexure (x).
Table 16 below shows a trend of unreleased recurrent grants for a
period of five consecutive years.
Table 16: Trend of Unreleased Recurrent Grants
Financial
year
Final Budget
Recurrent Grants
(TZS.)
Actual Amount of
Recurrent Grants
Received (TZS.)
Unreleased
Recurrent Grants
(TZS.)
%
Unreleased
No. of
LGAs
2013/14
2,755,118,626,066
2,337,889,784,223
417,228,841,843
15
126
2012/13
2,102,969,648,522
1,827,566,402,405
275,403,246,117
13
99
2011/12
1,618,877,128,175
1,447,482,142,661
171,394,985,514
11
87
2010/11
1,242,318,963,483
1,111,762,925,260
130,556,038,222
11
78
2009/10
1,248,760,338,699
1,104,588,746,584
144,171,592,119
12
87
Basing on the data presented above, it can be seen that there is an
increase in both the budgeted amount from TZS.1,248,760,338,699 in
the year 2009/10 to TZS.2,755,118,626,066 in the year 2013/14 and
the
actual
recurrent
grants
received
by
LGAs
from
TZS.1,104,588,746,584 to TZS.2,337,889,784,223 in the current year
respectively. However, although the amount of unreleased recurrent
grants increased from TZS.144,171,592,119 in 2009/10 to
TZS.417,228,841,843 in 2013/14, there was also a slight increase in
unreleased recurrent grants by 2%.
34
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
I urge LGAs through PMO-RALG to communicate with Ministry of
Finance on the impact of the under release of funds in achieving
their day to day activities. Further I advise the respective LGAs to
adjust their spending to be in line with the funds available.
4.4.2 Unreleased Capital Development Grants TZS.312,037,079,131
The current financial years total approved budget for Capital
Development Grant in 137 LGAs was TZS.743,215,699,222. However,
exchequer issues received by the LGAs amounted to
TZS.431,178,620,091
resulting
to
under
release
of
TZS.312,037,079,131 which is equivalent to 42% of the approved
budget.
This implies that, development activities of equivalent amount were
not implemented at all while others were partially implemented due
to under release of funds. Individual Councils and respective
unreleased amounts are shown in Annexure (xi).
Table 17 below shows a five-year trend of under released Capital
Development Grants for LGAs.
Table 17: Trend of Unreleased Capital Development Grants
Financial
year.
Final Budget
for
Development
Grants (TZS.)
Actual Amount
of Development
Grants
Received (TZS.)
2013/14
743,215,699,222
743,215,699,222
2012/13
673,590,626,951
2011/12
Unreleased
Development
Grants (TZS.)
%
Unreleas
ed
Grants
No.
of
Coun
cils
312,037,079,131
42
137
420,283,949,168
253,306,677,783
38
114
595,064,422,505
345,568,067,477
249,496,355,027
42
113
2010/11
529,494,590,274
308,572,669,609
220,921,920,666
42
105
2009/10
395,038,612,520
246,475,254,935
148,563,337,585
38
86
From the Table 17 above,it is noted that there is a gradual increase
of approved development budget coupled with an increase in
unreleased fund at a variance of 4% in the year 2010/11, none in
35
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
2011/12,a decrease of 4% in 2012/13 and an increase of 4% in the
year 2013/2014.
Therefore, the Councils‟ management in collaboration with PMORALG is advised to make follow-up on the Ministry of Finance so that
funds are released for implementing budgeted activities.
Furthermore when funds are not released, Councils should review
their budget to reflect the reality and prioritise activities to be
undertaken, while continuing to incorporate those unfunded
activities in the next year‟s budget.
4.5
LGA’s Own Source Revenue Collection trend against Recurrent
Expenditure
Recurrent expenditure refers mainly to operating expenditure
including wages and salaries, purchases of goods and services which
are financed by recurrent grants and own sources revenue. It can also
be referred to as expenditure which does not result in the acquisition
or enhancement of an asset.
During the year under review, LGAs‟ collected own revenue source
amounting to TZS. 353,514,526,384 and incurred expenditure of TZS.
3,264,872,488,097 to finance activities which are recurrent in
nature. However, a comparison between actual own source revenue
collected and expenditure incurred by LGAs on recurrent operations
revealed that, LGAs are capable of funding their recurrent operations
without depending on the Central Government and Donors by only
11%. Details for individual Council are shown in Annexure (xii).
A five-year trend for Own Sources Revenue collected against
Recurrent Expenditure is as analysed in Table 18 below:
36
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Table 18: Trend of Own Source Revenue collected against
Recurrent expenditure
Financial
Year
2013/14
2012/13
2011/12
2010/11
2009/10
Own Sources
Revenue
Collection (TZS.)
353,514,526,384
268,948,851,548
236,716,345,736
184,344,284,252
137,416,106,722
Recurrent
expenditure (TZS.)
3,264,872,488,097
2,746,333,799,161
2,277,035,217,362
2,153,971,770,095
1,823,788,009,947
%
11
10
11
9
8
LGAs are advised to institute strategies that will maximize own
revenue source collection by ensuring that more revenue sources are
identified, controls over revenue collection are strengthened to
prevent leakages and strategies for collection are re-evaluated to
reduce dependence on central government grants.
4.6
Unspent Recurrent Grants TZS.129,925,875,311
The amount of recurrent grants spent by 151 LGAs during the
financial year 2013/14 was TZS.3,111,989,730,119 against total
recurrent grants available of TZS.2,982,063,854,808 resulting to
unspent amount of TZS.129,925,875,311 equivalent to 4.2% of the
total available recurrent grants. Details of this analysis and the
respective LGAs are shown in Annexure (xiii).
Table 19 below shows a trend of unutilized recurrent grants for five
consecutive years.
Table 19: Trend of unutilized recurrent grants for five consecutive
years
Financial
Year
2013/14
2012/13
2011/12
Total recurrent
grants available
(TZS.)
Recurrent
expenditure (TZS.)
Unutilized
recurrent grant
(TZS.)
3,111,989,730,119
2,867,426,385,004
2,311,080,861,836
2,982,063,854,808
2,721,098,075,973
2,186,486,605,144
129,925,875,311
146,328,309,031
124,594,256,692
% of
Unutilized
recurrent
grant
4
5
5
37
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
2010/11
2009/10
2,105,926,241,086
1,521,937,206,309
1,978,117,478,839
1,373,576,272,098
127,808,735,247
148,360,934,211
6
10
Table 19 above shows that, the unspent balance for recurrent grant
for the year 2009/10 to 2013/14 decreased from 10% to 4% of the
total recurrent grant received which signifies that, there was an
improvement in reducing huge balance at the end of the year.
Further, I noted that existence of unutilized grants at the year-end
was mainly attributed to late release of funds by the Treasury and
bureaucracy in LGAs in spending the received grants. This implies
that realization of the objectives for which the recurrent grants were
intended might not be achieved by the respective LGAs. For these
LGAs to successfully implement the rolled over activities in the
following year, it may require them to re-budget those activities with
a view to accommodate possible price changes that might have
occurred due to inflation.
I therefore, reiterate my previous recommendation that, recurrent
grants need to be released by Treasury timely if at all activities that
were planned are to be implemented. In addition, LGAs are advised
to institute effective procedures that will increase absorption
capacity on received recurrent grants which will ultimately result
into increased service delivery.
4.7
Unspent Development Grants TZS.203,127,164,458
Development grants are funds mostly spent on projects which
contribute a longer term benefit than that of a single accounting
period such as construction of water projects, irrigation schemes,
agricultural infrastructure, and Road works etc.
During the financial year 2013/14, analysis of development grants
showed that 157 LGAs had a total sum of TZS.734,721,779,087 to
finance Development Projects.
However, up to 30th June, 2014, a total amount of
TZS.531,594,614,629 equivalent to 72% had been spent, leaving
unspent balance of TZS.203,127,164,458 equivalent to 28% of the
38
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
funds available during the year. A detailed list of LGAs and their
corresponding unspent amount is as indicated in Annexure (xiv).
A trend of unutilized development grants for five consecutive
financial years 2009/10 to 2013/14 is as shown Table 20 below:
Table 20: Trend of Unutilized Development Grants
Financial
Year
Total
Development
grants available
(TZS.)
Developmen
t grants
spent (TZS.)
2013/14
734,721,779,087
531,594,614,629
2012/13
686,302,878,625
2011/12
Unspent
amount
%
No of Councils
involved
203,127,164,458
28
157
442,625,815,185
243,677,063,440
36
138
535,017,077,030
346,716,653,619
188,300,423,411
35
132
2010/11
542,339,143,645
367,778,247,642
174,560,896,003
32
130
2009/10
507,866,599,666
332,092,443,562
175,774,156,104
35
133
(TZS.)
Existence of unspent development Grants at the year-end implies
that, some of the approved development activities of equivalent
amount in the respective LGAs were either partially or not
implemented at all, and therefore the earmarked benefits to the
intended beneficiaries have not been realized. For the rolled over
activities to be implemented in the following year it will require
them to be re-budgeted with a view to accommodating price changes
that might have occurred due to inflation. This might render the
unspent funds insufficient to complete all the rolled over activities.
4.8
Under collection of Own Sources Revenue
During the year under review, a sample was chosen from two main
own revenue sources which included Property Tax mainly collected
by City Councils, Municipal Councils and Town Councils and Produce
Cess mostly collected by District Councils and the following were
noted:
39
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
4.8.1 Under Collection of Revenue from Property Tax and Produce cess
TZS.864,058,029
During the financial year 2013/14, a total of 10 LGAs budgeted to
collect TZS.2,926,644,042 from Property Tax. However, Councils
collected TZS.2,062,586,013 which is 70% reflecting under collections
of TZS.864,058,029 equivalent to 30% of the total budgeted amount.
A list of LGAs and respective revenue collected from Property Tax is
as shown in Table 21 below:
Table 21: Councils with Under Collection of Property Tax
1
Kahama TC
41,750,000
497,000
Under
collection
(TZS.)
(41,253,000)
2
24,340,000
3,246,002
(21,093,998)
200,000,000
67,545,000
(132,455,000)
4
Korogwe TC
Kigoma/Ujiji
MC
Bariadi TC
23,890,000
11,195,607
(12,694,393)
53
5
Ilemela MC
712,839,220
361,213,371
(351,625,849)
49
6
Shinyanga MC
30,768,000
15,558,500
(15,209,500)
49
7
Singida MC
118,812,000
65,694,978
(53,117,022)
45
8
Musoma MC
123,592,822
84,297,388
(39,295,434)
32
9
Tanga CC
517,480,000
428,304,078
(89,175,922)
17
10
Mwanza CC
Total
1,133,172,000
2,926,644,042
1,025,034,089
2,062,586,013
(108,137,911)
(864,058,029)
30
No
3
Name of LGA
Budget (TZS.)
Actual (TZS.)
% of under
collection
99
87
66
10
Furthermore, during the year under review, 42 LGAs budgeted to
collect TZS. 22,008,697,524 from produce cess. However, Councils
collected TZS. 14,300,448,911 which is 65% reflecting under
collections of TZS. 7,708,248,613 equivalent to 35% of the total
budgeted amount. The overall percentage of under collections for
the financial year 2013/14 has increased by 21.3% compared to that
of financial year 2012/13 for the sampled LGAs. This signifies that,
there was an unhealthy trend regarding revenue collection from this
source.
40
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
List of Councils and respective revenues collected from produce cess
is as shown in Annexure (xv).
This implies that the sampled LGAs did not collect 30% and 35% of the
approved budget from Property Tax and Produce Cess respectively.
I reiterate my previous year recommendation to LGAs‟ management
to prepare realistic budgets and establish strong strategies for
collecting Property Tax and Produce Cess with a view of boosting
their own sources revenue collection.
41
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0
KEY ISSUES FROM AUDIT OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND
EVALUATION OF INTERNAL CONTROL
5.1
Introduction
In the current climate of budget restraint and declining availability of
resources, it is important that LGAs can demonstrate the resources
that they are responsible for are appropriately managed and
controlled. High quality and proportionate internal control systems
will help Councils achieve their objectives.
5.2
Key issues from evaluation of Internal Control Internal control
system
The Internal Control System consists of all procedures adopted by the
management of the Councils to support an orderly and efficient
conduct of its business, including adherence to management policies,
safeguarding of assets, prevention and detection of fraud and errors,
accuracy and completeness of accounting records, as well as timely
preparation of reliable financial information.
Order 11 of the LGFM of 2009 requires management to establish and
support a sound system of internal control within the LGAs. In
addition, Order 25(1) places responsibility on the LGA management
through Treasurer to maintain the financial accounting, costing,
stores records and systems of the LGAs, in accordance with written
laws, regulations and guidelines given by the Minister and the
International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) as they relate to the
public sector accounting.
The internal controls in LGAs were reviewed and found to exist but
they are weak in some LGAs. The overview of LGAs internal controls
review revealed the following:
42
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
5.2.1 ICT Environment Review including Accounting Systems
The accounting and financial information of Councils are processed
by using EPICOR 9.05 accounting system. However, during the
assessment of effectiveness of Epicor financial management system
and controls in 90 LGAs it was noted that, despite the
recommendation in the last year‟s audit report, weaknesses still exist
as follows:
 EPICOR version 9.05 does not align with International Public
Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS)-accrual basis of accounting
used by LGAs. The EPICOR 9.05 accounting package operates as a
cash-commitment control tool which only captures cash
transactions and ignores the accrual transactions. Therefore, to
finalize the Council‟s final accounts, manual adjustments and
consolidation of accounts had to be done.
 Reconciliations cannot be performed with EPICOR 9.05 computers
installed at the LGAs, pressing the need for accountants to travel
to Dodoma (PMO-RALG Office) at the end of every quarter in
order to prepare three months reconciliations.
 Currently, PlanRep (an MS Access database) is used by the LGA for
budget and planning. However, the information captured in
PlanRep has to be manually re-entered into the General ledger in
EPICOR (financial management system) due to lack of an
automated interface.
 Network problem affecting timely generation of reports from
system.
 Underutilising of the Epicor Accounting Systems in such a way that
assets Management and procurement modules are not put into
use.
 27 LGAs were not installed with Epicor Version 9.05 as a result
they were operating under manual accounting system.
43
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Table 22: Trend of non-installation of Epicor 9.05 for two
consecutive years
Financial year
2013/2014
2012/2013
LGAs involved
27
5
From the table above, numbers of LGAs using manual accounting
systems have increased from five (5) in the year 2012/2013 to twenty
seven (27) during the year 2013/2014. This was attributed to the
establishment of new LGAs which came into operation on
01/07/2013.
Manual accounting system is associated with risks including records
being more prone to errors and omissions, and can be easily
manipulated if proper and adequate controls are not in place which
might reduce the level of integrity of the reports. The use of manual
system also distorts the accuracy, speed and brings about ambiguity
in reporting at all levels.
Basing on the above observations, it is insisted that both the LGAs
and PMO-RALG have to pay attention to the need for having an
effective utilization of the EPICOR system by resolving shortfalls
facing the EPICOR system through strengthening of the network
infrastructure, enhancing human capacities and work out on timely
configuration of non-functional modules.
List of LGAs noted to have these deficiencies are shown in Annexure
(xvi)
5.2.2 IT General Control Environment
IT controls ensure confidentiality, integrity and availability of Council
information, enable service delivery and promote National Security.
It is thus essential for good IT governance, effective IT management
and a secure IT infrastructure to be in place.
44
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
My audit included an assessment of the IT controls that focus on IT
governance, security management, user access management and IT
service continuity.
Information Technology governance
Effective IT governance ensures that the organisation‟s IT control
environment functions well and enables service delivery.
Security management
A secure IT environment ensures the confidentiality, integrity and
availability of critical IT systems and processes.
User access management
User access controls are measures designed by management to
prevent and detect the risk of unauthorized access to, and creation
or amendment of financial and operation information stored in the
application system.
Information Technology service continuity
IT service continuity controls enable institutions to recover critical
business operations and application systems that would be affected
by disaster or major system disruptions within reasonable time
frames.
During the assessment of IT control environment, the following
shortcomings were observed in 107 LGAs as shown in Annexure
(xvii).

The LGAs have no IT policy which may lead to inadequate
management and handling of IT equipment including computer
software and hardware as IT policy provides guidance on secured
use of IT equipment, networks and IT operations.
45
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014




IT disaster recovery plan was not in place and so disaster recovery
tests were not done. In the absence of disaster recovery plan it
will be difficult to restore the system in a timely manner and
there will be no tested sources of data for restoration and no
specific persons responsible for the restoration. This poses a risk
to business continuity of the LGAs.
There is no a formally documented and approved user
management standards and procedures in the organization.
Insufficient preventive mechanism to ensure that both application
hardware and application software are adequately protected
through use of equipment like fire extinguisher, fire suppression
system, smoke detectors and fireproof safe.
Lack of skilled staff and/or on job training to existing staff in IT
Unit
I reiterate my prior years‟ recommendation that, PMO-RALG is
required to assist LGAs to introduce written and documented IT
Policy and Procedures so that every operational staff is aware of
his/her roles and responsibilities in safeguarding the IT equipment
and software, and LGAs are required to have disaster recovery plans
in place which include developing, documenting, testing and
implementing disaster recovery plan that considers all IFMS and any
other critical business system within the LGAs.
5.2.3 Inadequate performance of Internal Audit Units in LGAs
Sect. 45 (1) of The Local Government Finances Act, 1982 (Revised
2000) and Order 13 of the Local Government Financial Memorandum,
2009 require Accounting Officers of each LGA to establish and
maintain an effective Internal Audit Unit as part of the organization‟s
framework internal controls. It helps an organization to accomplish
its objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to
evaluate and improve the effectiveness of risk management, control
and governance processes. However, while evaluating the
46
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
effectiveness of Internal Audit Unit in 125 LGAs during the year under
review we noted the following weaknesses:
 Internal Audit Units do not have continuing capacity building plan
to all internal auditors in basic auditing principles and practices,
IT skills especially training in EPICOR and inter personal skills to
improve performance of their duties


Insufficient number of Internal Auditors compared to the workload
available and geographical location of Council as many LGAs have
an average of two auditors available, thus limiting the scope of
internal audit function. Most of the funds transferred to the lower
level and many projects as well as revenues and expenditures in
Secondary and Primary Schools are not effectively audited.
The Units lack transport facilities which are necessary for them to
carry out their activities effectively.

Non preparation of audit programme that describes audit
procedures to be performed while executing the planned audit
works.

Absence of quality review process LGAs found to have the above
shortcomings are presented in Annexure (xviii)
The LGAs are urged to communicate with the Presidents‟ Office –
Public Service Management for the vacant posts to be filled. Also
LGAS are advised to have audit programs in place and introduce a
quality review process.
5.2.4
Inefficient performance of Audit Committees in LGAs
Audit committee refers to a governance body that is charged with
oversight of the LGA‟s audit and control functions whose role
typically focuses on aspects of financial reporting and on the entity's
processes to manage business and financial risk, and for compliance
with significant applicable legal, ethical, and regulatory
47
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
requirements. It assists Management with the oversight of the
integrity of the entity's financial statements, the entity's compliance
with legal and regulatory requirements, the independent auditors'
qualifications and independence as well as the performance of the
entity's internal audit function.
To assist Audit Committees in their functioning, we evaluated
performance in 110 LGAs and the following deficiencies were
observed:
 Audit Committees failed to meet regularly (at least once per
quarter) as such they did not effectively discharge their oversight
duties.
 The Audit Committees did not review risk management policies of
LGAs since LGAs had no risk assessment processes in place. As a
result, the Audit Committees did not appropriately address
material weaknesses in internal control environment identified
during the year.
 No evidence that the Audit Committees reviewed the external
auditors‟ Management Letter including management responses.
 Review of the design and implementation of internal control
procedures in the LGAs for major areas including assets,
expenditure and revenue management were not undertaken.
 Lack of capacity building to enhance knowledge of Audit
Committee members.
 Audit Committees were not established in 3 LGAs which are
Kakonko DC, Kasulu DC and Shinyanga DC
LGAs with these weaknesses are as shown in Annexure (xix)
The LGAs‟ Managements are advised to ensure that, members of the
Audit Committee are knowledgeable and conversant with their
responsibilities as elaborated in the Audit Committee Charter and
Terms of Reference so that they can function efficiently and
effectively.
48
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
5.2.5
Risk management assessment
I have reported regularly through our strategic audit plan programme
that more effective risk management would enable LGAs to be better
informed in their decisions, have a greater likelihood of meeting
their aims and objectives, and help them to avoid costly mistakes.
Observation arising from my work is that, LGAs are lagging behind in
their assessment of risks to their operations and effectiveness of the
mitigating actions they take to address risks.
During the year under review, the following weaknesses were noted
while assessing risk management in 75 LGAs (as shown in Annexure
(xx)
 Management of LGAs has not performed risk assessment in order
to identify risk areas that are associated with their organization
processes.
 Non maintenance of risk registers.
 LGAs do not have risk management policy in place as per the
requirement of the guideline for developing and implementing
institutional risk framework and policy in public sector issued by
the Ministry of Finance in 2012.
 No risk assessment reports were prepared and presented for audit
during the year under review.
To overcome the weaknesses noted above, LGAs are advised to
design and establish an effective mechanism of risk assessment, risk
grading, analyzing of the impact and control activities for monitoring
and mitigating these risks.
5.2.6
Fraud prevention and control
ISA 240 defines fraud as an intentional act by one or more individuals
among management, those charged with governance, employees, or
third parties, involving the use of deception to obtain an unjust or
illegal advantage. The primary responsibility for the prevention and
49
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
detection of fraud rests with those charged with governance as well
as management and employees of the LGAs.
Fraud assessment at the selected sample of 62 LGAs as shown in
Annexure (xxi) disclosed that:
 LGA‟s management have not documented and approved fraud
prevention plans.
 There were no processes put in place by the LGAs‟ Management
for identifying and responding to the risk of fraud.
 No written evidence that specific controls have been identified by
management, which is considered appropriate for mitigation of
the risk of errors resulting from fraud.
There were red flags that were recurring such as missing payment
vouchers, instances of revenue not banked, payment without
supporting documents, missing revenue receipt books, and payment
of salaries to ghost workers which are viewed as symptoms of fraud
which were noted.
Nature of the indicators of fraud noted above impairs the internal
control systems hence there is a high risk of concealing management
fraud and/or employees‟ fraud at various managerial and/or
operational levels.
I recommend to management of LGAs to take immediate action to
establish control for mitigating risks of errors resulting from fraud
and put in place a mechanism for identifying and responding to
fraud.
5.3
Revenue management
Revenue Management in LGAs emphasize on establishing adequate
procedures for budgeting, organizing, supervising and controlling
revenue collection. The combination of budget constraints, rising
demand for services, and changing priorities is escalating the need to
50
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
maximize revenue, efficiency and improve citizen services. In
achieving these goals, LGAs require detailed strategies and
comprehensive approaches for revenue collection. During the year
under review, some of the weaknesses were noted on LGAs‟
regarding to revenue management as shown here under:
5.3.1 Four hundred and seventy four (474) missing revenues earnings
receipt books
Order 34(6) and 34(7) of the Local Government Financial
Memorandum of 2009 requires all officers issued with receipt books
to render a return of used and unused receipts at the end of every
month in the prescribed form, and all losses of accountable
documents to immediately be reported to the Accounting Officer who
shall report to the police contrary to the cited Order above, a total
of 474 revenue receipt books from 47 Councils were missing and
therefore could not be availed for audit purposes when called for.
Details are in Annexure (xxii).
Table 23 below shows a trend of missing revenue earning receipt
books for two consecutive years:
Table 23: Missing revenue earning receipts books
Financial Year
2013/2014
2012/2013
Quantity
474
1234
No. of Councils involved
47
51
From Table 23 above, it can be observed that, though there is a
significant decrease of missing revenue earning receipt books in this
year compared to the previous year although there was a slight
decrease in the number of Councils involved.
Despite the improvement observed, there are ineffective internal
controls on revenue collection and revenue earning receipt books. In
51
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
absence of the revenue receipt books, I could not ascertain revenue
collected using those receipt books and accountability of the same.
I therefore recommend to management of respective LGAs to strictly
comply with Order 34 (6) and (7) of Local Government Financial
Memorandum, 2009. In addition, I insist to the LGAs to institute
effective Internal Control Systems over the management of revenue
receipt books including performing regular checks on receipt books
issued to Councils‟ revenue collectors.
5.3.2 Revenue collection not remitted by collecting agents
TZS.4,843,414,724
During the year under review, the LGAs outsourced revenue
collection from different own sources in order to enhance revenue
collection and finance internal revenue budget. Order 38 (3) of the
LGFM, 2009 requires that where Local Government Authority opts to
collect revenue by agent it shall require such an agent to deposit in
advance with the Local Government Authority, three months
instalments, a bank guarantee or any other form of security as the
Local Government Authority shall consider appropriate. Contrary to
the foregoing 54 LGAs had uncollected revenue of TZS.4,843,414,724
from the Revenue Collecting agents as at 30th June, 2014 as detailed
in Annexure (xxiii).
A trend of unremitted collections from outsourced revenue sources
for a period of four consecutive years is given in Table 24 below and
presented in a bar graph as follows:
Table 24: Unremitted collections from outsourced revenue
sources for four consecutive years
Financial Year
2013/2014
2012/2013
2011/2012
2010/2011
Amount (TZS)
4,843,414,724
6,710,548,469
4,466,028,478
4,360,299,618
52
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
From Table 24 above it can be noted that, the amount of revenue
collections not remitted to the LGAs by agents significantly increased
in the financial year 2012/2013, followed by substantial decrease in
financial year 2013/2014. This implies that there has been
improvement in the implementation of my previous year‟s
recommendations.
In light of the trend above, I recommend to management of LGAs to
enhance supervision of outsourced revenue by entering into
comprehensive contracts and enforce compliance with the contract
agreements. In addition, compliance with Order 38 (3) of the LGFM,
2009 is insisted.
5.3.3 Revenue from
own sources not
collected by
LGAs
TZS.17,168,528,904
LGAs are responsible for financing their internal revenue budget and
to reduce the level of dependency on Central Government funding.
LGAs are facing greater pressures to increase revenue and service
levels while reducing the cost of revenue administration. Strategic
approach to revenue management is required to ensure LGAs collect
all expected revenue timely and exploit all existing and potential
revenue sources. However, during the year under review, 60 LGAs did
not collect all expected revenue from existing revenue sources.
Details of the uncollected revenue for each LGA are shown in
Annexure (xxiv).
A summary of Revenue from own sources not collected by LGAs
during the financial years 2013/2014 and 2012/2013 is as shown in
Table 25 below:
Table 25: Revenue from own sources not collected by LGAs
F/Year
2013/2014
2012/2013
Amount (TZS)
17,168,528,904
7,710,147,415
No. of Councils involved
60
54
53
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
The above trend shows a sharp increase of uncollected revenue by
TZS.9,458,381,489 equivalent to 123% from TZS.7,710,147,415
reported in the previous year to TZS.17,168,528 recorded during the
year under review. Failure to collect revenue when they fall due is a
reflection of weakness and ineffective control over revenue
collections which is partly attributable to inadequate follow up and
monitoring of revenue potential sources.
It is recommended to LGAs to improve revenue administration
processes, allowing citizens to more easily comply with relevant laws
and regulations. In addition, I encourage LGAs to exploit all existing
and potential revenue sources in order to improve collections and
achieve their goals as planned hence reducing dependency on Central
5.3.4 Inadequate administration on outsourced revenue collections
The Local Government Authorities reformed revenue collection
systems in order to enhance efficiency on revenue collection from
their own sources. Outsourcing of revenue collection when
appropriately managed and monitored can establish a platform for
more effective and efficient LGAs revenue administration. However,
collections increased and become more predictable to some LGAs,
while others had experienced substantial problems on increasing
revenue collected by revenue collecting agents due to the following:
 The major challenge facing privatized revenue collection in LGAs
is relating to feasibility studies on the expected actual collection
from respective revenue sources before outsourcing them. Mostly
the contracted amount based on the previous year reported
collection rather than assessment on the capability of the actual
collection that can be obtained from a revenue source.
Consequently, there is a high risk for ending up in a situation
where an agent keeps a significant portion of revenue collected.
54
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014

Another problem facing outsourcing system in LGAs is inadequate
administration and monitoring of the revenue collection
contracts. Council prepares weak revenue collecting contracts
with unclear clauses hence making it difficult to enforce the
agreement whenever there is any breach of terms of contract.
Hence, some of the collecting agents failed to remit the agreed
amounts, and sometimes untimely paid the agreed amount.

No evaluation was done on the outsourced revenue collection in
order to determine whether the agents efficiently executed their
responsibilities or to trace and identify weaknesses and problems
faced by agents that have to be addressed and corrected. In
addition, comparison between actual collection through receipt
books and contracted amount was not made in order to establish
the amount held as margin by agent.
Also, there is improper drafting of outsourced revenue contracts
by LGAs. The contracts lack important clauses like amount of
interest or penalties to be charged for late remittance of revenue
collections and submission of operational and financial reports by
agents to the LGA. Other revenue collecting agents collect own
source revenue on behalf of the LGA without having binding
contracts with the LGAs.


Order 38 (3) of Local Government Financial Memorandum, 2009
requires LGAs which opt to outsource revenue collection to
agents, to ask for advance deposit of three months instalments, a
bank guarantee or any other form of security as the LGAs consider
appropriate. To the contrary, Councils did not ask for three
months instalments advance, a bank guarantee, performance
bond or any security appropriate for the contracted amount. This
may result into a loss of money if the revenue collecting agent
fails to remit the amount due.

In addition, an other major weakness I noted is lack of
standardized revenue collecting contracts among the Councils.
Revenue collecting contracts for some Councils contain clauses
like; penalties on delay remittance, submission of collection
55
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
records either daily or monthly records depending on the revenue
source which in my view are important for proper maintenance
and enhancement of the revenue collection within the respective
Council. However, other revenue collection contracts do not
contain those clauses and those which contain the clauses were
not enforced.
The above shortcomings imply
outsourced revenue collection
ineffective control over revenue
bad debts due to accumulation of
inadequate administration of the
contracts which resulted from
collections. This might result into
uncollected revenue.
In order to achieve the objective of outsourcing revenue collections,
I recommend to the LGAs management to establish criteria that will
ensure that private collectors accomplish a reasonable return to the
LGAs. Hence it is important for each LGA to install a system for more
realistic assessment of the revenue potentials before outsourcing
takes place and to update the assessment regularly. I also
recommend LGAs to strengthen outsourced revenue collection
administration by formulation of standardized comprehensive
revenue collecting contracts and ensuring they enforce contract
agreements.
In addition, all LGAs have to enforce security/
guarantees for all revenue contracts to avoid un-recoverability (nonremittances) of revenue from revenue collecting agents.
5.3.5 Revenue collected but not banked TZS.323,231,453
Order 50 (5) of LGFM (2009) requires all monies that have been
received in the Local Government to be paid into the Local
Government Authority‟s bank accounts daily or the next working day.
During the year, it was noted that TZS.323,231,453 collected in 19
Councils from various revenue sources were not evidenced to be
banked in the Council‟s bank account contrary to the requirements of
the cited Order. Details are as shown in Table 26 below:
56
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Table 26: Revenue collected but not banked
S/No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Total
LGA
Longido DC
Karatu DC
Mvomero DC
Kishapu DC
Karagwe DC
Geita DC
Songea DC
Magu DC
Sumbawanga DC
Ngara DC
Mpwapwa
Kyerwa DC
Tandahimba
Korogwe DC
Masasi TC
Arusha DC
Nsimbo DC
Mwanza CC
Nantumbo DC
Amount (TZS)
99,843,198
59,218,000
31,102,660
20,040,877
19,523,000
16,687,800
12,596,000
10,730,620
10,400,000
8,494,361
6,166,200
5,902,000
5,533,969
5,143,100
4,281,372
2,977,300
2,400,000
1,141,966
1,049,030
323,231,453
In absence of banking particulars of the revenue collected,
legitimacy and accuracy of the reported own source revenue
collections could not be ascertained.
I recommend to LGAs management on compliance with Order 50 (5)
of LGFM (2009) by ensuring internal controls over revenue collections
are strengthened. Furthermore, the LGAs are required to ensure
that, revenue collections are promptly remitted and banked.
5.3.6 Non/improper maintenance of registers (Database) for collected
own sources revenue
Revenue registers mainly required for proper records and
accountability of collections. In addition, the register can be used to
estimate the future revenue collections and debtors. During the year
under review, I conducted an assessment on effectiveness and
efficiency of revenue collections procedures specifically for the
57
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
collected own sources revenue for the sampled Council and noted
that, 14 LGAs did not have a data base or register for a particular
type of revenue which is a significant weakness on controlling,
recording and reporting of revenue collected. This is contrary to
Order 23(3) of LGFM, 2009. Details are as in Annexure (xxv).
In the absence of the data-base, it is difficult for the LGAs to
establish the amount of revenue required to be collected from
sources such as property tax, service levy and billboard fees. The
LGAs can accept any amount paid by companies who opt to pay
service levy and any amount remitted by revenue collectors for the
case of property tax and billboard fee. In addition, it was difficult to
justify the accuracy and completeness of the amount reported from
these sources.
It is recommended that, LGAs are required to strengthen controls
over recording of revenue and establish a register for each source of
revenue where District Treasurer will be responsible in supervising
maintenance and updating of registers as required by Order 23 (3) of
Local Government Financial Memorandum, 2009.
5.3.7 30% of land rent collections not returned to the Council
TZS.1,197,777,287
The Local Government Finance Act, 1982 (Revised 2000) recognize
land rent as source revenue for LGAs. In addition, Circular
No.CBD.171/261/01/148 (Retention scheme) dated 19th November,
2012 from PMO – RALG provide directives on collection of land rent
and eligible expenditure to be incurred using remitted land rent.
According to Circular No.CBD.171/261/01/148, 30% of the collected
land rent is required to be returned to the respective LGAs.
According to paragraph 8 of the quoted Circular, the 30% return is for
resolving the land conflicts, purchase of land survey equipment and
tools and any other expenses related to administration of land
matters.
58
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
To the contrary, I noted that, a total of TZS.1,197,777,287 was not
returned to 32 Councils by the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human
Settlement Development as shown in Annexure (xxvi).
Inadequate return of land rent collected to the respective Council;
discourage the Councils on promotion and administration of land rent
collection that will decrease land rent collections within the Country.
In addition, activities which were budgeted to be financed by the
collections will not be implemented resulting in ineffective
performance of the land sectors within the particular Council.
For the enhancement of land rent administration and collections, I
recommend to the Government to come up with strategies for better
performance of retention scheme which will ensure the 30% of land
rent collected are timely returned to the respective Councils and are
used for the intended purpose. In my view, the Government has to
introduce a retention scheme for land rents collections whereby 30%
will be retained by the LGAs and 70% remitted to the Ministry to
avoid further accumulation of receivables due to the Ministry of Land
and Human Settlements.
5.4
Cash management
Cash Management is a strategy of collecting, managing and disbursing
public funds. Efficient cash handling and control systems increase
certainty that payments are made properly by the due date and that
receipts are passed without delay to the responsible bodies. They
also reduce operational risk and the scope for mismanagement or
fraud.
Control of cash is a key element in implementing the budget
efficiently.
59
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
However, Audit of cash management in the LGAs, noted various
issues as summarized below:
5.4.1 Outstanding Items in Bank Reconciliation Statements
Order 29 (2) of the Local Government Financial Memorandum of 2009
require the LGA‟s Treasurer to ensure that all necessary
reconciliations, including controls of individual accounts and between
cash book and bank statements, are carried out at not more than
monthly intervals; and reconciling items adjusted accordingly.
Contrary to the cited Order, 24 LGAs had outstanding items in the
bank reconciliation statements which were not cleared.
A summary of outstanding matters in the bank reconciliation
statements for the year ended 30th June, 2014 is shown in Annexure
(xxvii).
Table 27 below is a comparison of outstanding items in bank
reconciliation statements for a period of four financial years
(2010/11 to 2013/14).
Table 27: Trend of outstanding items in bank reconciliation
statements
Financial
Year
2013/2014
2012/2013
2011/2012
2010/2011
Receipt in cash books not
in bank statements (TZS.)
675,460,335
5,864,183,413
3,872,146,712
5,088,963,792
Un presented
cheques (TZS.)
3,970,602,656
16,842,008,917
18,368,780,081
10,897,078,986
From the table above, receipts recorded in Cash Books, but not
reflected in the bank statements decreased by TZS.5,188,723,078
equivalent to 88% from the financial year 2012/13 to the financial
year 2013/14.
60
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Cheques drawn in favour of various payees but not presented to the
bank have continued to decrease from TZS.16,842,008,917 in
2012/13 to TZS.3,970,602,656 which is a decrease of 76%.
Errors and misappropriation of public funds resulting from
outstanding issues in the bank reconciliation may remain undetected
by management of LGAs for a long time and may result into losses to
the LGAs a source of fraud.
I recommend to LGAs‟ management to ensure that, Bank
Reconciliation Statements are prepared monthly and approved by the
LGAs Senior Officials. Also, all necessary adjustments including
cancellation of stale cheques should be adjusted in the LGAs‟ cash
books to reflect the accurate balance at the year end.
5.4.2
Surprise cash survey and check
(i)
Surprise cash survey not done by LGAs
Surprise cash survey is an integral part of cash management which
helps to control misuse or loss of public funds. Order 46 (1) of the
LGFM of 2009 require Accounting Officers or their authorized
representatives, at irregular intervals, to arrange for surprise checks
of cash on hand. However, during surprise cash survey conducted to
163 LGAs it was revealed that, Accounting Officers or their
authorized representative for 34 LGAs did not either arrange or
conduct any surprise checks of cash in hand. List of LGAs that did not
perform surprise cash surveys is shown in Annexure (xxviii).
A comparison of LGAs which did not conduct surprise cash survey
between 2012/13 and 2013/14 is shown in the Table 28 below:
Table 28: LGAs which did not conduct surprise cash survey
F/year
2013/2014
2012/2013
No. of LGAs
34
31
61
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Failure by LGAs to conduct surprise cash checks implies that the
respective Accounting Officers did not institute structured and
systematic cash management controls.
I recommend to the LGAs management to establish effective and
efficient controls over cash management including performing
surprise cash survey regularly at irregular interval in order to
enhance accountability over cash management.
(ii)
Maximum limits for cash holding not set
Order 99 (1) of the LGFM, 2009 requires maximum limit for cash
handling on premises to be agreed upon by the Local Government
Authority and shall not be exceeded without express permission. In
this year, 19 LGAs were noted to have not set a maximum limit for
cash holding as per the above Order as shown in Annexure (xxviii).
Holding large amount of cash at the LGA‟s premises increases the risk
of cash misappropriation. Having specified maximum limit to hold
cash at LGAs premises prevent theft or uses of public funds for
unintended purposes.
I recommend to management of LGAs to strictly comply with Order
99 (1) of the LGFM, 2009 by ensuring cash holding limit is established
and complied with for control purposes.
5.5
Human Resources and Payroll Management
Human resources management (HRM) is one of the functions within
Local Government Authorities that focuses on recruitment,
management, and providing directives for the people who work in the
LGA. It deals with employees‟ issues like compensation, performance
appraisal, employee motivation and development for achieving predetermined objectives.
62
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
An assessment on the effectiveness of the Human Resources and
Payroll Management for the year ended 30th June, 2014 in LGAs noted
the following:
5.5.1 Lack of adequate and efficient Open Performance Review and
Appraisal System (OPRAS)
OPRAS emphasizes on the importance of involving employees in
objective setting, implementing, monitoring and reviewing process
and therefore, promotes individual accountability; improve
transparency as well as communication between management and
employees. However, this can only be achieved if OPRAS is
adequately conducted.
A review made in 17 LGAs revealed that, there were no efficient and
adequate Open Performance Review and Appraisal conducted during
the year under review which is contrary to Order D.42, D.62 and D.63
of the Standing Orders for the Public Service of 2009. Mainly,
performance review was done as ad-hoc activity at the time
employees were due for promotion thus diluting the whole concept of
performance appraisal.
In the year 2012/2013 I reported 16 LGAs which had not adequately
conducted performance appraisal to their employees. There has been
an increase of 2% of LGAs with inadequate performance appraisal of
their employees since my last report.
Lack of adequate performance evaluation through OPRAS denies both
the employer and employee various advantages which include
motivation, identification of skill gaps, measures for improvement,
transparency, re-enforcement of organizational objectives and
improved working relations. Also, it becomes difficult to
determine employee‟s performance as the forms are filled to
facilitate promotion purposes only.
63
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Table 29: List of LGAs with inadequate staff appraisal
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Name of LGAs
Arusha CC
Bagamoyo DC
Bumbuli DC
Dodoma MC
Ilala MC
Ilemela MC
Iringa MC
Kishapu DC
Korogwe DC
Longido DC
Misungwi DC
Ngorongoro DC
Nyasa DC
Pangani DC
Same DC
Siha DC
Sikonge DC
I therefore reiterate my previous recommendation that, LGAs
management continue to train the employees on effective
implementation of performance appraisal. I further emphasize that
monitoring and evaluation mechanism be strengthened to make it
possible to identify, evaluate and document potentials and
shortcomings in the performance of employees to enable measures to
be taken for improvement.
5.5.2 Non maintenance and updating of employees’ registers
Order 79 (1) of the Local Government Financial Memorandum (LGFM),
2009 requires the Head of Human Resource Department to keep an
up-to-date register for all employees and their necessary details
including appointments, resignations, dismissals, suspensions,
secondments and transfers changes in remuneration and any other
information necessary for the employee.
During review of employee‟s registers I noted that, five LGAs
(Bariadi, Hanang‟, Kakonko, Maswa and Ushetu District Councils) had
64
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
not adequately maintained the said registers. As a result, Treasurers
through salaries sections had not updated with employees‟
information which leads to payment of salaries to employees who
were no longer in service due to retirement, termination,
abscondment and death.
I recommend to management of LGAs to update employees‟ records
regularly in order to avoid possibilities of paying non existing
workers.
5.5.3 Unclaimed salaries not remitted to Treasury TZS.1,140,329,769 and
late remittances TZS.1,348,490,740
2009 requires unclaimed salaries which were re-banked in the
Deposit Account in respect of the deceased, retired, dismissed
employees to be remitted to the Ministry of Finance within two
weeks after salary payment. Further, emphasis was made through
Treasury directive with Ref. No.CA: 307/334/01 dated 15/1/2010.
Contrary to the above requirements, unclaimed salaries amounting to
TZS.1,140,329,769 in respect of 33 LGAs were not remitted to
Treasury while a further sum of TZS.1,348,490,740 was remitted late
after expiration of fourteen days stipulated by the above cited Order.
This was caused by lack of proper accountability over unclaimed
salaries which could lead to misappropriation of Government funds as
was the case for Kwimba and Singida DC whereby TZS.62,348,102 and
TZS.25,713,671 respectively were misappropriated.
Table 30: Unclaimed salaries not remitted to Treasury and late
remittances
Unclaimed salaries not remitted to Treasury
S/N
1
2
Name of LGA
Moshi DC
Mbulu DC
Amount (TZS)
220,095,579
121,754,582
Late remittances
S/N
1
2
Name of LGA
Lushoto DC
Bumbuli DC
Amount (TZS)
321,868,773
205,270,550
65
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ushetu DC
Sumbawanga MC
Monduli DC
Kiteto DC
Karatu DC
Kongwa DC
Tabora MC
Muheza DC
Kilolo DC
Shinyanga MC
Lushoto DC
Mafia DC
Moshi MC
Masasi TC
Kishapu DC
Ngara DC
Namtumbo DC
Kilosa DC
Makete DC
Ngorongoro DC
Singida DC
Mpanda TC
Wanging‟ombe DC
26
27
28
Bumbuli DC
Babati TC
Sumbawanga DC
29
30
31
32
33
Total
Nkasi DC
Kalambo DC
Njombe TC
Nsimbo DC
Morogoro MC
119,127,416
89,324,710
66,529,061
53,892,258
52,661,530
51,374,268
39,159,804
33,713,533
29,867,004
29,238,905
28,295,863
22,803,990
22,103,541
21,806,724
20,511,262
19,093,241
13,294,869
12,230,200
12,059,319
11,928,986
8,724,131
8,443,323
7,239,205
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Total
Same DC
Mpwapwa DC
Mbeya CC
Rombo DC
Mbinga DC
Karatu DC
Arusha CC
Temeke MC
Tanga CC
Meru DC
Longido DC
Lindi MC
Siha DC
Tunduru DC
121,521,015
98,874,666
90,666,624
86,974,378
79,516,296
70,602,950
59,020,769
54,856,369
39,515,290
39,003,018
32,246,222
25,481,112
15,969,750
7,102,958
1,348,490,740
5,015,476
4,425,841
3,889,558
3,711,864
3,432,483
2,112,539
1,328,965
1,139,738
1,140,329,769
I recommend to the respective LGAs to timely identify unclaimed
salaries in respect of employees who are no longer in service due to
various reasons as said above and remit them to the Ministry of
Finance.
5.5.4 Payment of salaries to absconded, retired, deceased employees
TZS.1,009,605,195 and TZS.845,445,888 as statutory deductions
paid to financial institutions
During the year under review, a total of TZS.1,009,605,195 in 36
LGAs was paid as salaries to absconded, deceased, retired and
66
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
dismissed employees. This is a reflection of non-compliance to
requirements of Order 79 (8) of the LGFM, 2009 which requires
periodic checks to be undertaken by Human Resource Officers in
collaboration with Heads of Department And Internal Auditor on the
validity of all payroll entries.
In addition, a sum of TZS.845,445,888 in 32 LGA was paid as
deductions to different institutions like Pension Funds, Financial
Institutions, NHIF and TRA in respect of the employees who were no
longer in service. Payment to employees who were no longer in
service directly or indirectly amounts to loss of public money which
calls for managements‟ interventions to arrest the situation. Refer
Annexure (xxix).
I reiterate my previous year‟s recommendation that LGAs‟
managements are advised to strengthen controls by updating
information in the employees register so that any termination is
known early before salaries are paid. Furthermore, I recommend to
LGAs, PMO-RALG, PO-PSM and Treasury to establish a closer working
relationship to provide timely reaction on issues relating to
employees whose salaries should not continue to be paid.
5.5.5 (i) Under release of Personal Emoluments (PE) grant
TZS.292,402,808
During the year under review, there was an under release of funds
for personal emoluments to LGAs by Treasury of TZS.292,402,808.
This was a result of comparison made between actual salaries paid
and actual exchequer issues received for Personal Emoluments for
the financial year 2013/2014 in respect of eight sampled LGAs.
(ii) Over release of Personal Emolument (PE) grants
TZS.74,097,073
Review of three LGAs showed that, they received personal
emolument grants of TZS.74,097,073 above the required amount to
be paid for salaries. This amount was supposed to be refunded to
67
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Treasury though no evidence was found indicating that the refund
was effected. Details of the LGAs are shown in Table 31 below.
Table 31: LGAs paid salaries over and above PE Grants Received
S.N
Name of
LGA
Actual Salary
received (TZS)
Actual salary
Paid (TZS)
Over
release
(TZS)
Under
release (TZS)
1
2
3
4
5
Bunda DC
Kishapu DC
Masasi DC
Mbeya CC
Mlele DC
Morogoro
DC
Nachingwea
DC
Ruangwa DC
Serengeti
DC
Ulanga DC
Gairo DC
12,053,463,637
7,874,592,083
7,699,999,849
16,476,414,302
972,854,942
12,079,311,377
7,839,415,169
7,683,597,878
16,453,896,115
1,014,611,045
35,176,915
16,401,971
22,518,187
-
25,847,740
41,756,104
11,745,818,804
11,751,389,969
-
5,571,165
5,717,714,513
5,729,483,208
-
11,768,695
418,003,661
420,314,091
-
2,310,430
15,353,939,102
15,381,616,072
-
27,676,970
15,618,813,350
1,045,065,578
94,976,679,821
15,764,689,282
1,076,661,350
95,194,985,556
74,097,073
145,875,932
31,595,772
292,402,808
6
7
8
9
10
11
Under release of funds for Personal Emolument forces LGAs to spend
from other sources to meet costs for personal emoluments. This
impact is further extended to implementation of planned activities
for which the re-allocated funds were primarily budgeted for.
In addition, over release of funds for personal emoluments beyond
the required amount attracts unplanned utilization and
misappropriation.
I reiterate my prior year recommendation that, management of LGAs
are required to reconcile Personal Emoluments grant records with
those of the Treasury for refund of the under released balances and
refund to Treasury the amount over released in respect of Personal
Emoluments.
68
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
5.5.6 Unrealistic dates of birth/retirement for employees recorded in
Human Capital Management Information System (HCMIS)
The Government‟s payroll system is centralized for all public servants
under the Human Capital Management Information System (HCMIS),
into which important employees‟ information are fed and being
updated regularly to include birth dates, salary scales and
promotions. However, LGAs do not efficiently update employees‟
information.
A review made in 24 LGAs noted that, despite being reported in
previous reports, birth dates for 623 employees in the master payroll
were unrealistic where for instance retirement dates appeared as
1/02/1960 for 21 employees of Arusha DC and birth dates for five
employees in Tandahimba DC appeared as 7/1/1900. This is a
decrease in number of employees with unrealistic dates when
compared to 2,345 employees reported in 15 LGAs for the year
2012/2013. Despite the decrease, there is an increase in number of
LGAs reported from 15 to 24 which implies that, controls have not
been strengthened to eliminate the noted anomaly.
This indicates that Human Resource Officers are not regularly
updating employees‟ information in the HCMIS to allow changes in
the Master Payroll, as a result the retirement dates of the employees
cannot be easily determined and monitored by Treasury since they
are manually documented in personal files of the respective
employees.
Table 32: List of LGAs showing employees with unrealistic dates of
birth in the Treasury Master Payroll
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
Name of LGA
Same DC
Ileje DC
Geita DC
Geita TC
Arusha CC
Number of employees with
unrealistic birth dates
244
71
50
42
34
69
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
Name of LGA
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Arusha DC
Kahama TC
Mufindi DC
Rufiji DC
Ilemela MC
Meru DC
Bariadi DC
Ngorongoro DC
Rorya DC
Nzega DC
Karatu DC
Handeni DC
Musoma MC
Tandahimba DC
Bunda DC
Korogwe DC
Lushoto DC
Kyela DC
Monduli DC
Total
Number of employees with
unrealistic birth dates
22
22
20
17
15
14
9
9
9
8
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
1
623
I reiterate my prior year‟s recommendation that management of
LGAs need to ensure that employees data between the respective
LGA‟s records and Treasury Master Payroll are reconciled and correct
birth dates are updated accordingly.
5.5.7 Salary Deductions not remitted to the respective Institutions
TZS.230,162,686
Normally, employee‟s salary is subject to statutory and non-statutory
deductions in order to arrive at a net salary. These deductions
involve contributions to Social Security Funds, National Health
Insurance Fund, Income tax, repayment of loans to financial
institutions (if any) and contributions to Workers Unions. Most of
these deductions are deducted at source and information sent to
LGAs while others are deducted at the LGAs level. Deductions made
70
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
by the LGAs are supposed to be remitted to the respective
institutions.
A review to 11 LGAs showed that, deductions amounting to
TZS.230,162,686 were not remitted to the respective Institutions
such as LAPF, PSPF, NSSF, PPF and TRA. In addition, it was noted that
Kahama TC and Sumbawanga DC did not even deduct statutory
amounts due from their employees‟ salaries amounting to
TZS.34,916,000
and
TZS.25,995,600
respectively.
Statutory
deductions not remitted to institutions are shown in Table 33 below:
Table 33: Summary of deductions not remitted to respective
Institutions
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Total
Name of LGA
Mbozi DC
Gairo DC
Mbulu DC
Ushetu DC
Singida MC
Iringa MC
Bukombe DC
Nkasi DC
Ruangwa DC
Mkalama DC
Nachingwea DC
Amount (TZS)
68,536,928
41,771,145
40,420,822
26,558,792
24,384,500
10,369,800
9,999,931
3,168,000
2,453,246
1,620,000
879,522
230,162,686
Salary deductions not remitted to institutions for the year under
review have increased as compared to TZS.83,619,613 reported for 7
LGAs in the year 2012/2013.
Remittance of deductions made at the LGA level is mandatory, short
of that; LGAs might utilize the retained deductions on other activities
thereby creating liabilities which are difficult to pay. Nonetheless, it
might attract additional costs like fines or penalties due to delayed
remittance. For Social Security Funds as LAPF, PSPF, NSSF and PPF
71
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
non remittance of contributions has an adverse effect to employees‟
retirement benefits.
It is recommended that, the Local Government Authorities make a
prompt remittance of such deductions when they are due. Further, I
urge LGAs to ensure that deductions which were not remitted are
paid to appropriate Institutions and outstanding deductions be
disclosed as payables in the LGA‟s Financial Statements.
5.5.8 Missing acknowledgement receipts for remittances of unclaimed
salaries and statutory deductions TZS.689,921,538
A sum of TZS.689,921,538 in respect of unclaimed salaries
surrendered to Treasury through RAS offices and statutory deductions
to respective institutions from 16 LGAs were not supported by
acknowledgement receipts for the amounts paid. This is contrary to
Reg. 78 (5) of the Public Finance Regulations, G.N. No. 132 of 2001.
List of the LGAs and unacknowledgements are given in Table 34
below:
Table 34: Missing Acknowledgements for Unclaimed Salaries and
Statutory Deductions paid
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Name of LGA
Lushoto DC
Iramba DC
Ludewa DC
Misenyi DC
Karagwe DC
Kilwa DC
Chato DC
Nyasa DC
Kilolo DC
Biharamulo DC
Maswa DC
Chamwino DC
Njombe TC
Sikonge DC
Nzega DC
Busega DC
Total
Unacknowledged Amount (TZS)
249,033,347
109,454,647
80,546,429
59,745,744
32,053,167
30,634,141
27,398,607
24,145,287
18,715,717
15,716,183
15,368,543
11,946,025
6,597,170
2,979,208
2,899,628
2,687,696
689,921,538
72
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Absence of the acknowledgement receipts from the bonafide payees
implies that, there is a possibility of payments to be made to wrong
payees.
Management of the LGAs are advised to institute strong controls over
the remittances and ensure that follow up is made with recipients of
such payments immediately after effecting the payments to confirm
receipt of the same.
5.5.9 Salary Advances not recovered TZS.286,032,964
Order 41 (1) of the Local Government Financial Memorandum, 2009
provides circumstances under which salary advances are made to
LGAs employees including first appointment or on transfer, payment
of school fees of an officer or children of an officer; payments of
urgent medical treatment or equipment for an officer or his family,
purchase of essential articles due to theft, fire or burglary at the
officer's residence and finally for meeting funeral expenses of a
family member of an employee. Condition for recovery of salary
advance is stated to be a maximum of twelve months.
During the course of this year‟s audit, I noted that 16 LGAs had
outstanding salary advances of TZS.286,032,964 as compared to
TZS.520,484,151 for 25 LGAs in the year 2012/2013 and
TZS.312,089,918 for 10 LGAs which were not recovered in the
financial year 2011/2012. Existence of outstanding salary advances
for the three years consecutively is contrary to the above cited Order
and suggests the existence of inadequate follow up by the LGAs‟
managements. List of LGAs with outstanding salary advances is as
shown in Table 35 below:
Table 35: LGAs with Salary Advances not recovered
S/N
1
2
Name of LGA
Mbeya DC
Mbeya CC
Amount (TZS)
71,438,300
65,358,000
73
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Name of LGA
Magu DC
Dodoma MC
Temeke MC
Mwanga DC
Meru DC
Simanjiro DC
Arusha CC
Longido DC
Bariadi TC
Kahama TC
Nkasi DC
Mlele DC
Mbozi DC
Karatu DC
Total
Amount (TZS)
61,315,474
23,748,780
15,428,000
7,094,996
5,846,010
5,405,000
5,208,305
5,141,024
4,500,000
4,475,700
4,200,000
2,955,000
2,463,375
1,455,000
286,032,964
Non-recovery of advances on time hinders implementation of planned
activities due to inadequate funds and might end up being
irrecoverable.
LGA‟s managements are therefore, urged to comply with Order 41
(1), by ensuring that salary advance recovery is done within the time
frame.
5.5.10
Employees who are no longer in public service not deleted
from the Master Payroll
Order 79 (1) of the Local Government Financial Memorandum, 2009
requires Head of Department to maintain updated registers for all
employees and their details which shall notify the Treasurer of all
matters pertaining to appointment, resignations, dismissals,
suspensions secondments, transfers and other information necessary
to maintain records of services for income tax, and provident fund
contributions.
74
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Contrary to the above requirement of the law, my audit of payroll
noted that, a total of 340 persons who were no longer in public
service from 14 sampled LGAs were still appearing in the payroll or
lately deleted. This is a decrease compared to 510 terminated
employees reported in six LGAs in the year 2012/2013. The reason for
not deleting the names was lack of timely updating of employee
registers and prompt communication between LGAs and the Treasury
for immediate action before salaries were paid. Below is a summary
of the LGAs and the number of employees involved:
Table 36: LGAs with employees not deleted in the master payroll
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Total
Name of LGA
Bunda DC
Mvomero DC
Mufindi DC
Bariadi DC
Songea DC
Ludewa DC
Lushoto DC
Ileje DC
Mbozi DC
Namtumbo DC
Kongwa DC
Mbogwe DC
Ushetu DC
Bukoba DC
Number of employees
involved
101
64
40
28
27
21
20
11
8
8
5
4
2
1
340
Despite the slight improvement, retaining or late deletion of
terminated employees from the Government payroll for whatever
reasons increases the Government wage bill and results into loss of
public money and overstates the budget figure as well as amount
spent on personal emoluments.
I recommend to the LGAs Management to ensure that retirement,
death or dismissal information on Councils‟ employees are properly
75
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
and promptly communicated for action which may
inactivating or deleting them from the payroll system.
include
5.5.11
Shortage of Human Resource
Effective performance of any institution is driven by availability of
resources, human resource being one of the important resources.
During the year under audit, establishment in 102 LGAs showed the
requirement of staff was 263,814 but the actual number available
was 200,915 resulting into a shortage of 62,899 staff equivalent to
24% of the required number. Such deficiency has an impact on the
general performance of the LGAs including inadequate service
delivery, overloading and de-motivating the present employees in the
LGA. Most affected sectors were Health, Agriculture and Education.
Refer to Annexure (xxx).
The extreme cases on the list were Babati DC (55%) followed by
Nyasa DC (53%) and Kyerwa DC (46%). Also, out of the ten leading
Councils with shortage of staff, seven (7) are the newly established
Councils which are Nyasa DC (53%), Kyerwa DC (46%), Buhigwe DC
(45%), Mkalama DC (43%), Kaliua DC (43%), Uvinza DC (41%) and
Busokelo DC (40%).
For the year 2012/2013, staff shortage was 39,984 for 73 LGAs
sampled and the vacancy rate was 22%. However, it has increased to
24% in the year under review apart from the fact that the
Government has taken much effort to reduce staffing gaps in
different sectors. Therefore, the vacancy rate of 24% is still higher
when compared to the requirements. In the circumstances, I
reiterate my prior year‟s recommendations that:
 PMO-RALG should plan on employee retention strategy with the
purpose of minimizing employee turnover.
 Provision of special incentives for the purpose of motivating
employees to work in marginalized LGAs. Most employment gaps
76
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
are evidenced in LGAs situated in remote areas as compared to
the urban areas.
5.5.12
Employees not confirmed into service for a long period
Order D.45 (1) of Standing Orders for Public Service of 2009 requires
a public servant to be eligible for confirmation in his office at the
end of the probationary period subject to satisfactory performance
and conduct.
Furthermore, Standing Order D.40 of Standing Orders for Public
Service of 2009 explains on the period under which a person on first
appointment to an office in the public service on pensionable terms
needs to serve as probationary period and it is twelve months. In
addition, Order 43 of Standing Orders for Public Service of 2009
emphasizes that it is not the duty of the public servant to apply for
confirmation since this is the duty of the immediate supervisor to
initiate the action not later than three months before expiration of
the probationary period.
However, during the year under review, it was noted that, 5188
employees in 19 LGAs had not been confirmed for more than two
years without formal notification to extend their confirmation
period. Table 37 below is a list of Councils with public servants who
were not confirmed for more than two years after expiry of their
probationary period.
Table 37: List of LGAs with employees not confirmed for a long
period
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
Name of LGA
Masasi TC
Serengeti DC
Kahama TC
Arusha CC
Masasi DC
Tandahimba DC
Number of employees
1395
1187
850
291
180
180
77
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Name of LGA
Same DC
Mtwara DC
Bunda DC
Mbogwe DC
Musoma DC
Mtwara MC
Monduli DC
Tarime TC
Longido DC
Ngorongoro DC
Iringa MC
Siha DC
Dar es salaam CC
Total
Number of employees
174
167
130
109
109
87
79
75
54
44
43
29
5
5188
Delayed confirmation of the public servant is a result of inefficiency
of the immediate supervisors and the approving authority in initiating
the process after assessment of the respective public servants‟
performance. Delayed confirmation of public servants on permanent
and pensionable terms does not only cause a loss of seniority but also
his salary is affected.
I recommend to management of LGAs to initiate the process for all
eligible public servants to be confirmed provided they meet
requirements as stated in Standing Orders for Public Service of 2009.
5.5.13
Heads of Department and Units in acting status for more
than six months
Order D 24 (3) of the Standing Orders for the Public Service of 2009
requires a public servant not to act in a vacant post for period
exceeding six months. It directs the appointing authority to make
sure that the process for appointing a substantive holder of a
respective post to be completed within that period of six months.
During the year, 65 LGAs showed that 464 officers were working in an
acting capacity as either Heads of Department or Units or even
78
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Accounting Officers for more than six months contrary to the
directives in the above referred Standing Order. In addition 19 Posts
in 11 LGAs were vacant for the whole year.
Further scrutiny noted that, the newly established LGAs were on the
lead in having large number of acting Heads of Department and Units
as compared to the existing LGAs. For instance, among the required
19 Heads of Department and Units as per PMO-RALG organization
structure, Tarime TC in Mara Region and Kaliua DC in Tabora Region
had 16 and 15 acting officers respectively. More details are given in
Annexture (xxxi):
Establishment of new LGAs by the Government without proper
manpower planning was the main contributing factor apart from
delays by the appointing authority to appoint substantive holders of
the respective posts. Failure to approve the officers in their acting
posts leads to debts creation by way of arrears of acting allowances.
In addition, acting for a long time demoralizes the acting officers in
performing well in their acting positions and might render them
inefficient in the long run.
It is therefore recommended that LGAs management in collaboration
with PO-PSM plan to reduce the number of acting officers by either
confirming the acting officers or appoint new ones with appropriate
qualifications and competence to head the posts.
5.5.14 Employees not taking leave for the period exceeding two (2)
years
Paragraph H.1 (1) of the Standing Order for Public Service, 2009
requires leave to be respected as a right and when not granted by
the employer, the employee has to be paid a salary in lieu thereof.
Review of four LGAs (Arusha CC, Longido, Meru and Chamwino
District Councils) had 19, 11, 8 and 3 employees respectively who did
79
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
not take their annual leave for a period exceeding two years. Finance
Department was noted to have many employees who did not go on
annual leave. Reasons given among others were shortage of human
resources when compared to the work load.
Where public servants do not take annual leave as required, it might
render them inefficient in work performance. In addition, when the
annual leave is not opted and salary in lieu thereof preferred, it may
be the source of staff liabilities.
It is recommended that, management of the LGAs encourage
employees to take their annual leave as required and where there
are compelling circumstances for employee not to proceed on leave,
appropriate procedures have to be followed.
5.5.15
Environmental Issues
Sect.9 of the Environment Management Act, 2004 requires all persons
exercising powers under this Act or under any other written law
having a bearing on the management of the environment to strive to
promote and have regard to the National Environmental Policy.
Meanwhile, paragraph 101 of the National Environmental Policy, 1997
acknowledges that, Local Government Authorities are a determining
factor in fulfilling the environmental policy objectives since so many
of the environmental problems and solutions have their roots in Local
Authorities.
In this year‟s audit, different weaknesses on environmental
management in 32 LGAs were noted and some of them are as
summarized below:
 Seven LGAs did not identify types of projects requiring
environmental assessment and audit before implementation.
 Five LGAs did not establish efficiently functioning of Standing
Committee on Economic Affairs Works and Environment.
80
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014

There was an increase in firewood/charcoal harvesting for
domestic and commercial use without adequate measures to
establish and expand reforestation accompanied by sensitization
on the use of alternative sources of energy.
 Lack of working facilities for implementation of environmental
activities like dumps, garbage collection vehicle and garbage
collection points/containers.
 Inadequate understanding and participation of community on
protection and management of Environment.
More details are given in Annexure (xxxii)
Inadequate performance in environmental management has an
adverse effect on the lives of people as it results into land
degradation, poor access to good quality water for urban and rural
areas, environmental pollution, loss of wildlife habitats and
biodiversity, deterioration of aquatic ecosystems and clearance of
forest and woodlands.
I recommend to the LGA‟s managements to (a) strengthen the
Standing Committees on Environment to perform their duties as
stipulated in the Act (b) set aside adequate budget for
implementation of environmental activities including continued
sensitization of the community on environmental conservation and
procurement of environmental working facilities (c) evaluate all
projects run by LGAs and other private sectors on the environment
impact before they are implemented.
5.5.16
Litigations against LGAs which may affect sustainability of
service delivery
LGAs are basically established with the aim of offering sustainable
services that satisfy peoples‟ needs and significantly improve social
and environmental performance along the whole life cycle. This is
stipulated in Sect 5 and 13 of the Local Government (District
authorities) Act, 1982. However, services provided by the LGAs
81
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
depend much on availability of resources and one of them being
financial resources.
During the year, a sample of 39 LGAs showed that, they still suffer
from contingent liabilities amounting to TZS.40 billion as a result of
250 pending litigations as compared to TZS.74 billion reported on 78
LGAs in the year 2012/2013. Furthermore, it was noted that many of
these pending legal cases were the result of termination of contracts
between LGAs and contractors and land disputes. Mbeya and Dar es
salaam City Councils were on the lead with many cases among the
sampled Councils, each with 35 and 33 court cases respectively.
Table 38 below shows a list of LGAs, number of cases and amount
involved.
Table 38: Outstanding pending legal Cases
S.N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Name of LGA
Mbeya CC
Dar es salaam CC
Musoma MC
Kinondoni MC
Tabora MC
Songea MC
Handeni DC
Igunga DC
Kyerwa DC
Rungwe DC
Shinyanga DC
Bahi DC
Chato DC
Ngara DC
Ukerewe DC
Chunya DC
Kishapu DC
Bukombe DC
Kibaha TC
Msalala DC
Mufindi DC
Biharamulo DC
Amount Involved (TZS)
3,531,733,071
7,026,261,431
853,266,248
11,138,469,953
1,061,356,500
3,807,802,362
364,933,205
1,030,557,000
81,000,000
1,207,802,362
182,149,542
502,988,762
124,000,000
67,576,600
58,552,000
1,322,900,000
352,387,700
177,377,484
109,676,450
197,407,360
2,058,790,000
350,000,000
Number
of Cases
with
value
23
33
24
15
12
3
8
7
8
8
6
5
6
6
6
3
5
4
3
3
4
3
Number
of cases
without
value
12
0
0
0
1
7
1
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
Total
Number
of cases
35
33
24
15
13
10
9
9
8
8
7
6
6
6
6
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
82
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S.N
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Name of LGA
Urambo DC
Bariadi DC
Geita TC
Hai DC
Ileje DC
Kiteto DC
Mbogwe DC
Rombo DC
Singida DC
Busega DC
Busokelo DC
Kaliua DC
Mbozi DC
Njombe DC
Pangani DC
Serengeti DC
Bukoba DC
Total
Amount Involved (TZS)
540,000,000
335,000,000
184,832,000
41,647,783
78,000,000
140,000,000
172,000,000
80,000,000
1,026,000,000
3,206,400
15,000,000
45,000,000
955,649,500
65,000,000
248,854,740
800,000,000
72,000,000
40,409,178,453
Number
of Cases
with
value
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
219
Number
of cases
without
value
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
Total
Number
of cases
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
250
There is a great impact brought about by having a number of cases
pending in the courts of law which includes administration cost and,
in case judgements will not be in favour of the LGAs there will be
adverse effect(s) to the LGA‟s budget and consequently on service
delivery as well.
I therefore, urge LGAs to comply with laws, rules and regulations in
their operations in order to reduce the likelihood of occurrence of
court cases. In addition, it is important for LGAs to strengthen the
Legal Units in order to mitigate the risk of losing these court cases.
5.6 Expenditure management
5.6.1 Inadequately supported payments TZS.3,878,602,680
All payments made by LGAs are required to be supported by proper
supporting documents in accordance with Order 8(2)(c) and 104 of
Local Government Financial Memorandum of 2009.
83
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Examination of expenditure records of 80 LGAs as a selected sample
revealed that, payments of TZS.3,878,602,680 were inadequately
supported. In this regard therefore, I could not establish their
propriety, authenticity and validity. A list showing the amount paid
together with the respective LGAs is shown in Annexure (xxxiii).
This might have emanated from weak controls over the custody of
accountable and other related supporting documents.
Table 39 below is an analysis showing inadequately supported
payments for 2012/2013 to 2013/2014.
Table 39: A comparison showing inadequately supported payments for two
years.
Financial year
Number of
Amount (TZS.)
Councils
2013/2014
80
3,878,602,680
2012/2013
67
3,514,703,776
Basing on the data presented above it can be seen that, there is an
increase in both the number of LGAs and inadequately supported
payments compared with the previous year, whereby thirteen (13)
LGAs increased equivalent to 19% with an increase in the amount by
TZS.363,898,904 equal to 10%.This situation implies that there is no
improvement as regards to inadequately supported payments.
In addition, seven (7) LGAs noted to have huge amount are Kwimba
DC (TZS.1,046,164,281); Longido DC (TZS.453,134,128); Ilemela DC
(TZS.383,123,031); Pangani DC (TZS.245,012,272); Ilala MC
(TZS.234,990,860); Mvomero DC (TZS.124,424,318) and Geita DC
(TZS.111,469,115).
I recommend to the management of LGAs to enhance controls over
payment documents such as having an efficient pre audit unit for
thorough examination of payments prior to being effected. In
addition, an officer has to be assigned for custody of payment
84
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
vouchers together with their supporting documents so as to assist in
managing them.
5.6.2 Unvouched expenditure TZS.756,730,755
The District Treasurer is required to maintain a sound accounting
system and safekeeping of all supporting records by virtue of Order
34(1) of the Local Government Financial Memorandum of 2009.
Furthermore, Order 104 of LGFM, 2009 requires payment vouchers
together with their supporting documents to be maintained and given
proper security and custody for a period of not less than 5 years.
However, during the year under audit, I noted that payment vouchers
for TZS. 756,730,755 relating to payments in 20 LGAs were missing
from their relevant batches. Therefore, the nature and validity of
expenditure incurred by the respective LGAs could not be verified,
hence limiting the scope of the audit. A sample of twenty 20 LGAs
unvouched expenditure is shown in Table 40 below.
Table 40: List of LGAs with unvouched expenditure
S/No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Name of LGA
Kwimba DC
Nyasa DC
Rufiji/Utete DC
Longido DC
Ushetu DC
Muheza DC
Tabora MC
Ukerewe DC
Mvomero DC
Karatu DC
Mafia DC
Bariadi DC
Kishapu DC
Songea DC
Ikungi DC
Manyoni DC
Bunda DC
Hanang‟ DC
Amount (TZS.)
250,338,612
163,068,262
71,187,875
50,459,550
47,674,841
31,861,498
29,654,597
19,964,000
18,489,902
14,070,108
11,618,890
11,405,000
9,995,120
8,745,000
4,636,000
4,223,000
3,247,000
2,403,000
85
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/No.
19.
20.
Name of LGA
Meru DC
Nkasi DC
Total
Amount (TZS.)
2,341,500
1,347,000
756,730,755
The leading Council is Kwimba DC (TZS.250,338,612) followed by
Nyasa DC (TZS.163,068,262).
Table 41 below gives a comparison of missing payment vouchers for
the period 2012/2013 to 2013/2014.
Table 41: A comparison showing unvouched expenditure
Financial year
2013/2014
2012/2013
Number of
Councils
20
19
Amount involved
(TZS.)
756,730,755
8,063,469,984
The data shown in the table above indicates that there is an
improvement regarding the amount of missing payment vouchers
compared with the previous year whereby despite an increase of one
(1) LGA, the total amount reported has decreased by
TZS.7,306,739,229 or 91%. However, the amount of TZS.756,730,755
reported in the current year includes TZS.215,379,103 pertaining to
three (3) newly established LGAs namely; Nyasa DC; Ushetu DC and
Ikungi DC. Had the comparison being made by excluding them, the
magnitude of improvement would have been a decrease of two (2)
LGAs or 10% with a decrease of the corresponding amount by
TZS.7,522,118,332 or 93%.
I would like to praise the management of the LGAs for deliberate
efforts devoted towards minimizing the number of LGAs reported to
have unvouched expenditure. However, they still have to abide to
their primary responsibility of ensuring that, accountable documents
including payment vouchers are properly safeguarded.
86
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
5.6.3 Expenditure charged to wrong account codes TZS.2,385,712,357
Every charge of expenditure and item of income is required to be
classified strictly in accordance with the details of the approved
budget and the voted funds to be applied only to the purpose for
which they were intended by virtue of Order 23(1) of LGFM, 2009.
However,it was noted during the year under review that payments
aggregating to TZS.2,385,712,357 were charged to wrong expenditure
codes in 47 LGAs without prior approval of the Full Council for
reallocation which is contrary to Para 15.7 of the LAAM, 2010.
Analysis of expenditure from the sampled LGAs is as shown in
Annexure (xxxiv).
Table 42: Comparison of LGAs with wrong expenditure coding for
two (2) years
Financial year
2013/2014
2012/2013
Number of LGAs
47
45
Amount (TZS.)
2,385,712,357
2,061,468,497
Table 42 above indicates that the problem still persists because, the
total amount reported of TZS.2,385,712,357 during the year under
review includes five (5) new LGAs with a total amount of
TZS.184,428,131. Therefore, despite the decrease in number of LGAs
by one after excluding the new ones, still there is an increase in the
magnitude of total amount reported by TZS.139,815,729 or 7%
compared with the previous year. However, it is a matter of concern
that the newly established LGAs were among those noted to have
committed this wrong accounting practice.
Charging expenditure to wrong accounting codes is not only contrary
to budgetary controls and Orders, but also it overstates expenditure
items into which they are charged and finally misstates individual
expenses reported in the Financial Statements.
87
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Since the matter has been recurring in various LGAs and controls
have not been strengthened to mitigate this anomaly, I still call upon
the LGAs management to comply with Orders and budgetary controls.
5.6.4 Unbudgeted expenditure TZS.2,428,769,863
Order 23 (1) of LGFM of 2009 requires that, every charge of
expenditure and items of income shall be classified strictly in
accordance with the details of the approved budget and the voted
funds shall be applied only to the purpose for which they were
intended.
Contrary to the requirement, it was noted from a sample of 26 LGAs
that a total of TZS.2,428,769,863 was paid to cater for various
activities while there were no funds budgeted for such expenditures.
The list of LGAs involved together with the amounts incurred is
shown in Table 43 below:Table 43: List of LGAs with unbudgeted expenditure
S/No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Name of LGA
Dodoma MC
Nachingwea DC
Newala DC
Kwimba DC
Musoma MC
Ilala MC
Ilemela DC
Mtwara DC
Sumbawanga MC
Masasi TC
Singida DC
Maswa DC
Mafia DC
Itilima DC
Magu DC
Tunduru DC
Missenyi DC
Tabora DC
Bukombe DC
Amount (TZS)
1,161,509,820
314,865,000
279,874,487
97,079,681
89,028,600
73,789,000
58,418,478
46,184,845
45,093,800
35,634,175
34,367,000
26,563,200
22,199,849
20,794,000
19,156,274
16,512,500
13,165,000
12,852,500
12,793,000
88
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/No.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Name of LGA
Songea MC
Misungwi DC
Chamwino DC
Ukerewe DC
Manyoni DC
Nsimbo DC
Kilosa DC
Total
Amount (TZS)
10,239,921
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,746,733
6,629,000
6,250,000
1,023,000
2,428,769,863
Expenditure made in excess of budget implies that, some of the
budgeted activities in other sectors might have been affected by
being partly implemented or not implemented at all due to diversion
of funds. This is an indication of inadequate budgetary controls in
LGAs.
I recommend to the management of LGAs to strictly comply with the
LGFM, 2009 together with budgetary controls in order to smoothen
implementation of planned activities hence achieving targeted
objectives.
5.6.5 Purchase of goods and services not supported by Electronic Fiscal
Device (EFD) receipts TZS. 4,638,581,282
Reg. 3 of the Income Tax (Electronic Fiscal Devices) Regulations,
2012 defines Fiscal Receipt as a fiscal document printed by Electronic
Fiscal Device for the customer for the supply of goods or services
supplied bearing the contents as specified by the Commissioner of
Income Tax and whose record is stored in the memory.
Section 29(4) of Value Added Tax Act 1997, CAP 148 (as amended by
Finance Act 2010) provides that, every person who purchases goods
and services shall be required to demand a receipt for goods/services
paid for. Likewise, Reg. 28(1) of the Income Tax (Electronic Fiscal
Devices) Regulations, 2012 requires every purchaser to demand and
retain the fiscal receipt or invoice in his possession and shall upon a
request made by the Commissioner or any officer authorized by the
89
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Commissioner, produce the said receipt to the Commissioner or such
authorized officer. To the contrary, examination of payment records
relating to procurements made in a sample of 22 LGAs revealed that,
no electronic fiscal device receipts were attached together with the
payment vouchers implying that the LGAs did not demand them for
payments made amounting to TZS.4,638,581,282 for which Value
Added Tax of TZS.834,944,631 should have been remitted to TRA by
EFD operators. A list of LGAs involved in these transactions is as
shown Table 44 below:Table 44: List of LGAs with payments not supported by electronic
fiscal device receipts
S/N
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Name of the LGA
Simanjiro DC
Tabora DC
Monduli DC
Mbulu DC
Wanging`ombe DC
Nkasi DC
Itilima DC
Sumbawanga DC
Makambako TC
Singida DC
Kalambo DC
Babati TC
Ludewa DC
Njombe DC
Nachingwea DC
Kibaha DC
Makete DC
Njombe TC
Hanang‟ DC
Kilindi DC
Korogwe DC
Lushoto DC
Total
Amount involved (TZS.)
902,181,185
617,959,088
491,871,000
396,351,428
303,246,583
232,730,357
211,538,033
210,895,084
198,926,519
170,723,316
152,466,236
120,996,384
111,681,504
109,251,916
102,014,200
84,684,509
79,446,206
64,572,221
31,535,765
18,062,328
17,562,420
9,885,000
4,638,581,282
90
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Payments shown in Table 44 above imply that the LGAs in question
accelerated tax evasion by not demanding EFD receipts from
suppliers of goods and services resulting into a loss of revenue to the
Government. This situation might have emanated from either
inadequate efforts being taken by LGAs managements in enforcing
compliance to Income Tax Act and its regulations and eventually
assist the Government to collect tax, or lack of enough knowledge on
what kind of receipts and invoices should be obtained, once
payments are made to VAT registered suppliers.
Given the situation above, I insist to management of the LGAs to
always demand electronic fiscal device receipts whenever they effect
payments for acquisition of goods and services in order to minimize if
not to eliminate tax evasion and eventually maximize revenue
collection for the betterment of the Country. In addition, taking into
consideration that LGAs are the main purchasers, I advise them not
to deal with suppliers who do not issue EFD receipts. This will
gradually force business community to register for VAT and avoid
frequent protests by the business community.
5.6.6 Inter account transfer in a form of loans not reimbursed
TZS.1,806,854,285
Examination of payments made during the year under review noted
that, a sum of TZS.1,806,854,285 was transferred in a form of loans
from one account to another in 28 LGAs for implementation of
various activities. However, as at the time of auditing, no funds had
been reimbursed to the lender accounts which affected
implementation of planned activities. A list of LGAs involved is shown
in Table 45 below:
Table 45: List of LGAs with Inter account transfer in a form of
loans not reimbursed
S/No.
1.
2.
Name of the LGA
Masasi TC
Mkalama DC
Amount (TZS.)
359,129,681
271,484,596
91
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/No.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Name of the LGA
Bumbuli DC
Muleba DC
Sengerema DC
Meatu DC
Karatu DC
Ludewa DC
Mafia DC
Mpanda TC
Kwimba DC
Tunduru DC
Ukerewe DC
Ngorongoro DC
Manyoni DC
Iringa DC
Gairo DC
Kasulu DC
Arusha CC
Misungwi DC
Busokelo DC
Mpanda DC
Korogwe TC
Mlele DC
Kilindi DC
Mwanza CC
Bukoba DC
Biharamulo DC
Total
Amount (TZS.)
135,203,820
115,514,626
113,576,836
95,881,365
85,321,520
83,063,000
82,300,739
78,777,325
64,724,000
53,737,750
50,853,157
48,314,000
30,849,704
17,545,823
17,330,000
14,912,500
13,681,000
11,250,000
10,666,300
10,500,000
10,500,000
9,975,000
6,831,000
6,000,000
5,930,543
3,000,000
1,806,854,285
Table 46: Inter account transfer in a form of loans not reimbursed
Financial year
2013/2014
2012/2013
Number of LGAs
28
18
Amount (TZS)
1,806,854,285
2,058,258,530
92
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Table 46 above indicates that, there is a slight improvement on the
issue of inter account transfer in a form of loans not reimbursed
compared with the previous year whereby despite a decrease in
amount reported by TZS.251,404,245 or 12%, the number of LGAs
involved has incresed by ten (10). However, the amount of TZS.
1,806,854,285 reported in the current year includes TZS.427,329,716
pertaining to four (4) new LGAs namely; Mlele DC; Busokelo DC,
Mkalama DC and Bumbuli DC. Had the comparison been made by
excluding them, the magnitude of improvement would have been an
increase of six (6) LGAs or 33% with a decrease of amount reported
by TZS.678,733,961.
However, it is a matter of concern that the newly established LGAs
were noted to have inter account transfers which eventually were
not reimbursed. Delay in repaying the loans might have negative
impact on operations of the lender.
I therefore recommend the LGAs management to strictly abide by
budgetary controls in order not to affect implementation of the
lender‟s planned activities.
5.6.7 Deferred payments TZS.1,047,563,266
Order 22(1) of LGFM, 2009 requires expenditure properly chargeable
to the account of a given year as far as possible to be met within the
relevant year and must not be deferred for the purpose of avoiding
an over expenditure.
Contrary to this Order, payments of
TZS.1,047,563,266 were made by 35 LGAs to settle previous year's
liabilities. However, no evidence was availed to auditors for them
to justify that the payments formed part of the 2012/2013 creditors.
In addition, no evidence was provided to confirm re-budgeting of the
deferred liabilities in the year under review. A list of LGAs with
deferred payments is shown in Table 47 below:
Table 47: List of LGAs with deferred payments
S/No.
1.
Name of the LGA
Arusha CC
Amount (TZS.)
110,367,414
93
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Meru DC
Dodoma MC
Muheza DC
Kasulu DC
Sumbawanga DC
Sumbawanga MC
Handeni DC
Magu DC
Geita TC
Korogwe DC
Kigoma DC
Tunduru DC
Ukerewe DC
Igunga DC
Karatu DC
Missenyi DC
Arusha DC
Urambo DC
Sengerema DC
Tanga CC
Ngorongoro DC
Mkuranga DC
Hanang‟ DC
Mpanda DC
Songea DC
Nkasi DC
Masasi DC
Kilwa DC
Bariadi TC
Rombo DC
Bagamoyo DC
Siha DC
Lindi MC
Mpanda TC
Total
88,962,706
86,259,250
78,772,900
78,157,736
47,572,620
43,185,550
38,935,569
38,799,550
35,037,007
33,881,071
33,656,900
28,006,000
25,493,571
25,222,100
24,736,855
24,178,289
23,965,255
21,589,000
19,944,430
15,951,900
15,841,350
15,723,000
13,065,625
12,996,606
12,826,000
12,015,000
10,000,000
9,239,000
5,653,000
5,044,250
3,949,522
3,630,000
3,600,000
1,304,240
1,047,563,266
Part of the budget for the year under review in respect of the 35
LGAs was used to settle previous year‟s liabilities which apparently
94
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
implies that the current year‟s activities of the same value had to be
forgone.
It is recommended that, LGAs management should ensure that all
liabilities and commitments are recorded in the books of accounts
and be considered during preparation of budget for the next financial
year.
5.6.8 Non deduction of withholding tax TZS.207,587,326
Section 83A of the Income Tax Act, 2004 (Revised 2008) requires the
Government to withhold income tax at a rate of 2 percent of the
gross payment in respect of the supply of goods and services to the
Government by a supplier. However, audit test check of payments
made in respect of goods and services during the year under review
revealed that, a sample of 15 LGAs which have a role of withholding
tax neither withheld nor remitted to the Commissioner for Income
Tax a total sum of TZS.207,587,326 as tax withheld from payments
made to various suppliers which amounted to loss of Government
revenue. A list of the said 15 LGAs is given in Table 48 below:
Table 48: List of LGAs with non-deduction of withholding tax
S/No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Name of the LGA
Hanang‟ DC
Tunduru DC
Sumbawanga MC
Simanjiro DC
Sengerema DC
Ushetu DC
Mbulu DC
Nkasi DC
Bukoba MC
Babati TC
Ilemela DC
Kalambo DC
Kibaha DC
Mtwara MC
Mafia DC
Total
Amount (TZS.)
45,526,357
42,816,713
30,166,882
27,585,424
12,067,847
11,690,231
9,249,435
7,306,998
6,901,092
3,037,553
2,450,000
2,437,141
2,433,773
2,378,880
1,539,000
207,587,326
95
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
I recommend to the LGAs management to strengthen internal checks
to ensure compliance with various Acts and Regulations related to
collection of taxes in order to enable the Government to increase its
revenue and improve delivery of social services to the citizens.
5.6.9 Payments not pre-audited TZS.1,047,693,784
It is the best practice for all payments to be pre- audited before
authorization. Pre-audit section verifies if all internal controls have
been complied, funds are available and all necessary supporting
documents are in place, this will give a reference benchmark to an
authorizing officer as required by Order 10(2) of LGFM, 2009.
However, during the audit for the year under review, we noted total
payments of TZS.1,047,693,784 in 22 LGAs to have been authorized
for payment before being pre-audited. A list of these LGAs is shown
in Table 49 below:
Table 49: List of LGAs with payments not pre-audited
S/No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Name of the LGA
Karatu DC
Monduli DC
Longido DC
Kisarawe DC
Chemba DC
Kondoa DC
Kilolo DC
Kakonko DC
Rombo DC
Hanang‟ DC
Kiteto DC
Mbarali DC
Mbeya CC
Rungwe DC
Momba DC
Mvomero DC
Makambako TC
Nkasi DC
Sumbawanga DC
Amount (TZS.)
12,260,000
4,054,621
40,616,188
87,582,789
80,974,000
65,377,000
64,220,000
5,111,900
3,120,000
75,489,641
8,599,479
22,608,500
36,950,000
8,218,000
7,923,400
264,607,704
177,344,089
13,655,000
11,027,180
96
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/No.
20.
21.
22.
Name of the LGA
Nyasa DC
Manyoni DC
Kilindi DC
Total
Amount (TZS.)
9,617,293
25,452,000
22,885,000
1,047,693,784
In the absence of the pre-audit function, the authorizing officer
cannot be able to confirm if all expenditures are lawful, adequate
funds are available to meet authorized expenditure, utmost economy
is exercised in expenditure and value for money is achieved; and all
expenditures are properly supported by relevant documents. This
may result into misappropriation of public money by allowing
inaccurate and invalid payments to pass unchecked.
I insist to the management of the LGAs to strengthen internal
controls in order to ensure that payments are only authorized after
being pre- audited.
5.6.10 Ineligible expenditures TZS. 669,549,213
During the year under review, a total of TZS.669,549,213 were paid
by 18 LGAs from various Council accounts for implementation of
various activities. However, these payments were regarded as
ineligible due to the fact that the respective LGAs paid the funds
from the accounts which were intended for other activities without
evidence showing that the funds were initially deposited to meet
such expenditures. A list of LGAs together with the amount involved
is shown in Table 50 below:
Table 50: List of LGAs with ineligible expenditures
Name of the LGA
Mvomero DC
Shinyanga DC
Newala DC
Mwanza CC
Hanang‟ DC
Songea DC
Ngorongoro DC
Namtumbo DC
Account
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Cost sharing
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Development
deposit
Deposit
Deposit
deposit
deposit
deposit
Amount (TZS)
240,425,740
146,952,781
86,540,068
52,300,000
36,159,800
25,852,000
15,500,000
13,250,000
97
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Name of the LGA
Mtwara DC
Meru DC
Rorya DC
Nanyumbu DC
Ilemela DC
Urambo DC
Longido DC
Singida DC
Kaliua DC
Arusha CC
Total
Account
Development
Miscellaneous deposit
Development
(Capitation Grants)
Other Charges
Other Charges
Development
Constitutional
Development Catalyst
Fund
Other Charges
Amount (TZS)
13,000,000
8,864,000
6,792,000
4,875,000
4,265,000
3,860,000
3,239,744
2,798,080
2,475,000
2,400,000
669,549,213
Details of payments shown in Table 50 above indicate that amounts
spent affected other activities for which the deposited funds were
primarily intended.
I recommend to the management of LGAs to institute proper controls
that will ensure that funds kept in the Accounts are spent solely on
activities for which the funds were deposited.
5.6.11 Nugatory expenditures TZS.177,179,429
Nugatory expenditures are payments made by an entity such as
demurrage charges, penalties/interests for failure to comply with
contractual obligations and the like from which the Government and
the LGA in particular has received no value. During the year under
review, three Councils incurred nugatory expenditures to the tune of
TZS.177,179,429. Details of payments related to this scenario are
that, TZS.81,583,979 was paid by Dar es Salaam CC for failure to
impose land rent on time and remit it to the Permanent Secretary,
Ministry of Land and Human Settlements Development;
TZS.50,595,450 was paid by Mwanza CC as compensation and damage
for breach of contract in Civil case Nos. 42 of 2011, 93 of 2003 and 1
of 2010. Likewise, TZS.45,000,000 was paid by Mpanda TC as
98
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
compensation after losing
No.2/2011.
in civil Cases No. 12/2010 and
As it has been explained above, the nature of all payments emanated
from Court judgments for breach of contractual obligations from
which either it was because of laxity by the LGAs management to
monitor what was the reason of being accused or failure to closely
make follow up on the Court proceedings the situation which resulted
into paying compensations which have no value to the Government.
I recommend to the management of LGAs to abide by their
contractual obligations in order to be relieved from such payments
which are loss to the Government.
5.6.12 Overdrawn deposits TZS.613,295,522
A deposit account is opened for specific categories of deposits
(Funds) for which a control account and individual accounts of each
category is maintained to show at any time the total balance
outstanding in respect of the deposits. Examination of payment
vouchers and relevant supporting documents together with the
deposit registers for the year 2013/2014 revealed that, a sum of
TZS.613,295,522 was paid by 5 LGAs from the deposit accounts to
meet various expenditures. However, it was learnt that these
expenditures were charged to the deposit expenditure items over and
above the available balances, meaning that other deposit items were
overdrawn by that magnitude.
This situation implies inadequate control on the utilisation of
committed funds in the deposit accounts thus affecting
implementation of the targeted activities. A list of LGAs together
with the amounts paid is shown in Table 51 below:Table 51: List of LGAs with Overdrawn Deposits
S/N
1.
2.
Name of the LGA
Bariadi DC
Muheza DC
Amount (TZS)
419,999,961
104,418,735
99
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
3.
4.
5.
Dar es Salaam CC
Chato DC
Mkuranga DC
Total
39,552,295
26,504,306
22,820,225
613,295,522
I recommend to the management of LGAs to enhance financial
discipline in the utilization of funds deposited in the deposit accounts
which are meant for specific purposes.
5.6.13
Uncontrolled payments made from the deposit account
TZS.4,496,504,235
Para 5.19 of the Local Authority Accounting Manual of 2009 states
that, “as far as LGAs receives deposits of various types and in order
to ensure adequate control and accounting for these deposits, the
deposits register should be maintained with folios provided for every
type of deposit. Among other information to be disclosed in these
folios are particulars from who received and purpose of deposit.
Payments from this account should result from the amount deposited
by the LGA or various persons and during payment the receipt
number should be referred to ascertain the payment”. However,
review of payments made from deposit account in 15 LGAs noted that
payments of TZS.4,496,504,235 were made but there were no receipt
numbers quoted as an evidence to support that these payments had
originated from funds deposited for that purpose.
Councils with huge amounts of uncontrolled payments made from the
deposit Account include; Shinyanga MC (TZS.1,225,120,859), Kwimba
DC (TZS.984,229,845), Ushetu DC (TZS.882,636,910) and Sengerema
DC (TZS.407,328,357).
A list of LGAs involved with the payments is shown in Table 52 below:
100
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Table 52: List of LGAs with uncontrolled payments made from
deposit account
S/N
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Name of the LGA
Shinyanga MC
Kwimba DC
Ushetu DC
Sengerema DC
Iramba DC
Karagwe DC
Shinyanga DC
Muleba DC
Monduli DC
Mwanza CC
Mkinga DC
Sumbawanga MC
Pangani DC
Rorya DC
Makete DC
Total
Amount (TZS)
1,225,120,859
984,229,845
882,636,910
407,328,357
260,621,499
218,576,042
123,501,217
120,099,476
103,825,929
76,764,906
40,046,195
16,925,000
14,148,000
11,500,000
11,180,000
4,496,504,235
This situation implies that funds deposited in the deposit account for
specific activities might have been utilized for unintended purposes.
This habit may result into demoralizing financiers if it comes to their
knowledge that nothing was implemented by funds donated by them.
Management of LGAs are advised to make payments from the deposit
account only if there were funds initially deposited to meet
expenditures of such activities.
5.6.14
Unapproved payments TZS.1,090,890,518
A test check of payments made during the year under review in 13
LGAs revealed that, a total of TZS.1,090,890,518 were paid from
various accounts for implementation of various activities. However,
these payments were not approved by the relevant authorities as
shown in Table 53 below.
101
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Table 53: List of LGAs with unapproved payments
Name of the LGA
Ilemela DC
Amount (TZS)
487,930,000
Kwimba DC
Kilolo DC
388,702,976
64,220,000
Tabora DC
29,141,000
Misungwi DC
24,831,560
Kilosa DC
23,364,000
Bariadi DC
Newala DC
20,580,000
17,918,542
Makambako TC
15,000,000
Kyela DC
7,280,940
Songea DC
4,820,000
Arusha CC
4,420,000
Nanyumbu DC
2,681,500
Total
Type of approval
Reallocation not approved
by Full Council
Not approved by Full Council
Not approved by the
Accounting Officer
Not approved by the
Accounting Officer
No approval of the Ministry
of Finance
Not approved by Tender
Board
No approval from PMO-RALG
No approval of the
Permanent Secretary of
Ministry of Health
Transfer of funds not
approved by the Accounting
Officer
Not approved by the
Accounting Officer
Not approved by the
Accounting Officer
Not approved by the
Accounting Officer
No approval of the
Permanent Secretary of
Ministry of Health
1,090,890,518
Payments made without proper authorization may be made
intentionally and pass undetected resulting into misappropriation of
public funds.
It is therefore emphasized that, LGAs should adhere to financial
regulations, instructions and guidelines for strengthening internal
checks including subjecting every payment to scrutiny and ensure
proper authorization at all relevant levels. This is important for
efficient management of resources entrusted to LGAs with a view to
providing quality services to the citizens.
102
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
5.7
Asset Management
Asset management is a systematic process of deploying, operating,
maintaining, monitoring, upgrading, and disposing of assets in a costeffectively manner with the objective of providing the best possible
service and derive economic benefits to the LGAs. Asset Management
involves the balancing of costs, opportunities and risks against the
desired performance of assets, to achieve the organizational
objectives. This balancing might need to be considered over different
timeframes.
Asset management also enables an organization to examine the need
for, and performance of, assets and asset systems at different levels.
Additionally, it enables the application of analytical approaches
towards managing an asset over the different stages of its life cycle.
Review of asset management processes in the LGAs, noted various
deficiencies as illustrated below:
5.7.1 Non maintenance of non-current assets registers and review of
residual value and useful life ( IPSAS compliant implementation)
Audit of LGA‟s assets management noted that, 24 LGAs did not
properly maintain and update their noncurrent assets register to
ensure all relevant information is recorded therein. For instance,
important records like details of additions including date, cost and
method of financing, assets identification codes, location of asset,
details of disposal including date, price and method of disposal were
lacking. This is contrary to Order 103 (1) and (2) of LGFM, 2009
which require LGAs to maintain a register of fixed assets that they
own or lease and record therein all relevant information.
Furthermore I noted that residual value and useful life of assets in 28
LGAs were not reviewed as per the requirement of Paragraph 67 of
IPSAS 17 which requires the residual value and useful life of an asset
to be reviewed at least at each annual reporting date and, if
expectations differ from previous estimates, the changes shall be
103
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
accounted for as a change in an accounting estimate in accordance
with IPSAS 3 on Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates
and Errors. As such, these assets existed at the reporting date but
were not assigned value.
Without assigning value to assets, and maintaining or updating
properly noncurrent assets register, it will be difficult for the LGAs to
determine and obtain the correct value of assets owned hence assets
may be misstated in the Financial Statements. Refer Annexure
(xxxv).
I recommend to management of LGAs to ensure that noncurrent asset
registers are properly maintained and updated by recording all
relevant information for proper control of the LGA‟s assets. Also,
LGAs are encouraged to comply with IPSAS 17.
5.7.2 Grounded and un-serviceable non-current assets
LGAs have a responsibility of managing and controlling all assets
under their jurisdiction and ensure that all such assets operate well
for the benefit of LGAs as a whole. One of the control mechanisms is
to ensure that, all motor vehicles, heavy plants and motor cycles are
operated regularly with the minimal maintenance costs.
2009 requires all assets no longer required, unserviceable, obsolete
stock or scrap materials to be identified and disposed off, subject to
approval of the Finance Committee and subsequently by Full Council.
Further, Paragraph 26 of IPSAS 21 states that, “an entity shall assess
at each reporting date whether there is any indication that asset may
be impaired. If any such indication exists, the entity shall estimate
the recoverable service amount of the asset”.
Review of the noncurrent asset register together with the supporting
schedules submitted along with Financial Statements of 27 LGAs
disclosed an existence of 117 motor vehicles, 13 trucks, 9 plants and
104
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
5 motor cycles which were not in use and have been grounded for a
long time and they are unserviceable. Management has not taken any
action of either assessing impairment to determine to what extent
the LGAs cannot obtain future economic benefits from the grounded
assets, disposing off the assets that require major repair. Details of
such assets for each LGA are shown in Annexure (xxxvi).
Continuing to keep grounded assets may increase maintenance costs
and lead to further deterioration due to wear and tear thereby
reducing the amount of revenue that would be received if the assets
were sold earlier.
It is recommended that the LGAs management should identify and
test for impairment all assets which are no longer in use in order to
dispose or repair them where the cost is reasonable so that they can
generate economic benefits to the LGAs.
5.7.3 Property, Plant and Equipment and other financial assets lacking
ownership documents
All assets of the LGAs are required to be properly recorded in the
books of accounts of the respective LGA and be supported with the
ownership documents which shall be entered in a register and kept
under safe custody by the Accounting Officer.
However, my audit has revealed that assets reported in the Financial
Statements of 27 LGAs relating to Property, Plants and Equipment
and other financial assets lacked evidence of ownership which
resulted to me failing to obtain assurance on the existence,
ownership, accuracy and validity of the Property, Plant and
Equipment (PPE) and other financial assets reported in the LGAs
Financial Statements.
It is recommended that, Local Government Authorities should obtain
right of ownership and control of the assets under their jurisdiction
105
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
such as registration cards for motor vehicles and title deeds for
buildings. Refer Annexure (xxxvii)
5.7.4 Outstanding receivables and prepayments TZS.141,648,528,746
Receivables represent the amounts that are owed to an entity, whilst
prepayments represent payment in excess of expenditure for the
period. Major components of debtors in most of the LGAs include;
various prepayments, account receivable from revenue collecting
agents, staff advances and imprest and Women and Youth loans.
Review of LGA‟s Financial Statements and their supporting schedules
disclosed outstanding receivables in 161 LGAs amounting to
TZS.141,648,528,746 which had not been collected as detailed in
Annexure (xxxviii).
I am concerned with the recoverability of these amounts as they
remain outstanding for a long period without being collected. Further
these amounts have increased drastically from TZS.72,267,544,838
in the year 2012/2013 to TZS.141,648,528,746 equivalent to 96%
although 23 new LGAs came into existance during the year under
review.
Non collection of debts on time may lead to financial pressure on
LGAs, thus hindering other operations of the Council.
I urge LGAs to expedite the recovery process so that the uncollected
sum is recovered and used to finance planned activities.
5.8 Liabilities and Commitments
5.8.1 Outstanding Payables TZS.143,833,939,924
It is important to maintain a good reputation and harmony between
LGAs staff and suppliers of goods and services through settlement of
creditors in time hence creating confidence to staff and the society
they serve.
106
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
The Financial Statements together with their supporting schedules
for the year ended 30th June, 2014 disclosed outstanding payables in
161 LGAs amounting to TZS.143,833,939,924 which had not yet been
cleared as detailed in Annexure (xxxix).
Councils with huge amounts of outstanding creditors include;
Kinondoni MC (TZS.7,370,078,653), Ilala MC (TZS.6,810,999,712), Dar
es Salaam CC (TZS.3,514,332,000), Tabora MC (TZS.3,495,068,232)
and Bunda DC (TZS.3,384,285,000).
Table 54: Trend of Outstanding Payables for a period of four
consecutive years
Financial
Year
2013/2014
2012/2013
2011/2012
2010/2011
Amounts (TZS.)
143,833,939,924
104,282,263,060
62,192,971,408
52,132,811,928
No. of Councils
involved
161
140
118
111
The above trend shows a significant increase of the amounts of
outstanding payables by TZS.39,551,676,864 equivalent to 38% from
the year 2012/2013 to 2013/14.
I recommended to the Government through PMO – RALG to ensure
creditors are paid promptly as they are due and institute adequate
controls and procedures in order to make sure that, LGAs‟
managements are liable for creating any unbeneficial commitments
to LGAs.
5.9 Other Observations
5.9.1 20% of General Purpose Grant not disbursed to Villages
TZS1,431,370,129
In the year 2004, the Government abolished certain LGAs own
revenue sources (taxes) and decided to make compensation to LGAs
for all abolished taxes. The LGAs were directed to transfer 20% of the
compensation grant received from the Central Government to the
107
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
lower levels of LGAs for the purpose of covering the revenue gap
caused by the abolished taxes.
However, I noted during my audit this year that 37 LGAs did not
transfer a total amount of TZS1,431,370,129 to villages to cover the
revenue gap of the abolished taxes as directed. This implies that
development activities planned to be implemented at the villages
level were not completed hence delays to deliver the intended
benefits to the community. Details of LGAs with amount not
transferred are shown in Annexure (xl)
I recommend to management of LGAs to establish controls which will
ensure that 20% of the General Purpose Grant received from the
Central Government is immediately transferred to villages‟ level to
accomplish the planned development activities.
5.9.2 Shortage of physical infrastructure and teachers in Primary and
Secondary Schools
The main task of schools is to provide education which involves a
series of programmes and activities. The successful conduct of these
programmes and activities depends mainly on the availability of
proper infrastructure in the school. The term 'Physical Infrastructure'
stands for the physical facilities of the school. It refers to buildings,
grounds, furniture and apparatus along with equipment essential for
imparting education.
Assessment on the performance of education sector for 35 LGAs
particularly at Primary and Secondary Schools noted that, there is
significant shortage of school infrastructures in both Primary and
Secondary Schools. In addition, I noted Both Primary and Secondary
Schools have a shortage of teachers which greatly affects quality of
education as summarised in Table 55 below:
108
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Table 55: Summary of status of school infrastructures in Primary
and Secondary schools
Item of infrastructure
Secondary School
Class room
Laboratories
Pit Latrines
Desks
Teachers Houses
Dormitories
Teacher‟s furniture
Secondary School Teachers
Primary school
Class room
Pit Latrines
Desks
Teachers Houses
Teachers' Office
Teacher‟s furniture
Primary School Teachers
Requirement
Available
Shortage
%
9,824
2,372
25,925
189,258
12,359
1,549
23,230
8,515
7,529
656
8,653
15,8036
2,062
398
15,826
6,049
2,295
1,716
17,272
31,222
10,297
1,151
7,404
2,466
23
72
67
16
83
74
32
29
48,302
59,092
422,855
34,091
5,746
80,406
19,408
29,775
29,742
259,965
7,343
3,884
35,788
17,538
18,527
29,350
162,890
26,748
1,862
44,618
1,870
38
50
39
78
32
55
10
The details are shown in Annexure (xli)
This implies that LGAs have failed to meet the national target ratio
of 1:45 (45 students per teacher). The trend shows that, most of the
teachers do not report to their working stations especially in rural
and marginalized areas due to the inadequate infrastructures.
I therefore recommend to LGAs in collaboration with the Ministry of
Education and Vocation Training to come up with implementable
strategies for improvement of existing and establishing new physical
infrastructures for enhancement of quality of education in Tanzania.
109
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
CHAPTER SIX
6.0
AUDIT OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS/PROGRAMMES
LGAs implement various development projects using grants received
from the Central Government and Donor‟s community as well as from
own source revenue and community contributions.
During the financial year 2013/2014, LGAs implemented various
Development Grant (LGCDG), Primary Health Services Development
Programme (PHSDP), Primary Education Development Programme
(PEDP), Secondary Education Development Programme (SEDP), Urban
Local Government Strengthening Programme (ULGSP), Participatory
Forestry Management (PFM), Women and Youth Development Fund
(WYDF), Community Health Fund (CHF), National Multi-Sectorial
Strategies Framework (NSFM), Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS
Foundations (EGPAF) and Constituency Development Catalyst Fund
(CDCF).
Other projects were implemented by the LGAs through TASAF, HBF,
ASDP, WSDP and Roads Fund. Physical and financial performance
evaluation of these projects was reported in the separate General
Report for Development Projects.
Review of financial and physical performance of other projects not
reported in the general report for development projects is covered in
the succeeding paragraphs.
6.1
Financial Performance
Assessment made on the implementation of development
projects/programme and other development activities in some LGAs
noted that, the assessed LGAs had a total amount of
TZS.102,697,992,948 for implementation of various development
projects. As at 30th June 2014, there was an unspent balance of
110
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
TZS.29,177,817,748 equivalent to 28% of the total available funds as
summarized in Table 56 below.
Table 56: Financial performance for development
rojects/programmes and development activities
Source
of fund
ULGSP
PFM
CHF
PHSDP
CDCF
SEDP
LGCDG
WYDF
NSFM
PEDP
TSCP
EGPAF
TOTAL
LGAs
tested
6
7
33
41
43
37
66
11
38
10
3
9
Funds available (A)
(TZS)
2,029,072,299
128,001,783
3,273,311,264
6,779,885,784
3,900,786,508
15,558,008,597
50,648,860,926
661,670,357
4,859,526,294
1,754,916,923
11,485,104,482
1,618,847,731
102,697,992,948
Actual
expenditure(B)
(TZS)
481,352,924
73,954,573
1,936,826,476
4,278,907,930
2,565,439,563
11,048,696,881
36,819,376,125
487,684,225
3,586,429,838
1,348,545,296
9,498,548,834
1,394,412,536
73,520,175,201
Balance(A-B) (TZS)
1,547,719,375
54,047,210
1,336,484,788
2,500,977,854
1,335,346,945
4,509,311,716
13,829,484,802
173,986,132
1,273,096,456
406,371,627
1,986,555,648
224,435,195
29,177,817,748
% of
Unspent
amount
(A-B)/A%
76
42
41
37
34
29
27
26
26
23
17
14
28
Table 56 above shows that on average, 28% of the total available
funds on the assessed LGA were not spent, though for individual
sources of funds except for EGPAF and TSCP which their unspent
balances were 14% and 17% respectively, all other sources had
unspent balance ranging from 23% to 76% of the total available funds.
Having an unspent amount indicates that some of the planned
activities were either partially or not implemented at all, implying
that targeted objectives to be attained during the year were not
met.
Non utilization of funds by Councils on the planned activities creates
risks of funds to be reallocated to implement other activities not
initially planned for.
The Councils‟ managements are required to institute effective
mechanism for utilizing funds once received in order to avoid
111
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
considerable risks that may happen on the unspent funds and to
enable the Councils to effectively provide the intended services to
the Community. Detailed list of relevant Councils is given in
Annexure (xlii).
6.2
Capital Development Projects
Capital Development Projects are long term development projects
requiring relatively large sums of money to acquire, develop,
improve, and/or maintain such as land; building; roads; agriculture
and water infrastructures etc. The LGAs implement these projects
which are the backbone for our economic development through
Government funding, Donors, own sources and community
contributions.
Evaluation of financial performances under Capital Development
Projects for 157 LGA‟s noted that the Councils had
TZS.718,749,785,161 as total funds available to cater for Capital
Development Projects. However, the amount spent as at 30th June,
2014 was TZS.532,156,786,062 leaving an unspent balance of
TZS.186,592,999,099 equivalent to 26% of the available funds as
shown in Table 57 below:
Table 57: Financial performance for Capital Development Projects
(Figures in Millions)
Opening
balance
(TZS)
229,902
Capital fund
received
(TZS)
488,848
Funds
available
(TZS)
718,750
Capital
expenditure
(TZS)
532,157
Closing
balance
(TZS)
186,593
% of
Unspent
fund
26%
Source: Financial statements for 2013/2014
Detailed financial performances for individual Council are given in
Annexure (xliii).
From Table 57 above, it can be seen that as at 30th June, 2014 there
was a significant balance of funds for implementation of
112
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
development projects which were supposed to be utilized in the year
2013/2014.
Non implementation of development projects slow the growth of the
country economy as it leads to a decrease in various activities that
would contribute to the increase in standard of living to the
community around the Councils.
In planning, managing and delivering of capital projects, the
Government needs to consider time, cost and quality management in
order to maximize potential benefits to the society and the country
as a whole.
6.3
Under release of funds for implementation of development
activities TZS.21,860,833,957
A review of budget against funds received for implementation of
planned development activities in 20 LGAs disclosed under release of
funds from various sources as shown in Table 58 below:
Table 58: Under release of funds for implementation of
development project/programmes
Source
of
Funds
LGCDG
PHSDP
Amount
budgeted (TZS)
Total amount
released (TZS)
Under released
amount (TZS)
% of
Under
releas
ed
72%
100%
26,166,964,969
289,520,000
7,243,411,888
-
18,923,553,081
289,520,000
NSFM
121,987,000
118,800,942
3,186,058
3%
PEDP
2,492,580,727
157,618,509
2,334,962,218
94%
PFM
64,298,000
19,558,000
44,740,000
70%
SEDP
449,496,479
184,623,878
264,872,601
59%
Total
29,584,847,175
7,724,013,217
21,860,833,957
74%
Table 58 above shows under release of TZS 21,860,833,957, implying
that, the implementations of planned activities of the same
magnitude could not be executed and therefore targeted objectives
113
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
were not achieved and this may affect the Council objectives of
service delivery to the citizens.
List of LGAs with under released funds is given in Annexure (xliv)
6.4
Physical performance evaluation review
My evaluation on development projects conducted in 163 Councils
revealed a big number of Councils with unimplemented project,
projects which were implemented with considerable delays, lack of
community contributions towards project implementation, and
completed projects with various defects.
These significant
deficiencies were a result of inadequate projects management and
monitoring facilitated by lack of close supervision by the Council
management. Observed matters require immediate attention by the
Government as explained further in the succeeding sub paragraph.
6.4.1 Non implementation of planned projects TZS.6,182,097,810
A review of implementation of planned activities in 42 LGAs during
the year under review noted that some of the planned activities
worth TZS.6,182,097,810 were not implemented at all despite the
availability of funds.
Non-implementation of planned projects may lead to a need for more
financial resources to implement these projects due to increase in
price of materials. Also, unutilized funds may be relocated to other
activities not initially planned for.
List of Councils with un-implemented projects is given in Annexure
(xlv).
6.4.2 Delay in completion of planned projects TZS.14,942,868,731
A review made on physical implementation of development projects
in 68 LGAs noted a delay in completion of various projects worth
TZS.14,942,868,731 which was mainly facilitated by inadequate
planning and supervision of projects, late release of funds by the
financers and non-availability of community contributions. Non
completion of projects on time may lead to cost overrun and
114
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
therefore, additional funds may be needed to implement respective
projects. Further, targeted communities are delayed to make use of
the facilities and/or enjoy expected benefits that these projects will
generate.
List of Councils with projects that have not been completed is given
in Annexure (xlvi).
6.4.3 Completed projects noted to have defects TZS.1,433,161,865
The Local Government implements construction activities at the
Council level through contractual agreements with the construction
companies, these projects are also implemented at the lower level
whereby funds are transferred to villages, Ward and Schools followed
by appointment of Project Committees to oversee whether the
projects are implemented to the expectation of the Council. Without
considering the implementation level, all these projects must be
implemented in compliance with the Procurement Laws and
Regulations and the Council‟s Engineers are therefore obliged to
ensure that these projects are implemented within the speculated
time and at acceptable standards.
Assessment on the physical implementation of completed projects in
11 LGAs noted that implemented projects had various defects
including substandard work, skipping of BOQ items during
construction, usage of materials of a type and quality not agreed in
the original contracts and construction of structures contrary to the
agreed specifications and approved drawings.
Table 59: Councils with completed projects with defects
S/N
1
2
3
4
Name of LGA
Arusha CC
Nkasi DC
Karatu DC
Moshi MC
Contract Amount (TZS)
247,587,200
617,354,550
155,748,000
98,372,100
115
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Name of LGA
Singida DC
Monduli DC
Nzega DC
Mkinga DC
Ngorongoro DC
Mbulu DC
Kalambo DC
Total
Contract Amount (TZS)
80,627,400
58,561,465
55,443,450
51,655,200
29,845,000
24,967,500
13,000,000
1,433,161,865
In light of this matter, the Councils are urged to improve projects
management and monitoring by instituting effective supervision
mechanism and ensure that projects are awarded to competent
contractors. In addition, legal action should be taken against those
who fail to fulfill their contractual obligations.
6.4.4 Co-financing of 5% not contributed by LGAs TZS.148,699,491
Para 3.3 of LGCDG Implementation and Operations Guide Release 1 of
July 2005 requires LGAs to provide co-financing corresponding to a
minimum 5% of the CDG amount received. However, a sample test
noted that 7 LGAs listed in Table 60 below did not meet the cofinancing conditions during the year 2013/2014.
Table 60: Co-financing of 5% not contributed by the LGA
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Name of LGA
Bukoba MC
Singida DC
Ikungi DC
Gairo DC
Lushoto DC
Kilindi DC
Manyoni DC
Total
5% of CDG fund received (TZS)
71,496,533
20,937,337
14,483,360
11,680,675
10,779,670
10,151,300
9,170,616
148,699,491
Non contribution of 5% to LGCDG Funds hinders implementation of
projects at the Lower Level Government (LLG).
116
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
The LGAs‟ managements are required to contribute the required 5%
as co-funding to enable smooth implementation of development
projects at the lower level.
6.5 Other findings from development projects/ programmes
6.5.1 10% of the Council’s own source revenue not contributed to
Women and Youth Revolving Fund TZS.38,741,094,214
Para 5.5 (i) of the Women Development Fund guideline and directives
issued by the Government, require the Council to contribute 10% of
own source to Women and Youth Development Revolving Fund.
Review of operational performance of the Revolving Fund in 104 LGAs
noted that the Councils did not contribute 10% of their own source
revenue amounting to TZS.38,741,094,214 as shown in Annexure
(xlvii)
The Fund was established by the Government with the aim of
promoting women and youth groups to engage in development
activities in order to be self reliant. Therefore, non contribution by
the LGAs hinders the achievement of this objective.
The LGAs‟ managements are advised to ensure that 10% of the
Council‟s own source is contributed to Women and Youth
Development Fund.
6.5.2 Loans issued to Women and Youth groups not recovered
TZS.1,426,955,884
Audit test of loans issued under Woman and Youth Development Fund
and respective recovery particulars revealed that in 40 LGAs, loans
amounting to TZS.1,426,955,884 were not yet recovered though the
contracted due dates had already elapsed.
This implies that, little efforts were made by management of the
Councils on collection of outstanding loans. The Councils‟
managements are required to put more effort in collecting the
117
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
outstanding loans from women and youth groups. The aim of the
revolving funds can only be achieved when there are repayments and
new issues of loans to other women and youth groups.
List of Councils with unrecovered loan is given in Annexure (xlviii)
118
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
CHAPTER SEVEN
7.0
PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
7.1
Introduction
Section 3 of the Public Procurement Act, 2011 defines Procurement
as an act of buying, purchasing, renting, leasing or acquiring any
goods, works or services by a procuring entity and includes all
functions that pertain to the obtaining of any goods, works or
services, including description of requirements, selection and
invitation of tenderers, preparation and award of contracts.
7.2
Overview of the Procurement made during the year
The scope of audit covered procurement of goods, works and services
undertaken by 163 LGAs during the financial year 2013/2014. The
total procurement expenditure carried out by LGA‟s during the year
was TZS.1,190,156,489,276 which is an increase of 14% compared to
the procurements of TZS.1,043,364,884,514 made in the year
2012/2013 by 140 LGA‟s. Out of the total procurement expenditure
made during the year, a total of TZS.447,611,014,199 equivalent to
38% was for the procurement of supplies and consumables,
TZS.176,441,034,463 (15%) for maintenance expenses while
TZS.566,104,440,614 (47%) were for assets and construction works.
Details above show that, LGAs spent more on procurement of assets
and construction works as the volume of works seemed to be higher
by 9% compared to other categories of procurement made.
Table 61: Volume of procurement carried out by LGA’s during the
year
Procurement made
Supplies and consumables
Maintenance expenses
Capital expenditure
Total (TZS)
2013/14
447,611,014,199
176,441,034,463
566,104,440,614
1,190,156,489,276
%
38
15
47
100
2012/13
422,243,792,306
171,673,120,632
449,447,971,576
1,043,364,884,514
Source: Audited Financial Statements for 163 Local Government Authorities
119
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
%
41
16
43
100
7.3
Compliance with Public Procurement Act, 2011 and its Regulations
of 2013
In accordance with Section 48(3) of the Public Procurement Act No.7
of 2011, I am required to state in my annual audit report whether or
not the audited entity has complied with the provisions of the law
and its Regulations. In regard to this responsibility, I noted that out
of 163 LGA‟s transactions examined as part of my audit, status of
compliance with the Public Procurement Legislations for 127 LGA‟s
equivalent to 78% was satisfactory while 36 LGA‟s (22%) was not
satisfactory as shown below in Table 62 below.
Table 62: List of Councils not complied with Public Procurement
Act, 2011 and its Regulations of 2013
S/N Council
S/N Council
S/N
1
Chemba DC
13
Singida MC
25
2
Kakonko DC
14
Tabora DC
26
3
Kibondo DC
15
Tabora MC
27
4
Kigoma DC
16
Masasi TC
28
5
Manyoni DC
17
Morogoro MC
29
6
Mpwapwa DC
18
Mvomero DC
30
7
Muleba DC
19
Tunduru DC
31
8
Longido DC
20
Moshi MC
32
9
Mwanza CC
21
Muheza DC
33
10 Ngara DC
22
Ngorongoro DC
34
11 Arusha CC
23
Tanga CC
35
12 Hai DC
24
Makambako TC
36
Source: Report of the Controller and Auditor General on the
for each LGA
Council
Namtumbo DC
Biharamulo DC
Bukoba DC
Bukoba MC
Karagwe DC
Kyerwa DC
Nanyumbu DC
Mbinga DC
Nkasi DC
Nyasa DC
Songea DC
Songea MC
Financial Statements
Emphasis on capacity building and monitoring has to be directed to
the Councils with inadequate compliance level in order to strengthen
and improve in their procurement practice.
7.4
Procurement audits results in the Local Government Authorities
Procurement audits conducted in the LGAs during the year included
an assessment of procurement processes, contract management and
controls in place to ensure fair, equitable, transparent, competitive
and cost-effective procurement management system that complies
120
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
with legislation and that minimizes the likelihood of fraud,
corruption, favoritism as well as unfair and irregular practices. The
findings presented in this paragraph relate to 129 District Councils,
18 Municipal Councils, 11 Town Councils and five City Councils as
summarized below:
7.4.1 Uncompetitive procurement processes involving TZS.176,919,303
Contrary to Reg. 163 & 164 of PPR 2013, during the year I noted that,
there was a slight improvement from the previous year in the
Councils with findings on uncompetitive bidding without alternative
price quotations to determine the most cost effective prices as the
number of Councils found to have uncompetitive procurement
process decreased by 54% from 13 Councils reported in the previous
year to 6 LGAs found during the year as shown in Table 63 below.
Table 63: Councils with uncompetitive procurement process
S/N
1
Council
Kyerwa DC
Amount (TZS)
69,025,000
2
Ngorongoro DC
67,283,890
3
Lindi DC
14,651,413
4
Karatu DC
12,428,000
5
Kwimba DC
8,720,000
6
Shinyanga DC
4,811,000
Total
176,919,303
Despite an improvement shown by Councils in reducing the problem
from 13 to 6 Councils, also volume of the amount involved droped by
30% from TZS.254,040,434 reported in the previous year to
TZS.176,919,303 in the year under review. It is important that the
prescribed processes are followed in order to ensure that the
selected supplier meets the requirements and they have the capacity
and ability to deliver the goods and services which are procured at
competitive and economical prices.
121
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
As single source procurement does not guarantee reasonable prices, I
recommend that future purchases be made through competitive
bidding in order to obtain value for money in the public funds.
7.4.2 Goods and services procured from unapproved suppliers
TZS.318,160,711
Compared to the previous year, during the year under review I noted
that the trend of goods and services procured by the Councils from
unapproved suppliers decreased by 27% from 26 Councils reported in
the previous year to 19 Councils during the year as detailed in Table
64 below. This practice is Contrary to Reg. 131(5) of the Public
Procurement regulations of 2013.
Table 64: Councils procured goods and service from unapproved
supplier
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Total
Council
Longido DC
Arusha CC
Maswa DC
Kasulu DC
Dodoma MC
Kahama TC
Ngorongoro DC
Kalambo DC
Busega DC
Kigoma/Ujiji MC
Iringa MC
Mpanda TC
Lindi DC
Handeni DC
Makambako TC
Shinyanga MC
Makete DC
Karatu DC
Babati DC
Amount (TZS)
54,310,202
48,136,126
43,491,000
38,687,400
32,376,768
20,560,600
11,725,500
8,881,606
8,469,660
7,799,800
6,650,000
5,778,080
5,666,200
5,516,100
5,028,669
4,595,000
4,080,000
3,713,000
2,695,000
318,160,711
This decrease in number of Councils has a positive correlation in the
movement of the reported amount as the reported amount of goods
and services procured from unapproved supplier decreased by 58%
from TZS.755,813,087 to TZS.318,160,711 during the same period
122
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
indicating that there is satisfactory improvement in the procurement
procedures involving procuring goods from approved suppliers. The
practice of procuring goods from unapproved suppliers creates a
possibility of services and goods paid not representing the best value
for money that would be obtained for the funds applied if a
competitive method would have been resorted to.
7.4.3 Goods and services procured without Tender Board approval
TZS.201,377,615
Contrary to Sect 35(3) of the PPA 2011 and Reg. 55 of PPR of 2013,
goods and services procured without Tender Board approval
decreased by 50% from 16 Councils reported in the previous year to 8
Councils reported during the year. This goes together whith the
decrease in amount involved from TZS.344,129,357 reported in
previous year to TZS.201,377,615 in the current year as evidenced in
Table 65 below, impling a positive progress of about 41% towards
eradicating this irregularity.
Table 65: Councils which procured goods and service without
Tender Board approval
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Council
Chamwino DC
Gairo DC
Bukoba MC
Arusha CC
Kilosa DC
Dodoma MC
Amount (TZS)
33,149,440
29,857,395
28,519,200
24,108,300
23,364,000
16,245,200
201,377,615
I recommended to the Councils‟ management to obtain approval from
the Procurement Authority before resorting to selective tendering.
7.4.4 Stores not taken on ledger charge TZS.504,297,029
During the year under review, procured goods worth TZS.504,297,029
were not recorded in the stores ledgers contrary to Order 54 (1) – (5)
of the LGFM of 2009 which requires a record of receipts, issues and
123
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
physical balances of each item of stores to be recorded in a separate
page of the Stock Ledger, showing details of purchase, date of issue
and physical balance and utilization of the items purchased.
As compared to previous year, the number of Councils reported with
this anomaly increased by 35% from 18 Councils reported in the
previous year to 28 Councils reported during the year as shown in
Table 66 below whereby the amount thereof reported decreased by
24% from TZS.665,721,997 to TZS.504,297,029 implying satisfactory
improvement.
Table 66: Councils with procured stores not taken on ledger
charge
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Total
Council
Ulanga DC
Kongwa DC
Sumbawanga DC
Ilemela MC
Geita DC
Missenyi DC
Dodoma MC
Nkasi DC
Kalambo DC
Karatu DC
Bukoba DC
Buhigwe DC
Urambo DC
Kwimba DC
Bariadi DC
Kilosa DC
Mkalama DC
Tabora DC
Singida DC
Karagwe DC
Kinondoni MC
Hai DC
Bunda DC
Morogoro DC
Kiteto DC
Sumbawanga MC
Nanyumbu DC
Newala DC
Amount (TZS)
69,221,076
59,978,800
55,992,752
50,667,000
32,700,000
29,217,229
23,635,900
20,330,000
19,951,654
16,422,654
12,789,364
12,158,720
10,885,500
10,842,350
10,573,100
10,549,000
7,996,550
6,742,000
6,213,840
5,822,750
5,579,840
5,538,386
5,015,200
4,170,391
3,360,000
3,176,093
2,605,000
2,161,880
504,297,029
124
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
As a result of not recording the stores, I could not determine whether
the items were used for the intended purposes and in the best
interest of the Government.
I advise LGAs management to take prompt action to ensure that all
items procured or received are entered in the stores as evidence of
accountability of the same.
7.4.5 Procurement of goods and services by using imprest
TZS.323,716,079
Reg. 166 and seventh schedule to PPR 2013 state that, a procuring
entity may use petty cash, imprests or purchase cards to effect
payments under macro procurement, where the limit of application
for minor value allowed is up to TZS.5,000,000. Contrary to cited
Regulation above, during the year under review an amount of
TZS.323,716,079 in 22 LGAs was granted as imprest/cash to various
officers as shown in Table 67 for procurement of various goods and
services. The amount of imprest issued exceeds the limit set out in
the Seventh Schedule to PPR, 2013.
Table 67: Councils which procured goods and services using
imprest
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Council
Ilala MC
Morogoro MC
Mvomero DC
Geita DC
Maswa DC
Temeke MC
Kilosa DC
Musoma MC
Meru DC
Missenyi DC
Nanyumbu DC
kigoma Dc
Newala DC
Arusha CC
Masasi TC
Amount (TZS)
63,332,500
38,706,828
28,891,120
23,624,000
22,635,800
19,624,500
17,105,370
14,613,000
11,220,000
10,826,000
10,822,304
10,535,825
8,500,000
7,941,000
6,648,500
125
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Total
Council
Bariadi TC
Chunya DC
Ulanga DC
Mkinga DC
Mbogwe DC
Siha DC
Mpanda TC
Amount (TZS)
6,455,000
6,380,000
5,891,332
4,100,000
2,000,000
1,989,000
1,874,000
323,716,079
This practice has violated the public procurement process,
particularly the fundamental principles of transparency, competition,
economy, efficient, fairness and accountability of public funds.
The LGAs‟ managements are once again called upon to strengthen
the Procurement Management Units as well as procurement processes
in order to obtain value for money in the use of the public funds
allocated to this area.
7.4.6 Procurements made out of the annual procurement plan
TZS.4,237,790,791
Regulation 69(3) of PPR, 2013 requires procuring entity to forecast its
requirements for goods, services and works as accurately as is
practicable with particular reference to services or activities already
programmed in the annual work plan and included in the annual
estimates. The plan should indicate contract packages, estimated
cost for each package and the procurement method to be used. Audit
of 7 sampled Councils revealed that goods, works and services worth
TZS.4,237,790,791 as shown in Table 68 below were procured out of
the annual procurement plan contrary to the above cited regulation.
Table 68: Goods, works and services procured out of the
procurement plan
S/N
1
2
Council
Masasi DC
Temeke MC
Amount (TZS)
3,532,161,963
423,910,381
126
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
3
Dar es Salaam CC
4
Bukoba MC
14,840,000
5
Bukombe DC
12,793,000
6
Buhigwe DC
12,692,415
7
Masasi TC
Total
232,863,032
8,530,000
4,237,790,791
This practice is fruitless for the Government to achieve its
procurement objectives of economy and efficiency. Also, this
practice promotes unplanned procurement activities and
uncompetitive procurements.
I recommend to management of the respective LGAs to ensure that
all procurements made are in line with the procurement plan so as to
avoid unplanned expenditures.
7.4.7 Goods received but not inspected TZS.338,994,365
Regulations 244 and 245 of PPR, 2013 require Accounting Officer to
establish a Goods Inspection and Acceptance Committee responsible
for inspecting, testing goods and services received from suppliers to
establish if they are of the right quantity, quality, and price.
Contrary to this stance, a sample of 7 Councils taken revealed that,
goods worth TZS.338,994,365 as detailed in Table 69 below were
procured and issued for final utilization without being inspected by
Acceptance and Inspection Committee.
Table 69: Councils received goods without inspection
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Council
Kilwa DC
Sumbawanga DC
Nkasi DC
Sumbawanga MC
Siha DC
Iramba DC
Shinyanga DC
Amount (TZS)
190,689,325
53,020,000
41,058,700
33,711,433
9,660,000
7,929,907
2,925,000
338,994,365
127
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
This practice creates a possibility of procuring goods of low quality at
higher prices and which do not conform to specifications provided in
the contract.
I recommend to the LGAs Management to ensure that Goods
Inspection and Acceptance Committee is appointed to inspect and
report whether the procured goods meet the prescribed
specifications and quality requirements.
7.4.8 Goods and services paid but not delivered TZS.156,710,739
Order 70 of the of the LGFM of 2009 states that, it shall be the duty
of each Head of Department to ensure that all goods, materials and
services received are checked against the order in respect of price,
quality and quantity. Contrary to the cited Order, during the year,
goods valued at TZS 156,710,739 ordered and paid for by 7 Councils
were not delivered. The goods and services represent an increase of
4% compared to goods worth TZS 150,649,237 not delivered in the
previous year.
Table 70: Councils with procured goods but not delivered
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Council
Iramba DC
Ilemela MC
Kibaha TC
Bariadi TC
Kilolo DC
Tandahimba DC
Bumbuli DC
Amount (TZS)
62,715,000
41,310,916
32,000,000
14,994,823
2,140,000
2,100,000
1,450,000
156,710,739
Although this problem appears to grow at a slower pace, but there is
a need to put more efforts to ensure the problem reduced in order to
save public money.
128
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
7.4.9 Fuel issued but not recorded in the vehicle’s logbooks
TZS.300,397,825
Purchase fuel worth TZS.300,397,825 made by 15 Councils as
indicated in Table 71 below, were not recorded in the vehicles
logbook contrary to Order 89 (3) of the LGFM of 2009 which requires
logbook for each journey to record the date and time of use, the
start and end destination, the start and finish kilometer reading, the
total kilometer travelled and any fuel or oil obtained for the
vehicles.
Table 71: Fuel not recorded in motor vehicle’s logbooks
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Total
Council
Singida MC
Ushetu DC
Makete DC
Babati DC
Mkalama DC
Ilemela MC
Tabora MC
Maswa DC
Busokelo DC
Singida DC
Tanga CC
Babati TC
Kalambo DC
Simanjiro DC
Korogwe TC
Amount (TZS)
66,851,271
52,598,057
35,036,000
30,767,690
25,797,200
25,080,000
23,716,017
10,903,035
8,388,600
4,845,570
4,472,000
4,166,605
3,922,600
2,803,180
1,050,000
300,397,825
I could therefore not ascertain the veracity of the alleged fuel
utilization at the receiving destination as the same was not recorded
in the respective motor vehicle‟s logbook.
129
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
I call upon management of LGAs to effectively supervise and exert
control on the Procurement Management Unit and Transport Office
on the use of fuel by ensuring that proper vehicle log books are
maintained and kept up to date.
7.5 Funds deposited at the Medical Stores Department (MSD)
7.5.1 Inefficient Supply of medicines and medical supplies from MSD
Para 3.8 of the Comprehensive Council Health Planning Guideline
(CCHP), 2011 provides that, there are receipts in kind for medicines
and medical supplies from MOHSW to the Councils through MSD. This
budget line (receipts in kind) is allocated for the individual
Government health facilities and designated non-government
facilities nationwide at the Medical Stores Department (MSD). The
MOHSW has revised the resource allocation formula for medicines and
medical items from the flat rate allocation to new allocation scheme
which is based on;
 Population allocation to Councils
 Division among health centers and dispensaries within each
Council based on facility service population.
Up to 30th June 2014, 163 Councils closed with a total balance of
TZS.12,039,486,805 as total amount of stock of medicines and
medical supplies not received from MSD as per the audited Financial
Statements. This implies that, medicines and medical supplies worth
TZS.12,039,486,805 were not distributed by MSD to Councils which in
turn forced the Councils to procure from private suppliers at higher
prices compared to a given price list from MSD. As a result, this
practice discredits the purpose of the MSD establishment.
Compared to the previous year, the reported balance of stock due to
Councils increased by 20% from TZS.10,051,646,850 reported in the
previous year to TZS.12,039,486,805 in the year under review,
indicating that no improvement in service delivery to their major
130
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
customers (Councils) which create doubt about MSD‟s going concern
status. Refer Annexure (xlix).
The Government is advised to assess operations of the MSD in relation
to the services provided to LGAs and check whether the objective of
providing medical supplies and equipments to LGAs can be achieved.
7.5.2 Uneconomical packing and delivery costs charged by MSD
Review of distribution costs of medicines and hospital supplies
charged by MSD to a sample of 1 Council noted that, MSD applied a
constant amount of TZS 166,000 per each quarter when goods are
delivered to a respective health facility. Further analysis from a
sampled 40 invoices from MSD as shown in Annexture (l) revealed
that, delivery and packaging cost did not take into consideration
value of the consignment delivered and the distance covered from
HQ. Total cost for the sampled invoices were TZS.23,971,270 while
delivery and packaging cost were TZS.6,640,000 equivalent to 28% of
the total consignment cost computed as TZS.166,000 per quarter X 40
sampled invoices.
Non consideration of value the consignment delivered and distance
where the Health facilities are located pose a risk of making the
whole undertaking uneconomical and unaffordable to LGAs.
I recommend to the Government to make the required interventions
to relieve LGAs from incurring unnecessary costs that they cannot
afford as failure by the Government to do so might affect delivery of
quality health services to citizens.
7.6
Inadequate contract management
According to Section 3 of the Public Procurement Act of 2011,
Procurement contract means any license, permit, or other concession
or authority issued by a public body or entered into between a public
body and a supplier, contractor or consultant, resulting from
131
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
procurement proceedings for carrying out construction or other
related works or for the supply of any goods or services.
Inadequate management of contracts and projects remain a
weakness in LGA‟s and is characterized by findings on the lack of
written contracts, payments made in excess of the contract amount,
irregular extensions/amendments to contracts and inadequate
monitoring of contracts during the procurement proceedings.
Weaknesses in the way contracts are managed result in delays,
wastage and fruitless expenditure, which have a direct impact on
service delivery to the community. Review of contracts management
made during the year in 19 LGAs revealed various irregularities as
detailed in Table 72 below:
Table 72: Irregularities noted on contract management
S/N
1
Council
Dodoma MC
2
Kibondo DC
3
Kongwa DC
4
Mpwapwa DC
5
Dar es Salaam
CC
6
Morogoro MC
Irregularity noted
The awarded contract with a sum of TZS.299,373,600 was
neither evaluated by the evaluation committee nor approved
by the Tender Board contrary to Reg. 41 (1) of Public
Procurement (goods, works, non-consultant services and
disposal of public assets by Tender), Regulation 2005. Also,
the contract was awarded without being advertised contrary
to Reg. 80 (3) and (5) of the PPR, 2005
Contract with a sum of TZS.225,840,000 was awarded to a
Contractor whose accounts were audited by unregistered
audit firm, contrary to Reg. 10(4)(e) of Public Procurement
Regulation, 2005
Contract with a sum of TZS 496,556,600 was awarded to a
contractor who submitted tender documents using a forged
address.
Contracts worth TZS 424,461,084 were not vetted by the
Attorney General contrary to Regulation 59 of the Public
Procurement Regulations of 2013
Contracts worth TZS 1,711,424,980 were not sent to the
Office of Controller and Auditor General contrary to Reg. 109
of Public Procurement Regulations of 2011.
Contracts for TZS 356,500,000 were awarded to unqualified
contractor.
Tenders awarded to Contractors without submission of Tax
Clearance Certificates TZS.1,633,683,691 contrary to
Regulation 14 (1) (d) & Reg. 116 (1)(d) of the PPR 2005.
Contract with a total sum of TZS 490,125,690 were awarded
without Tender Board approval
Improper evaluation of construction work on Periodic
132
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
Council
7
Bukoba DC
8
Ilemela MC
9
Ngara DC
10
Sengerema DC
11
Moshi MC
12
Tanga CC
13
Mpwapwa DC
14
Morogoro MC
15
16
Bukoba DC
Muleba DC
Irregularity noted
maintenance of Rwegasore Road whose contract sum was TZS.
159,321,150.
Contract variation not approved by the Council Tender Board
TZS 69,743,270.
Emergency works not approved by the Government
Procurement Services Agency (GPSA) TZS 52,314,827 which is
contrary to Reg.63 (2) Public Procurement Regulations, 2013
Contract signed by parties without being vetted by the
Attorney General 214,922,500
Missing contract document No. LGA/094/CDG/2012/13/54Lot.1 TZS 74,224,000
Contracts implemented without Performance Security Bonds
or Guarantee TZS 960,160,650
Contract made at the lower level not vetted by Legal Officer
TZS.22,506,950
Liquidated damage of TZS. 10,695,000 (0.1% X TZS.
356,500,000 X 30 days) were not deducted as per Clause
62.2(g)
in
respect
of
the
contract
number
LGA/023/CDG/W/QT/2012/2013/01
Non deduction of liquidated damages in the construction and
completion of Buildings facilities at Mafiga Secondary School
TZS 21,165,330.
Restricted Tendering without Pre-qualification TZS.94,936,917
Restricted
Tendering
without
Pre-qualification
TZS
267,100,050
Contract signed by the parties without being vetted by the
Council Legal Officer TZS 37,997,000
The problem of inadequate contract management has decreased from
the prior year due to a combination of factors including, the
interactions between PPRA and LGA‟s and successive awareness on
the issues reported on and how to proactively deal with them. Many
auditees have controls in place, but the challenge is to continuously
monitor and improve the controls so that they remain relevant to
achieve the goal of addressing existing findings and eventually
preventing further findings on Contract management.
Based on the audit of procurement management, I recommend that,
the LGAs management has to improve and strengthening the ethical
control and monitoring, established policies, processes and
procedures for contract management, fraud prevention, detection
133
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
and active performance of internal audit and audit committees in
order to solve the problem.
7.7
Review of PPRA performance evaluation report for the year
2013/2014
7.7.1 Introduction
The Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) prepared and
submitted an audit report on the performance of Procuring Entities
(PEs) for the period under review which highlighted most of the
issues which also featured in my previous report. I appreciate the
work done by the Authority which I found relevant and appropriate to
incorporate in my report. The audits were carried out to determine
whether the procedures, processes and documentations for
procurement and contracting were in accordance with the provisions
in the PPA of 2011, Public Procurement Regulations, 2013, the Local
Government Authorities Tender Boards [Establishment and
Proceedings] Regulations, 2007 and standard documents prepared by
the Authority, and that procurement carried out achieved the
expected economy and efficiency.
7.7.2 Project on Enhancement of Procurement Capacity of Local
Government Authorities (EPC-LGA)
PPRA has been given by the Government a five year project support
towards Enhancement of Procurement Capacity of Local Government
Authorities. The beneficiary LGAs are Kondoa DC, Chamwino DC,
Mkuranga DC, Bagamoyo DC, Muheza DC, Korogwe DC, Kasulu DC and
Kigoma DC.
The main objective of the project is to enable the selected LGAs to
define a point of doing right things in procurement management, to
identify the key gaps, establish the causes, prepare an improvement
plan, implement the improvement plan, performance measurement
framework for sustainable achievements and outcomes throughout.
134
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
7.7.3 Performance analysis
7.7.3.1
Weaknesses noted with regard to compliance with the
procurement regulations
An assessment was carried out in regard to compliance with the
procurement legislations revealed weaknesses in five (5) LGAs as
shown below:
a) The Procurement Management Unit was not established as per
requirements of Sect.37 of PPA 2011 and Regulation 22 of GN.
No.177 of 2007. The Councils have established their PMU as a
Committee drawing members from user departments for review of
evaluation reports only before they are submitted to the Tender
Board for adjudication. The Councils involved are Kasulu DC,
Mwanza CC and Kigoma DC.
b) Minor value procurements of TZS.462,745,608 (procured through
347 LPOs) representing 19.7% of the value of all procurements
during the year 2013/2014 were procured contrary to the
requirements of Reg.27 (2&3) of GN.No.177 of 2007 which require
the procurements to have prior endorsement of the Tender Board
Secretary and at least three other members of the Tender Board
(Korogwe TC).
c) The Tender Board interfered the responsibilities of the evaluation
Committee by evaluating and awarding the tender and also made
unfair decision of awarding tender (Geita TC).
7.7.3.2
Weaknesses noted with regard to compliance with the
procurement planning and implementation
An assessment on compliance with the procurement planning and
implementation was carried out and revealed weaknesses in eight (8)
LGAs as shown below:
a) Some of the tenders were not in the procurement plans (Korogwe
TC, Singida MC, Kasulu DC and Kondoa DC)
b) There were inefficiencies in implementing the annual
procurement plan. The actual time used from tender opening to
135
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
contract signing was far beyond the time required in the third
schedule of GN 97of 2005 (Singida MC, Kasulu DC and Iramba DC).
c) The LGA used inappropriate template for preparing Annual
Procurement Plan; there was no proper aggregation of
requirements in the Annual Procurement Plan contrary to Section
49(1) (b) of PPA 2011 and Reg. 72 of GN 446 of 2013 (Mtwara DC,
Mkinga DC and Kilindi DC).
7.7.3.3
Weaknesses noted with regard to tender processes
An assessment on tender process was also carried out and revealed
weaknesses in twelve (12) LGAs as shown below:
a) During tender evaluation, the contractors were eliminated
without justifiable reasons and awarded fictitiously the contracts
to other contractors (Mafia DC, Kondoa DC, Mtwara DC, Shinyanga
MC and Geita TC).
b) The Council recommended unqualified bidder and eventually the
contract was awarded to the bidder and it was revealed that the
bidder failed to execute the contract works (Bagamoyo DC).
c) Tender for Revenue Collections at different Centres were not
properly evaluated (Tarime DC).
d) Council
Departments
failed
to
assist
the
PMU
in
preparing/customizing standard tender documents to reflect site
conditions and feasible contract administration. This failure was
evidenced by lack of specifications in most of the tender
documents reviewed, preparation of bills of quantities requiring
more monies than available budgets and specification of minimum
payment certificate value of 30% of the contract price which has
not been adhered to during works execution (Ilala MC).
e) Tender notices were not submitted to PPRA for posting in the
Authority‟s website and Journal contrary to Reg. 9(a) and 7(a) of
the GN. No. 97 of 2005 for the FY 2013/2014 (Kondoa DC and
Babati TC).
136
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
f) Tenders were single sourced without adequate justifications
contrary to Section 61 (3) of PPA and Reg; 65 (6), 66 (4), 74 (8),
80 (6) of GN No 97 (Kondoa DC).
g) Tenders were awarded beyond the bid validity period (Mtwara
DC).
h) Tender Board decided to award the revenue contract to the lower
bidder and rejecting the most advantageous bid to the Council
without justification (Geita TC)
i) The Council did not use evaluation criteria explicitly stated in the
tender documents in evaluating tenders contrary to Section 65 of
PPA Regulation 9(c) and (d), 14(5), 15(14), 20(b) and 90(4) of GN
No. 97 of 2005 as evidenced by all works audited for which
engineers estimate was used as the criteria for evaluation of
tenders( Kibondo DC and Kilindi DC).
7.7.3.4 Weaknesses noted with regard to contracts management and
implementation
Assessment of the audit results on contracts management and
implementation indicated that majority of the reviewed contracts
were properly prepared and signed. However, there were significant
performance gaps on contracts management which have serious
negative consequences in the delivery of services, goods and
infrastructure facilities including; delivery delay, cost overrun, poor
quality of services, goods and works, and loss of public funds.
Notable areas include: weak management of performance securities,
advance payment securities and insurance covers, negligence of
enforcing remedies for delay stipulated in the contracts; extending
contracts duration without justification and without following
appropriate procedures; issuing variations without following
appropriate procedures; issuing variations without justifications;
weak management of quality controls and quality assurance; delayed
payments to service providers; and making payments to service
providers without following procedures for inspections and
measurements. These weaknesses were revealed in Bagamoyo DC,
Rufiji DC, Ilala MC, Kibondo DC, Kasulu DC, Kondoa DC and Babati TC.
137
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
7.7.3.5 Management of Contracts for Revenue Collections in LGAs
One hundred and forty six (146) contracts for revenue collections
were audited in eighteen (18) LGAs. The audit results show that
there were weaknesses in managing the contracts resulting to under
collection of expected revenues. According to the reviewed
contracts, out of the TZS.8,266,141,185 which was to be collected
and remitted to the Councils by the contracted collectors, only
TZS.5,565,549,116 equivalent to 67% of the total expected revenue
was remitted to the audited councils. It was observed that although
TZS.2,700,592,069 was not remitted by the contracted collectors, the
Councils did not take any measures which were stipulated in the
contracts with the collectors. The measures included enforcement of
performance securities clauses, charging interests for delayed
remittance, and timely termination of contracts. The Councils
involved are Rufiji DC, Kilindi DC, Lushoto DC, Chamwino DC, Dodoma
MC, Kondoa DC, Kilwa DC, Maswa DC, Mwanza CC, Ukerewe DC,
Tabora MC, Shinyanga MC, Babati TC, Geita TC, Songea DC, Songea
MC, Bariadi TC and Moshi MC.
7.7.3.6 Value for Money findings on contract management
The aggregated assessment on the five performance areas were:
planning, design and tender documentation which scored 59.5% rated
as fair performance; procurement process which scored 66.7% rated
as fair performance; works supervision and contract administration
scored 30.5% rated as unsatisfactory performance; project
completion and closure scored 20.9% rated as unsatisfactory
performance, and; quality and quantity of executed works scored
37.5% rated as unsatisfactory performance.
The 20 Councils with poor performance are Mwanza CC, Kishapu DC,
Maswa DC, Kilwa DC, Singida MC, Kondoa DC, Ilala MC, Dar es salaam
CC, Rorya DC, Kilindi DC, Lushoto DC, Mkinga DC, Kasulu DC, Kibondo
DC, Ukerewe DC, Musoma MC, Tabora MC, Shinyanga MC, Songea DC
and Kinondoni MC.
7.7.4 Conclusion
All Councils with performance below the 72% compliance target be
required to organize training to their staff on the application of PPA,
138
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Regulations and guidelines. The training should be conducted by
PPRA and be tailored to each Council depending on the weaknesses
observed during the audits. Furthermore, the Accounting Officers of
the respective Councils should be required to submit plans/
strategies within three months of communicating the audit reports,
aimed at ensuring full compliance with PPA and PPR.
In order to address weaknesses observed in Councils under contracts
management, collaborative capacity building strategies are required
between PPRA, PMORALG, CRB and other stakeholders. The strategies
should include:
a) Strengthening the capacity of Regional Administrative Secretaries
Offices to monitor the performance of Councils;
b) Strengthen the capacity of Internal Audit Units in LGAs for them
to Audit adequately procurement issues and implementation of
works contracts
c) Strengthening the capacity of Council Engineers offices in terms
of Staffing, quality control equipment, and supervision
vehicles/motorcycles
d) Strengthening the capacity of contractors in terms of technical
Skills, equipment, management skills and;
e) Taking disciplinary and/or legal measures against fraudulent
Behaviors.
On the weaknesses observed in the implementation of PPRA‟s
procurement information management systems, PPRA is currently
assessing critically the causes for non-compliance for the purpose of
improving the systems in order to make them more user friendly.
139
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
CHAPTER EIGHT
8.0
SPECIAL AUDITS
8.1
Salient issues raised from Special Audits
Sect. 29 of Public Audit Act, 2008 and Reg.79(1) of the Public Audit
Regulations of 2009 provides that, The Controller and Auditor
General may, on request by any person, Institution, Public
Authorities, Ministries, Departments, Agencies, Local Government
Authorities and such other bodies undertake any special audit. The
law also allows the CAG on his will to conduct any special
audit which he considers appropriate. During the year under
review, six (6) special audits were conducted.
Salient issues
emanating from the six special audits are given hereunder:
8.1.1 Mbinga District Council
Special audit for Mbinga DC covered the financial year 2011/12.Main
issues that arose from this audit include the following:
 Procured fuel worth TZS.272,932,660 were not confirmed to be
utilized by the Council due to absence of final utilization records.
 Payments totaling TZS.82,967,100 were inadequately supported
with relevant supporting documents. As a result, legitimacy of the
incurred expenditure could be established.
 Amount of TZS.182,000,000 was approved to be used for Roads
Fund activities. However the Council effected payments
amounting to TZS.254,445,900 resulting to over-expenditure of
TZS.72,445,900 over and above the approved budget.
 During the period under special audit, the Council transferred
TZS.48,250,000 to Kigonsera Ward for purchase of 30 pairs of
oxen and partly for facilitation of transportation, payment of
allowance and payment of consultancy fees. However no
documentary evidence was provided to substantiate correctness
140
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014




of the expenditure incurred from the transferred funds amount of
TZS.48,250,000.
Amount of TZS.72,451,940 was used by Makita Secondary school
to purchase foodstuffs. However, final utilization of the
purchased items could not be established due to non-maintenance
of Ration Ledger.
Payments amounting to TZS.123,651,200 were effected to meet
Roads Fund activities without the financed activities in question
being incorporated in the annual action plan.
Expenditure on the previous years‟ Roads Fund activities
amounting to TZS.1,110,281,455 was incurred without obtaining
approval from PMO-RALGs.
The Council entered into a contract with GNMS Construction
Company of Iringa for construction of a bus stand vide contract
No. MBIG/LGLB/2011-2012/W/20 at a contract price of
TZS.1,560,946,740. The commencement and completion dates
were 25th February, 2012 and 24th March, 2013 respectively.
Review of contract documents revealed the following
irregularities:
(i) Initially, the agreed completion date was 24th March, 2013
and later on was revised to 31st July, 2013. However, the
building was not completed up to the date of this audit
(October, 2013) while a total TZS.979,282,766 had already
been paid to the contractor which is almost 63% of the
contract price.
(ii) During execution of the contract, the Council instructed the
Contractor to purchase nine (9) Motor bikes TOYO type based
on item No. A/17A-J-„site transport‟ in the contract
agreement. The item was to be bought at a price not
exceeding TZS.40,000,000 and were to be used by Council
staff for site visits, despite the fact that a distance between
Council and site was just a walking distance. Also, it was not
clear as to why the purchase of the motor bikes was to be
done by the Contractor instead of the Council.
141
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014

(iii) Included in the payment to the Contractor was TZS.6,000,000
in respect of running costs for the Motorbikes and it was not
understood why the running costs for the Motor bikes were to
be paid to the contractor.
(iv) All the nine (9) motorbikes were loaned to the Council
employees who were not required to visit the project. Each
recipient of the motorbike was required to recover
TZS.1,080,000 which would make total recoveries be only
TZS.9,072,000,
indicating
an
apparent
loss
of
TZS.30,928,000.
(v) It was further noted that, without Council Tender Board
approval, the contract was extended to 31 July 2013 which is
not acceptable. Also, up to the date of site visit (October,
2013) the construction work was yet to be completed.
The Council entered into a contract with Bobside Investment for
construction of eigth bridges vide Contract No. LGA/104/20112012/W/21 at a contract price of TZS.87,354,250.The contract
commencement date was 30th March 2012 and completion date
12th April 2012. It was further noted that payment amounting to
TZS.82,986,537.50 were made to the contractor. However, the
following irregularities were noted:
(i) Tendering procedures documents were not availed for audit
purposes when called for.
(ii) Completion certificates were issued on 12th April 2012
indicating that the work was done for only 14 days to
complete construction of all eight (8) bridges including
masonry works which requires sufficient time to be
hardened.
(iii) Completion certificates were issued on 12th April 2012 and
the whole amount was hurriedly paid on the next day i.e.
13th April 2012 a situation which created doubts.
(iv) According to the available information, inspection of the
works was done on 11th April, 2012 by two Council officials.
However, both the aforementioned officers appeared to have
142
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014



not been at their working station, instead they were in Dar
es Salaam from 9th April, 2012 to 8th May, 2012 for budget
preparation activity.
Payment vouchers totaling TZS.288,355,000 were not produced
for audit, implying that accuracy and authenticity of expenditure
incurred could not be substantiated.
During the year 2011/12 the Council borrowed a total of
TZS.215,929,200 from Deposit account and used it on other
Council‟s activities, however up to the time of this audit, a sum of
TZS.102,000,000 had been refunded, leaving a balance of
TZS.113,929,200.
Fuel worth TZS.37,201,000 was purchased and recorded in the
relevant ledgers but log books of the respective motor vehicles
were not produced when called for to enable the audit team
verify utilization of purchased fuel.
8.1.2 Ilala Municipal Council
The following is the summary of weaknesses identified during special
audit of Ilala MC for the period July 2011/2012 to June 2012/2013:
There were weaknesses in internal control system in the Department
of Finance and Trade, Legal Office Unit, Procurement Management
Unit, Internal audit Unit and Audit Committee as summarized below:
Department of Finance and Trade
The following are among the weaknesses identified:
(i) It was noted that, frequently head of Finance department
delegated his responsibilities to Expenditure Accountant even if
he was in the office.
(ii) Service levy collected of TZS.8,120,355.20 was not posted in the
Revenue Collection Cash Book, despite the fact that the amount
collected was received by bank.
(iii) The main Revenue cashier acknowledged the revenue received
from revenue collectors without indicating whether the revenue
143
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
collected is in form of cash or cheque. This limited the audit
team to establish the cash and cheque collections deposited at
bank.
Legal Office Unit
Primary responsibility of Legal Office Unit is to advise the Council on
all matters pertaining to legal affairs including management of
contract agreements. To the contrary, during the audit it was noted
that the Legal Officer failed to properly advise management on the
contracts between the Council and Revenue Collecting agents and
caused disputes between the involved parties resulting to noncollection of revenue by Council of TZS.1,248,870,039.
Procurement Management Unit
The following are among the weaknesses identified:
(i) The existing contract register was missing necessary information
regarding payments made to the contractors such as payment
voucher which shows amount paid to the contractor and
cumulative amount already paid to the contractor.
(ii) Procurement of store items were made through imprest without
Procurement Management Unit intervention contrary to Order
69(1) of LGFM, 2009 which requires all goods, materials or
services supplies to work executed for the Council to be ordered
or confirmed in writing by an official Local Purchase Order, or
by written acceptance of tender except petty cash purchases,
supplies of public utility services and periodical payments
(iii) Extension of contract period without Tender Board Approval.
This is contrary to Regulation 117(2) of Public Procurement
Regulations of 2005.
Internal Audit Unit
Evaluation of performance of Internal Audit Unit revealed the
following weaknesses:
144
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(i)
The audit programme for the financial year 2011/12 and
2012/13 were not prepared in accordance with Risk Based Audit
concept i.e. the prepared audit programme did not indicate the
areas which were more risks. This resulted into non-coverage of
more risks areas such as contract management, revenue
management and evaluation of internal control system.
(ii) The audit components covered were not supported with relevant
working papers as a result reliability of internal audit report
could not be established.
Review on the effectiveness of Audit committee
The following are some shortfalls which need committee attention in
order to improve the roles and responsibility of the audit committee
as indicated hereunder:
(i) Order 12(5) (a) of LGFM, 2009 requires the Audit Committee to
meet once at least quarterly. However during the financial year
2012/13 the Audit Committee met three times instead of four as
per requirement of the above cited Order. Also, it was claimed
that the Committee conducted a meeting on 1/2/2013, however
its relevant supporting minutes were not availed to audit when
called for.
(ii) The audit Committee issued recommendations to the Council for
being implemented, however there were no follow-up
mechanism
instituted
by
the
committee
for
the
recommendations issued. Due to absence of adequate follow-up
over issued recommendations it resulted into recurrence of the
issues of the same nature.
(iii) Order 12(5) (g) of LGFM, 2009 requires the Audit Committee to
prepare an annual report on its activities, copies of which shall
be sent to the minister responsible for Local Government,
Regional Commissioner and Controller and Auditor General.
However the Committee did not prepare the Annual Report for
being submitted to the relevant authorities.
145
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(iv) Order 12(5) (d) of LGFM, 2009 requires the Audit Committee to
provide advice to the accounting Officer on action to be taken
on matters of concern raised in a report of the Controller and
Auditor General concerning the Council. However review of the
Audit Committee minutes for all meetings held during the two
financial years 2011/12 and 2012/13 revealed that, no
discussion conducted regarding the CAG report.
(v) Lack of proper documentation regarding meetings conducted
and other documents relating to performance of the committee.
For instance, there were cases where the discussed agendas
differ from the meeting dates. In addition there were
weaknesses in handling the Committee documents due to nonavailability of necessary documents such as letters of
appointment to committee members, absence of proper
documentation regarding the internal audit performance etc.
Furthermore it was revealed that, some employees stayed longer in
one work station for a period ranging from five (5) and thirteen (13)
years. The above noted weaknesses may lead to loss of public
resources if appropriate interventions are not made to correct the
noted weaknesses in internal controls in those Department and Units.

During the audit, we noted inadequate management over
collection of own source revenue due to the following
weaknesses:
(i) Feasibility study was not carried out by the Council for the
identified sources of revenue before reaching a decision to
outsource them to Revenue Collecting Agents.
(ii) Revenue collections coming from Hotel Levy of
TZS.2,406,200 were not recorded in the Revenue Collection
Cash Book(RCCB)
(iii) The by-laws governing own source revenue collections were
not updated by the Council since the applied rates for
revenue collection is below the prevailing market rates.
146
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(iv) There were no Council‟s taxpayers records which were vital
in providing information during feasibility study exercise.
(v) Inadequate supervision of the awarded contracts which the
Council entered with Revenue collecting agents resulted into
non-remittance of revenue collections amounting to
TZS.1,248,870,039.
(vi) There were un-collected own source revenue emanating from
posters amounting to TZS.235,868,960 for the financial years
2011/12 and 2012/13.





The Council entered into contract with Niani Enterprises Ltd vide
contract No. IMC/WAK/0129/2008 for construction of street light
which would use solar power to generate light in five streets for a
period of seven years. The commencement date was 17/12/2008
and to be completed on 16/12/2015.However,review of contract
documents revealed the following irregularities:
(i) Despite underperformance of the contractor, the Council
management did not intervene by writing a letter to the
contractor for breaching of contract or underperformance.
(ii) The contract lacked clauses which would safeguard the
Council in the event of disputes.
Delay in approving building permits by Councilors resulted into
failure to collect revenue amounting to TZS.52,650,000
Fifteen (15) revenue receipt books were not produced for audit
purposes and there was no loss report to that effect contrary to
Order 34(6-7) and Order 34(9) of LGFM, 2009. This implies that,
the accuracy and completeness of revenue collected via these
receipt books could not established.
Short term debt amounting to TZS.80,000,000 were outstanding
for more than five years, a situation which lowers the credibility
of the Council.
Payment vouchers with a total amount of TZS.293,819,916 were
not produced for audit. This implies that accuracy and
authenticity of expenditure incurred could not be ascertained.
147
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014




Ward Catalyst Development funds amounting to TZS.302,400,000
were used for repayment of Councilors‟ private loans issued by
CRDB instead of being channeled to the intended beneficiaries to
support various development projects.
As at 30th June 2012, Municipal Council reported Accounts Payable
amounting to TZS.9,283,988,292.Review of the existing payables
for the financial years 2011/12 and 2012/13 revealed the
following weaknesses:
(i) The Council claimed to have settled liabilities amounting to
TZS.1,041,284,727, out of TZS.9,283,988,292 reported in the
financial statements. However evidence to support
settlement of the said liabilities of TZS.1,041,284,727 could
not be availed due to non-maintenance of creditors control
register.
(ii) During the financial year 2011/12 and 2012/13, the Council
paid liabilities amounting to TZS.1,067,768,565 which were
not identified and recorded in the creditors control register
.This creates a shadow of doubt on the validity of the settled
liabilities.
(iii) The Council prepared a list of creditors amounting to
TZS.4,323,027,829 and disclosed in the financial statements
without being supported with relevant supporting documents
such as Local Purchase Order(LPO), Invoices and contract
documents for service delivery.
During the financial year 2011/12, the Council transferred LGDG
funds amounting to TZS.745,000,000 to other Council‟s accounts
(Inter-account transfer) without being refunded to the respective
account, implying that the planned LGDG activities of equivalent
amount were not implemented.
The Council borrowed TZS.1,500,000,000 from CRDB Bank for
facilitating construction of Secondary School classrooms Phase I,
toilets, maintenance of OPD building at Amana Hospital,
construction of Dispensary at Kipunguni “B” and repayment of
148
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014

creditors who participated in construction of secondary schools
Phase I. However, the special audit revealed that, only
TZS.390,000,000 were used as planned while TZS.1,110,000,000
were used to finance other activities not planned for.
The Council spent TZS.53,240,000 for hiring motor vehicles to
facilitate supervision of roads and drainage projects. However it
was revealed that, the Council could be in position to purchase its
own motor vehicle at a price of TZS.40,000,000 as evidenced in
the already purchased Council‟s motor vehicles with registration
numbers SM 9363, SM 9364 and SM 9365 which were purchased for
TZS.40,000,000 each. It was further noted that, if the motor
vehicle was purchased at a market price of TZS.40,000,000 it
would result into serving TZS.13,240,000.This implies that value
for money was not taken into consideration at the time of making
decision to hire a private motor vehicle.
Project management
 Imprests amounting to TZS.357,342,292 were issued to Council
officials to facilitate implementation of various projects activities
contrary to Order 69 (1) of LGFM, 2009 which requires all goods,
materials or services supplies to work executed for the Council to
be ordered or confirmed in writing by an official Local Purchase
Order, or by written acceptance of tender except petty cash
purchases, supplies of public utility services and periodical
payments.
 Funds to be used for implementation of development projects
totaling TZS.1,207,910,940 were used for acquiring 2,671,188
shares(Right Issue) which were not incorporated in the budget for
the financial year 2012/13, implying that development projects of
the same amount were postponed at the expense of buying shares
out of budget.
 The Council contributed TZS.99,815,886 to the Community
Infrastructure Upgrading Programme (CIUP) without being
149
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014

approved by the Finance Committee which is contrary to Order
6(a) of LGFM, 2009.
Amount of TZS.57,633,990 were utilized for implementation of
projects at Ward level without being approved by the Finance
Committee and Full Council.
8.1.3 Kinondoni Municipal Council
The following is a summary of the weaknesses that were identified
during special audit at Kinondoni MC from the year 2006 to June
2013:
 Missing tender documents for the tenders with reference
Numbers. KMC/CTB/EXP/002/2006 and KMC/CTB/EXP/001007/2008/2009 which comprises the following documents:
(i) Feasibility study report for all advertised projects.
(ii) Tender opening minutes.
(iii) Evaluation reports showing expression of interest.
(iv) Original documents of Request For Proposal issued to bidders
showing expression of Interest to invest.
(v) Accounting Officer‟s Permit to appoint Evaluation Committee
members.
(vi) Tender Board minutes showing shortlisted investors to be
issued Request For Proposal forms.
(vii) Evaluation report of Request For Proposal
(viii) Negotiation Reports
 The Council has no adequate capacity for managing investment
issues. Currently, investment issues are being managed by the
Municipal Valuer without involving other Council officials due to
lack of knowledge in this field.
 The Council entered into contract with Investor known as
Oysterbay Villas Limited(Joint Venture and Joint Ownership) vide
contract Nos. KMC/151/2007 and KMC/150/2007 without
conducting feasibility study to know the merit and demerit of the
contract contrary to Regulation 74(6) of Public Procurement
Regulations, 2005.
150
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014




Inadequate management of investment contracts resulting to
buildings being constructed contrary to the contract agreements.
This situation happened due to absence of supervisor on the part
of Council throughout construction project period.
The Council entered into partnership with various investors
without the value of contracts under partnership being mentioned
in those contracts. This implies that, cost of constructed buildings
was known by one partner which could trigger future disputes
between the ventures which might end up in the Court of law. For
instance, partnership between the Council and M/S Oysterbay
Villas Ltd, has no value attached to the contract.
There were weaknesses in preparation and evaluation of tender
documents since management Kinondoni MC was not keen in
preparing evaluation criteria to be used to obtain Investors who
meet interest of the Council and nation at large. For instance
entering into a joint ownership contract for both Land and
Interest at 75% instead of Interest at 75% which may in the long
run resulting to problems on land ownership. Also the term ”
Unexpired residual term” was not clearly defined in the contract
between the Council and M/s Oysterbay Villas Limited,as a result
each part to the contract had its own definition a situation which
created conflict. Furthermore, the investor has refused to pay the
Council a total sum of TZS.2,754,000,000 being its share from the
joint investment in two plots with Numbers 227 and 322.The
unpaid share is 25% of income of three years from November 2010
to December 2013 which is contrary to contact agreement.
The Municipal Council entered into contract with tenants at
Magomeni Quarters. However a review of contract agreements
revealed that there were weaknesses in the signed contracts
which resulted to TZS.736,320,000 being paid to the respective
tenants. The following are weaknesses noted with regard to the
signed agreement:
151
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(i)
The reason of paying tenants each month was not stated by
management and also the contract duration was not clearly
stipulated in the contract.
(ii) The amount paid for the first time was out of the approved
budget which affects the budget performance of the
respective financial year.
(iii) Included in the contract agreement between Council and
tenants the clause which relates to renting and purchasing of
apartment. The related clause provides the room for
purchasing apartment at a price ranging between
TZS.9,000,000 and TZS.12,000,000 at the time when the
project is completed. However the clause did not take into
consideration the price fluctuation issue in future.
8.1.4 Mwanza City Council
The following is a summary of the weaknesses identified during
special audit of Mwanza CC which covered the period 2010/11 to
2011/12:
 Revenue collections totaling TZS.3,088,214,666 for the financial
year 2010/11 and 2011/12 could not be confirmed to be remitted
to the Council by revenue collecting agents.
 Amount of TZS.105,946,000 not charged from revenue collecting
agents as penalty for delay in making remittance of revenue
collections to the Council‟s bank account.
 Thirty five (35) revenue receipt books were not produced for
audit purposes contrary to Order 34(6-7) of LGFM, 2009 which
implies that, the accuracy and completeness of revenue collected
using these receipt books could not be established.
 The rates charged to collect property tax for financial year
2010/11 and 2011/12 was below the approved City Council by
laws resulted into non-collection of Revenue totaling
TZS.1,244,048,000.
 Revenue collected from rental charge is below the market price
that prevailed by then. This resulted into non-collection of
152
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014









Revenue amounting to TZS.308,400,000 for the two financial years
2010/11 and 2011/12 under audit.
Cash revenue collections amounting to TZS.75,230,923.27 by
collecting agents were not banked contrary to Order 37(3) and
Order 37(9) of LGFM, 2009.
Failure of Mwanza CC to carry out surprise cash survey resulted in
to a total amount of TZS.109,548,500 in cash being spent before
being banked.This is contrary to Order 46(1) and Order 37(9) of
LGFM, 2009.
Medical equipments worth TZS.165,382,206 were purchased
through Health Basket Fund out of Medical Stores Department
(MSD) without being approved by the Council Tender Board. It was
further revealed that, MSD stamp used was a forged one.
During the financial year 2010/11 and 2011/12 the Council
purchased medicine worth TZS.210,855,800 from Medical Stores
Department (Lake Zone). However, a review of delivery
documents revealed that the purchased medicine were not
received by the Council which is contrary to Regulation 122(1) of
the Public Procurement Regulations of 2005 and Order 59(1-2) of
LGFM, 2009.
During the financial years 2010/11 and 2011/12 the Council
procured stores items worth TZS.250,378,977 from unapproved
suppliers contrary to Order 75 of LGFM, 2009.
During the financial year 2010/11 and 2011/12,Mwanza City the
Council purchased medicine and medical equipment worth
TZS.183,299,140 which were not confirmed to be received by the
Council.
Payments amounting to TZS.716,199,874 were not supported by
relevant supporting documents contrary to Order 8(2)(C) of LGFM,
2009.
Imprest amounting TZS.304,744,348 were not retired by the
respective imprest holders contrary to Order 40 of LGFM, 2009.
Payment vouchers for TZS.1,438,625,911 were not produced when
called for audit purpose, contrary to Order 104 of LGFM, 2009 and
153
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014






Section 45(5) of Local Government Finance Act No.9 of 1982
(Revised 2000)
Payments amounting to TZS.269,742,458 were charged to wrong
expenditure codes contrary to Section 43(5) of Local Government
Finance Act No.9 of 1982 (Revised 2000).
Unjustifiable
payments
of
allowance
amounting
to
TZS.173,808,500 was made to staff of the Council for which
allowances were paid to both activities due to overlapping of
activities.
A total amount of TZS.464,247,091.99 was transferred from the
deposit account without obtaining permission from the Finance
Committee This is contrary to Order 7 (g), 20 (1) (b) and 20 (2) of
LGFM, 2009.Also it was noted that, the funds were transferred
from deposit account without indicating the depositor of the
funds. Furthermore the Council did not maintain a deposit
register which is contrary to Paragraph 5.19 of LAAM, 2009 which
requires the Council to ensure adequate control and accounting
for deposits received from various depositors.
Funds amounting to TZS.223,311,442 were diverted from initial
purpose of construction of emergency roads to construction of
roads without obtaining permission from Permanent Secretary
(PMO-RALG). This is contrary to Section 4(4) of Road Fund Act of
1998.
The Council incurred expenditure of TZS.169,289,061 for
supervision of Roads Fund projects outside the approved budget
without obtaining permission from the relevant authority. This is
contrary to Section 4(4) of Road Fund Act of 1998 and Section
10(3) of Local Government Finance Act No.9 of 1982(Revised
2000).
Implementation of Roads Fund projects with a total value of
TZS.564,525,494 was not incorporated in annual procurement plan
contrary to Section 45 of PPA, 2004 and Regulations 46(9) of PPR,
2005.
154
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014



8.1.5
Non-repayment
of
loan
amounting
to
TZS.856,894,598.28(Principal amount and Interest) to CRDB bank
despite the fact that the contract duration had expired.
Salaries amounting to TZS.509,659,510 were paid to casual
laborers who had no contract agreement contrary to the existing
employment laws.
The Council incurred a total expenditure of TZS.863,023,837.86 to
purchase fuel out of budget without being approved by the
Finance Committee.
Bariadi District Council
The following is a summary of weaknesses identified during special
audit of Bariadi DC for the financial year 2012/13:
 There were fraudulent payments of subsistence and extra duty
allowance to Council‟s official amounting to TZS.113,425,000 due
to overlapping dates of doing two different activities.
 The Council entered into contract with M/S Jossam & Co. Ltd vide
contract number LGA/111/2011/2012/W/27 at a contract price of
TZS.1,821,356,070 for construction of Irrigation Scheme at
Ikungulyambeshi. However upon review of the contract
documents various irregularities were noted including the
following:
(i) Non-performance of post-qualification assessment being
among the evaluation criteria.
(ii) Advance payment which was made to the contractor to
facilitate mobilization of equipment. However a visit made
to the site revealed that only hydraulic Excavator was there.
(iii) Substandard work related to construction work caused
development of cracks before completion of the project.
(iv) The Council selected the contractor who was in Class V
instead of the required Class IV.
(v) Slow pace in the implementation of project.
155
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014

The Council entered into contract with M/S GAT Engineering Co.
Ltd at a contract price of TZS.2,048,723,979 (VAT exclusive) for
construction of an Irrigation dam at Kasoli Village. However
review of the contract documents and management of the
contracts revealed various irregularities which included the
following:
(i) Entering into major contract without having sufficient funds
(ii) Advance payment was paid to the contractor to facilitate
mobilization of plants. However a visit made to the
construction site revealed that, no single plant was at site
out of 17 plants stipulated in the bid data sheet.

Revenue collections of TZS.43,159,150 for the financial year
2012/13 and 2013/14 were not remitted to the Council by
revenue collecting agents.
Payment vouchers of TZS.317,939,478 were not produced when
called for audit purpose, contrary to Order 104 of LGFM, 2009,
implying that the authenticity of these payments could not be
established.

8.1.6 Mbozi District Council
The following is a summary of the weaknesses identified during
special audit of Mbozi DC for the financial year ended 30th June,
2012:
 The Council incurred a loss of TZS.37,997,600 during the year due
to non-use of GPSA‟s approved prices.
 A sum of TZS.137,401,700 being 20% of revenue collected, was
retained by Ward Executive Officers (WEOs) and other revenue
collectors on behalf of Villages. However, there was no
documentary evidence to prove that, the retained revenue found
its way to the respective Villages due the following irregularities:
(i) 20% retained earnings were taken in personal names, as no
evidence that they were deposited into the Village‟s Bank
Account.
156
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(ii) 20% Retention Instructions from PMO RALG could not be
submitted for verification.





Procurement procedures for goods/services amounting to
TZS.1,518,387,047 had various irregularities which include the
following:
(i) Lack of approval of the Council Tender Board
(ii) Procurement made without being incorporated in the budget
(iii) Lack of Inspection and Acceptance Committees.
The Council transferred a total of TZS.317,520,460 between
various accounts within the Council to meet cost of unspecified
activities. However, up to the time of audit (October 2013) the
whole amount of TZS.317,520,460 was yet to be refunded to the
relevant account.
Amount of TZS.108,437,320 was used by the Council to purchase
42 motor cycles and one motor vehicle for District Councillors in a
form of loan contrary to section No.41 (6) of LGFM, 2009. It was
further noted that up to the time of audit (October 2013), there
was no sign of recovery of the loans from the Councillors.
There was no contract agreement between Revenue Collecting
Agents and the Council. Instead of entering into contract
agreement, the Council was issuing letters of acceptance only to
the Agents. Also, some of the Agents did not remit collected
revenue amounting to TZS.249,700,000.
Payments amounting to TZS.40,070,992 were apparently
misappropriated due to the fact that;
(i) TZS.15,877,00 was paid to various unidentified payees some
of whom were likely to be officers of the Council.
(ii) The Contractor was paid a total amount of TZS.19,938,992 on
18th December, 2012 for works that were not executed thus
creating doubts on the authenticity of the payment.
(iii) Funds amounting to TZS.4,255,000 for works that were not
executed by the same contractor in the previous contract
157
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014






were not available, this suggests that these funds were also
misappropriated.
Payment vouchers amounting to TZS.1,813,214,241 were not
produced when called for audit purposes. In absence of the
payment vouchers, it was not possible to establish the legitimacy
of the expenditure.
A total of TZS.1,144,531,455 was received by the Council for
implementation
of
DADPs
activities.
However,
only
TZS.614,000,000 were transferred to the implementing
communities whereas the remaining balance of TZS.530,531,455
was not in their relevant bank account as at 30th June, 2012.
A total of TZS.375,529,935 was used in dam construction during
the financial year 2010/2011. However, inspection report on
executed works prepared on 24th February, 2011 cited various
weakness/defects which indicated that the dam was not capable
of storing water. In such a situation, the Council did not receive
value for money on expenditure incurred.
Mbozi DC received a total amount of TZS.16,986,889,566 from
Treasury for payment of salaries and spent TZS.16,837,148,020 to
pay salaries leaving a balance of TZS.149,741,544 in the receiving
account. However, at the end of the year, the retained salaries
were not in the account and management had no plausible
explanations as to the whereabouts of the whole amount of
TZS.149,741,544 which suggests the funds were misappropriated.
During the financial year 2011/2012, there were unclaimed
salaries amounting to TZS.770,739,613.82. However, during the
year, a sum of TZS.407,249,415.84 was remitted to Treasury and
the rest paid to the respective claimants leaving a balance of
TZS.363,490,197.98 unaccounted for. Also, management failed to
provide satisfactory explanation which therefore suggests that the
whole amount of TZS.363,490,197.98 was misappropriated.
Mbozi DC spent amount of TZS.59,690,180 to facilitate
UMISHUMTA activities out of the approved budget.
158
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
8.2
Lesson Learnt from the Special Audits Conducted During the Year
Internal Control System
The responsibility for instituting and overseeing the system of
internal control as per Order 11 through 14 of the LGFM, 2009 rests
with the Management of the respective LGA.
It is notable that there are major weaknesses in the LGAs
management on the deployment and management of a consistent
Internal Control System. This situation has led Management to be
involved in one way or another to override the system of internal
control; some of the indicators are as follows:
 There is a serious laxity of LGAs‟ managements in securing and
safeguarding accountable documents. This has an impact of
limiting the scope of audit.
 Despite the existence of internal controls some LGAs Management
lack integrity; this could be the main reason for the widely
reported instances of insufficient management of public funds
which lead to misappropriation of public funds.
 LGAs Treasurers have the responsibility of ensuring and overseeing
all matters pertaining to finances and their respective controls as
well as managing the finance department. The situation has been
different in the audited LGAs, for example in all audited LGAs
except Mbinga DC, I noted failure of revenue collecting agents to
remit revenue as agreed in the contract of which one of the
reason is non-performance of feasibility study.
Procurement and Contracts management
Procurement Management Unit in collaboration with user
departments are responsible for managing all procurement issues and
due consideration should be given to the following:
(a)
Best Value for Money,
(b)
Fairness, integrity and transparency,
(c)
Effective competitive tendering,
(d)
The interest of the Procuring entity.
159
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014


As evidenced above, the special audit in five (5) LGAs out of five
(6) LGAs where the audit took place revealed that, there was
inadequate management of contracts which did not take into
consideration the aspect of “Best Value for Money” and “The
Interest of the Councils”. In this case the Councils either failed to
deliver intended service timely or caused the Council to incur
great losses which could be avoided if the contracts were properly
managed. For instance, during special audit in Mbozi DC, I noted a
case where the Council issued letters of acceptance to revenue
collecting agents instead of entering into a formal contract
agreement. Also in the special audit conducted in Kinondoni MC, I
noted a case where by the Council incurred a great loss for the
contract entered with investor due to inadequate preparation of
evaluation criteria to be used to obtain investors who meet the
interest of the Council.
I noted there was inadequate recording of stores items due to the
fact that the final utilization records were not availed for audit
which again restricted the scope of my audit. For instance a
special audit conducted in Mbinga DC where the procured fuel and
foodstuffs were not confirmed to be utilized due to absence of
final utilization records.
Budget Management
The budget is a key tool for effective financial management and
control, reflecting the financial characteristics of an entity's plans for
the forthcoming period, and is the central component of the process
that provides the oversight of the financial dimensions of an entity.
Following the special audit conducted, I noted that there was
ineffective budgetary control since out of the six (6) special audits,
four(4) incurred expenditure out of approved budget. Also, special
audit conducted in Mwanza CC, there was a case where the payments
were charged to wrong expenditure codes which also affected budget
performance.
160
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
CHAPTER NINE
9.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This General Report summarises all issues which were reported in the
individual audit reports issued separately to the LGAs managements
which contain recommendations on every issue noted which requires
improvements. The Accounting Officers of LGAs are required to
prepare action plans of the intended interventions on the CAG‟s audit
findings and recommendations and submit them to the Paymaster
General as per requirement of Sect. 40 of the Public Audit Act No.11
of 2008 and Regulations 86 and 94 of the Public Audit Regulations of
2009. Having presented issues which transpired in the audit of
2013/2014, I am now in a position of providing general conclusions
and recommendations, which if implemented will enhance sound
financial management on the operations of LGA in the country.
9.1
General Conclusions and Recommendations
9.1.1 Shortcomings in LGAs Budget Processes
Improvement of budgetary processes in LGAs and Central Government
is necessary for effective operations of LGAs and provision of quality
services. Planning, budgeting and budget monitoring and evaluation
were not harmonized enough to allow smooth implementation of the
budget. As a result, there were releases of both recurrent and
development grants out of budget without justification of
supplementary budget, under release of recurrent and development
grants and presence of exchequer issued but funds not received by
the respective LGAs. Further, budgeted grants were received late
leading to large unutilized balances at the year end.
Recommendations
(a) LGAs/PMO-RALG and Ministry of Finance are advised to consider
budget as a guiding tool and any adjustments have to follow
established laws and regulations including resubmission of
estimates for supplementary budget to the Parliament.
(b) As recommended in the prior years, the budget process needs to
be re-assessed at all stages to come up with adequate
objectives and priorities that can be attained, monitored and
161
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
evaluated on a timely basis. If there are significant deviations,
corrective measures have to be taken.
(c)
The Central Government is advised to continue releasing both
recurrent and development funds on time to LGAs while LGAs
are urged to increase utilization of funds received by allocating
funds according to priorities in the budget and action plan and
enhance close monitoring and supervision on implementation of
planned activities to reduce the level of unspent balances at the
year end.
9.1.2 Weaknesses in Revenue Management
LGAs have not been able to effectively manage revenue resources to
such level of increasing revenue collection as per budget. LGAs still
have no clear and sustainable strategies which could provide wide
revenue collection bases and reduce the level of funding dependency
from the Central Government.
Controls over revenue collection were not adequately managed to
minimize non remittance of revenue collections from various sources
and therefore, increasing uncollected amount when compared to
budgeted revenue. Furthermore, there were inadequate monitoring
and administration of outsourced revenue collection contracts,
bypassing controls through non remittance and banking of collected
revenue and inadequate documentation of revenue collected. In
addition, the ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements did
not remit all 30% of land rent collections as required.
Recommendations
(a) LGAs are advised to analyze and evaluate collectability of
sources of revenue available in their localities to enable
adequate monitoring of outsourced revenue contracts and
reduce non remittance of amount contracted. In addition, LGAs
have to conduct regular supervision of the outsourced revenue
contracts and identify any signs of defaulting before the end of
the contract period.
162
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(b) LGAs are advised to strengthen controls over revenue collected
including regular checks and reconciliations and adequate
documentation of all books used in revenue collection to
mitigate any possibility of late banking and utilization of
revenue collected before banking.
(c)
As recommended in the prior year, LGAs are urged to continue
planning and reviewing strategies on widening the revenue base
and decrease the existing dependence level on the Central
9.1.3 Weaknesses in Human Resource Management
In reviewing human resources management I noted that, LGAs did not
adequately keep updated employees‟ records including updating
information in the Human Capital Management Information System
(HCMIS) and employees‟ register. As a result, LGAs continued to pay
salaries to employees who were no longer in service directly or
indirectly through statutory deductions and other deductions like
repayment of loans. Furthermore, apart from shortage of staff
persisting in LGAs, Heads of Department and Units in more than 60
LGAs continued acting in their positions for more than six months
contrary to Standing Order D.24(3). Notwithstanding to the aforesaid,
I also noted some of the employees have not been confirmed in
public in public service despite of completion of probation period.
Recommendations
(a) LGAs have to strengthen the review mechanism of employees‟
records by making regular updates through involvement of
Heads of Department and Units. In addition, information on
employees sent by LGAs to the Treasury and PO-PSM need to be
acted upon in a timely manner to avoid loss of public money
through payment of salaries to ghost workers.
163
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(b) LGAs in collaboration with PO-PSM are also advised to
adequately plan on the reduction of acting officers by either
making a confirmation of the acting officers or appointing new
officers with qualifications to the posts.
9.1.4 Weaknesses in Expenditure Management
LGAs operations are guided by laws, regulations, rules, guidelines and
other directives. If LGAs diverge from complying with rules and
regulations, it provides room for breaches of predetermined internal
controls. The revealed weaknesses as a result of non compliance with
Laws, Rules, Orders and Guidelines included inadequate
authorization and approval of payments, lack of proper expenditure
supporting documents, charging expending to wrong accounting codes
(unbudgeted expenditure), ineligible and unvouched expenditure. In
addition, LGAs have not been efficient in keeping accountable
documents which led to existence of missing payment Vouchers and
imprest retirement particulars.
Recommendation
I recommend LGAs to enhance controls over payment such as having
efficient pre audit units and budget officers for thorough examination
of payments before being affected. In addition, an officer has to be
assigned for custody of payment and other supporting documents so
as to assist validation of payments.
9.1.5 Inadequate Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements
The Local Government Authorities adopted IPSAS accrual basis of
accounting from 1st July 2008 with a grace period of five years to be
fully compliant. The transition period ended financial year
2012/2013, hence in 2013/14 LGAs were required to fully comply
with the requirements of IPSAS 17. However, many LGAs did not
comply with the requirement of IPSAS 17 after expiration of the
transition period. There were assets in use with no value and others
with zero value whose useful life was not reassessed and adjusted
accordingly and lack of adequate and reliable information in the
164
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
fixed asset
framework.
register
facilitated
noncompliance
to
reporting
In this respect, LGAs submitted financial statements with various
irregularities despite the recommendations made in the previous
years which necessitated their restatement. However, even after
restating the financial statements, same regularities continued to
recur in some LGAs.
Recommendations
(a) LGAs/PMO-RALG and Treasury are advised to consider preparing
comprehensive IPSAS policies on treatment of items reported in
the financial statements which will be updated from time to
time.
(b) LGAs and PMO-RALG are commended to continue training not
only accountants but also other staff like Heads of Department
and Units on preparation of IPSAS compliant financial
statements which will enable adequate documentation of
important information and data needed for preparation of
financial statements.
9.1.6 Non Compliance with Procurement Legislation
The Local Government Authorities spent approximately TZS 1.2
trillion which accounts for 31 per cent of the total expenditure for
procurement of goods, services, works and consultancy for the year
under review. This is a significant amount which demands financial
discipline and transparency throughout the procurement process in
order to achieve value for money.
Recommendations
(a) I recommend to LGAs to strengthen Tender Boards and
Procurement Management Units in order to increase compliance
level with Procurement Legislations through regular training and
165
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
ensure there is adequate staffing with appropriate procurement
qualifications.
(b) I recommend management of the LGAs to enhance efficient
record keeping for important documents in respect procurement
like tender documents, tender board minutes, contract
documents, evaluation reports, stores ledgers and the like.
9.1.7 Shortfalls in implementation of development projects
During the financial year 2013/2014 LGAs implemented various
Development Grant LGCDG, PHSDP, PEDP, SEDP, ULGSP, PFM, WYDF,
CHF, NSFM, EGPAF and CDCF. There were weaknesses noted during
implementation of development projects which included under
release of funds as compared to the budget; inadequate
contributions of the LGAs as 5% co-finding; and delayed and non
completion of planned projects. Other issues include inadequate
supervision of implemented projects which resulted into completion
of some of the projects with defects.
Recommendations
(a) LGAs are advised to involve targeted communities at all levels of
project planning and implementation which will not only
encourage participation in implementation of the project but
also will create sense of ownership for sustainability purposes.
Contracts should be closely supervised to ensure they are timely
completed and with the expected quality.
(b) As recommended in prior year, Councils‟ Engineers, Planning
Officers, Internal Auditors and Inspection Committees within
LGAs are required to strengthen routine monitoring and
evaluation system to ensure that projects are efficiently and
effectively implemented and action is taken against the
contractors who perform below standards, including notifying
the Contractor‟s Registration Board.
166
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
9.1.8 Weaknesses in management of Women and Youth Development
Fund
The Government through Parliamentary Resolution established
Women and Youth Development Fund with the aim of assisting
Women and Youth to easily access loans to allow enable them carry
out various economic activities with a view of reducing poverty
among group members. These are Revolving Funds whose financing
comes from Central Government and LGAs.
Non contribution to the Funds as indicated in Para 6.5.1 adversely
hindered achievement of the targeted objectives as few groups
access loans from these Fund, and the accessed loans are too
marginal to carry out economic activities.
Recommendation
LGAs are required to transfer the amounts required to Women and
Youth Development Fund and supervise groups and individuals
through sensitization on the importance the Revolving Fund which in
turn can enhance timely recovery of the outstanding loans already
issued. Other stakeholders also have to be included in sensitizing
beneficiaries of these Funds e.g. the Councillors.
9.2
Recommendations to the Government under Sect 12 of PAA 2008
Sect. 12 of PAA empowers CAG to make recommendations for the
purpose of preventing or minimizing unproductive expenditure of
public monies; maximizing the collection of public revenues; averting
loss by negligence, carelessness theft, dishonesty, fraud, corruption
relating to public monies and resources, make such recommendations
and submit such proposals to the Minister or appropriate Minister as
he considers necessary for better management of public monies and
resources including the revision of any regulations, directives or
instructions issued under relevant laws.
167
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
In exercising this mandate, I wish to advise the Government on three
areas namely:
(i)
Increased land conflicts in Local Government Authorities
(ii)
Challenges relating to establishment of new Councils
(iii) Need for revision of Section 38(3) of the Public Audit Act, 2008
9.2.1 Increased land conflicts in Local Government Authorities
In recent decades, Tanzania has observed an ever increasing land
conflicts which in some cases have even resulted into death of
citizens and unending land legal cases. In this view therefore, the
Government came out with the National Land Policy which would
govern land tenure, land use management and administration. The
policy identified main factors that can also be sources of the land
conflicts which among of them are:
 Change in land use and increase in the human population
 Demand for grazing land resulting from growth of the livestock
population.
 Increased urbanization requiring more land for settlements,
industries and commerce and acquisition of land for investments.
 Increased awareness amongst the population of the value of land
and property (buildings).
 Development of land markets resulting from the evolution of
customary tenure towards more individualized ownership
Refer paragraph 1.1 of National Land Policy (2nd Edition), 1997.
Dodoma Region has been taken as an example and had 13 land
conflicts relating to demarcation between neighbouring Districts,
Villages and National reserved areas. In addition, three Municipal
Councils (Temeke, Ilala and Kinondoni) representing other Councils
had more than 74 land cases whose reasons were almost those
explained in the National Land Policy. Refer Annexure (li)
I am concerned with the implementation of the National Land Policy
since its establishment which aimed not only to guide the allocation,
168
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
ownership and use of land, but also resolve any recurring land
conflicts.
Land conflicts had affected peoples‟ properties, economic activities
and has even taken peoples‟ lives through recurring fighting among
societies. Furthermore, inadequate land use management and
administration has resulted into growth of unplanned settlements in
urban areas and therefore, leading to the Government incurring high
cost when it comes to construction of new infrastructures like roads,
water systems and the like.
In the light of the foregoing, I would wish to recommend that:
(a) The Government plan short and long term strategies on
combating the increasing land conflicts in compliance to existing
land laws and policy
(b) Strengthen administration of land laws and regulations
(c) Involve people in land use management through creating
awareness to the public
(d) Prompt planning of areas which seem to attract people for
settlement, investment or running economic activities before
conflicts arises. Refer Annexure (lii).
9.2.2 Challenges relating to establishment of new Councils
Sect.5(1) and 13(1) of the Local Government (District Authorities)
Act, 1982 as well as Sect.5(1) of the Local Government (Urban
Authorities) Act, 1982 give mandate to the Minister after consultation
with the President, by order published in the Gazette, to establish
District/Urban Councils.
LGAs are established for the purpose of promoting, developing and
maintaining an effective and efficient system of Local Government.
Establishment of new LGAs has even more importance in the
implementation of Local Government Reform Programme
(Decentralization by Devolution)
through which political,
169
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
administrative and financial decision making powers are being
devolved to the Local Government Authorities. In the Local
Government Reform Programme document, the Government
recognizes that, in order for the LGAs to provide improved local
public services in an efficient, transparent, accountable and
equitable manner, substantial improvements are required in terms of
the intergovernmental legal, institutional and fiscal structure and in
terms of the financial and human resource management capacity at
the central and local levels.
In the year 2013/2014, twenty three (23) newly established LGAs
effectively came into operation and all were audited. However,
there were challenges observed and which in my opinion, need
desirable attention for their effective performance and for future
consideration by Government when a need to establish more LGAs
arises.
Below are some of the noted challenges:
 Acute shortage of infrastructures at their new headquarters in
particular office buildings and staff houses for key personnel. Most
of the LGAs remained in the old Councils‟ buildings like Ushetu
and Msalala DCs in Shinyanga region while others started with
unconducive buildings like Buhigwe DC in Kigoma Region which
had to use Teachers‟ Resource Centre at Buhigwe Village and
Nyasa DC in Ruvuma region which uses the Agriculture Resource
Centre at Kilosa Ward. Others were forced to rent private houses
to use as offices such as Kaliua DC in Tabora Region, Mkalama DC
and Ikungi DC in Singida being some of them.
 Shortage of key staff and presence of staff acting for a long time
and many of them without proper acting appointments. As
mentioned in para 5.5.11 and 5.5.12 of this report, new LGAs
have recorded a significant status of acting Heads of Department
and Units as well as acute shortage of staff. Out of ten leading
Councils with the highest level of acting status, nine are newly
170
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
established Councils which are Tarime TC (16), Kaliua DC (15),
Kakonko DC (14), Msalala DC (14), Chemba DC (13), Kyerwa DC
(13), Gairo DC (13), Nyasa DC (12) and Buhigwe DC (11).
Likewise, for the ten leading Councils with shortage of staff,
seven (7) are the newly established Councils which are Nyasa DC
(53%), Kyerwa DC (46%), Buhigwe DC (45%), Mkalama DC (43%),
Kaliua DC (43%), Uvinza DC (41%) and Busokelo DC (40%).




The process of separation of LGAs was not adequately supervised
in that, in some cases either new or parent Councils had uneven
distribution of human resources basing on competence.
Inadequate directives on preparation of Financial Statements
particularly on how to report Property, Plant and Equipment
mostly inherited from the parent LGAs.
Payroll management functions largely were still managed by
parent Councils while human resources and budgeting was done
by new Councils which would result into ghost workers in areas
where employees‟ records were not adequately maintained. Also,
there were inadequate directives on accounting for salaries paid
by the parent LGAs hence understating the salaries figures in the
new LGAs.
Inadequate documentation of assets and liabilities before splitting
of the LGAs. The Councils which were supposed to split did not
adequately identify all assets and liabilities before distribution. As
a result, important documents for assets and liabilities like motor
vehicles registration cards and invoices were not adequately filed.
Therefore, it was difficult for the new Councils to settle for
instance liabilities without invoices.
Use of manual accounting systems. Twenty two new LGAs were
not installed with Epicor Application System and LAWSON which
are used centrally for processing accounting information and
management of human resources information.
171
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
These noted weaknesses have made operations of the new LGAs
to be challenging including costs for renting buildings, running
generators in areas with no electricity and inadequate preparation
of Financial Statements for new LGAs due to lack of reliable
information on assets, liabilities and salaries.
I recommend the Government to:
(a) Budget and finance construction of offices and staff houses in
new Councils which provide conducive working environment
(b) Adequately plan on the reduction of acting officers by either
confirming the acting officers or appoint new officers with
qualifications to head the posts and also fill the vacant posts.
(c) Provide comprehensive guidelines on review of assets and
liabilities for both New and Old LGAs. In addition, identify any
other issues which were not taken care of during distribution
process
including
for
instance
outstanding
Audit
Recommendations and LAAC directives.
(d) Speed up the installation of computer applications used
centrally such as Epicor and LAWSON which will improve
accounting and budget monitoring and human resources
management.
(e) Foresee and plan in advance mechanism to reduce challenges
which face new LGAs before they are established.
9.2.3 Need for revision of Section 38(3) of the Public Audit Act, 2008
Section 38(3) of the Public Audit Act, Cap 418 as amended by
Written laws (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act , No 1 of 2013 requires
the Government‟s consolidated responses and action plan to be
laid to the National Assembly concurrently with the report of
Controller and Auditor General. Since coming into force of the said
amendment, the Government has not managed to honor the
requirement of this provision. This failure connotes that in practical
terms the requirement of this provision is not tenable.
172
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
The Government is therefore advised to amend this provision and
revert to the former position of the law before the amendment.
173
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
ANNEXURES
Annexure (i): LGAs with misstatements of figures in Financial Statements
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Name of LGA
Arusha CC
Arusha DC
Babati DC
Babati TC
Bagamoyo DC
Bariadi DC
Bariadi TC
Biharamulo DC
Buhigwe DC
Bukoba DC
Bukoba MC
Bukombe DC
Bumbuli DC
Busokeli DC
Butiama DC
Chamwino DC
Chemba
Chunya DC
Dodoma MC
Gairo DC
Geita DC
Hai DC
Hanang‟ DC
Handeni DC
Igunga DC
Ikungi DC
Ileje DC
Ilemela MC
Iramba DC
Iringa DC
Iringa MC
Kahama TC
Kakonko DC
Kalambo DC
Kaliua DC
Karagwe DC
Karatu DC
Kasulu DC
Understatement
(TZS)
8,010,031,000
911,975,000
51,600,000
123,772,506
642,232,865
5,086,757,968
144,488,255
280,906,149
565,173,947
406,106,668
2,387,160,205
14,453,747,489
3,415,841,105
228,239,125
195,656,842
133,716,044
467,400,377
11,386,716,319
2,382,107,000
77,234,291,634
221,380,103
58,374,000
16,931,195,257
352,319,131
573,790,000
9,354,408,900
7,587,044,000
2,143,064,758
477,069,519
560,294,351
689,341,050
19,770,838,000
2,598,673,093
1,063,067,758
1,999,522,061
3,238,664,857
Overstatement
(TZS)
1,595,073,000
50,100,527
87,715,000
441,920,349
29,734,332,770
4,569,016,284
1,434,900
84,954,378
580,100,604
1,910,202,249
134,460,500
12,248,082,020
1,399,527,497
4,395,129
593,518,568
949,664,782
105,123,000
82,273,405
203,924,000
38,228,000
165,467,190
24,487,081,603
17,225,753,000
287,892,757
1,244,687,000
33,240,000
505,932,323
444,381,982
139,382,930
Total Expenditure
(TZS)
50,161,597,000
40,172,071,334
26,545,255,000
15,598,037,485
33,030,303,698
9,597,040,478
33,958,724,421
20,284,873,926
6,774,794,885
27,979,321,320
18,079,159,567
27,878,239,351
11,655,520,209
12,002,335,978
17,818,886,808
24,881,931,270
13,778,421,331
18,977,564,161
29,547,619,373
3,346,822,000
47,839,133,821
27,064,635,487
25,770,739,000
26,771,602,143
18,374,156,223
17,400,132,000
17,280,987,283
27,638,811,317
31,420,243,000
33,842,679,006
22,614,299,458
20,205,815,945
2,687,794,000
6,357,399,000
8,759,769,664
33,869,677,000
27,302,399,103
39,548,248,078
174
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
No.
Name of LGA
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
Kibaha DC
Kibondo DC
Kigoma DC
Kigoma/Ujiji MC
Kilindi DC
Kilolo DC
Kilombero DC
Kilosa DC
Kishapu DC
Kiteto DC
Kondoa DC
Kongwa DC
Korogwe DC
Korogwe TC
Kwimba DC
Kyela DC
Longido DC
Ludewa DC
Lushoto DC
Mafia DC
Magu DC
Makambako TC
Makete DC
Manyoni DC
Masasi TC
Mbarali DC
Mbeya CC
Mbeya DC
Mbinga DC
Mbozi DC
Mbulu DC
Meatu DC
Meru DC
Missenyi DC
Misungwi DC
Mkalama DC
Mkinga DC
Mkuranga DC
Mlele DC
Momba DC
Monduli DC
Understatement
(TZS)
24,475,846,000
830,157,582
6,115,703,606
422,102,318
4,934,325,130
83,450,541
1,672,205,819
546,993,952
645,810,112
186,762,864
6,671,522,672
2,245,717,214
114,286,216
339,345,000
686,581,814
31,979,973
33,142,000
1,778,222,532
27,463,717
505,457,292
369,743,231
981,008,817
94,357,387
1,409,143,939
2,359,842,282
2,394,690,994
182,926,518
16,410,190
388,675,295
4,653,914,161
2,303,042,992
105,990,102
887,290,964
1,012,181,381
8,646,578,000
280,842,717
3,739,422,000
Overstatement
(TZS)
358,606,111
10,394,747,699
11,692,112,000
3,596,709
1,003,867,479
907,868,190
472,881,322
2,954,731,893
202,169,252
61,853,303
449,025,063
3,810,201,759
10,938,213
2,753,000
11,770,230
602,546,259
32,143,000
221,736,868
630,706,728
339,479,274
1,225,912,062
119,611,870
419,936,042
1,577,010,000
233,178,663
7,668,043,725
4,800,000
135,846,000
9,993,000
131,526,341
5,872,023,000
2,416,965,650
Total Expenditure
(TZS)
15,898,659,063
26,678,513,428
32,405,311,000
25,554,661,543
17,061,649,135
25,530,627,460
35,056,954,999
40,144,457,786
24,686,827,836
19,342,366,704
29,026,335,717
22,655,464,776
21,190,204,018
13,522,766,978
32,161,432,117
25,276,317,615
15,686,682,960
18,946,968,976
31,774,376,223
10,053,603,000
39,330,204,429
9,285,636,300
16,130,415,607
21,819,054,350
7,557,043,784
24,676,493,885
60,296,037,000
37,246,374,693
40,244,841,431
31,253,752,289
30,216,328,000
24,340,950,309
32,269,121,239
20,350,822,041
26,980,973,572
9,608,702,000
15,191,686,723
21,337,536,744
5,732,696,000
5,742,656,896
24,917,046,910
175
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
No.
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
Name of LGA
Morogoro DC
Morogoro MC
Moshi MC
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
Mpwapwa DC
Msalala DC
Mtwara DC
Mtwara MC
Mufindi DC
Muheza DC
Muleba DC
Musoma DC
Mvomero DC
Mwanga DC
Mwanza CC
Namtumbo DC
Nanyumbu DC
Ngara DC
Ngorongoro DC
Njombe DC
Njombe TC
Nkasi DC
Nsimbo DC
Nyanghwale DC
Nyasa DC
Nzega DC
Pangani DC
Rombo DC
Rorya DC
Rufiji DC
Rungwe DC
Same DC
Sengerema DC
Serengeti DC
Shinyanga DC
Siha DC
Sikonge DC
Simanjiro DC
Singida DC
Singida MC
Understatement
(TZS)
877,977,780
847,103,029
686,240,559
1,882,668,000
1,397,776,176
1,927,446,156
111,850,000
368,908,489
37,424,650
237,418,856
5,085,059,196
1,088,845,725
1,886,396,558
943,370,006
2,004,223,776
16,954,000
348,912,244
30,954,705
1,213,802,903
1,129,127,078
7,368,127,000
97,399,133
256,170,445
98,817,860
682,022,388
1,618,892,329
2,708,961,725
707,971,596
1,167,398,000
6,933,078
1,148,582,971
1,219,769,000
12,738,491,601
25,932,410
2,740,512,007
492,540,643
1,391,390,000
628,940,418
Overstatement
(TZS)
1,500,086,000
9,820,000
1,411,636,508
18,000,000
95,910,530
1,395,068,496
43,028,007,531
126,202,911
1,887,509,902
2,229,534,550
1,488,499
443,554,939
294,360,357
91,780,694
4,052,491,370
408,000,000
230,719,200
3,576,875,000
3,576,875,000
44,819,848
267,136,521
125,053,955
2,176,405,000
963,950,000
77,531,427
593,773,326
461,351,201
202,264,000
-
Total Expenditure
(TZS)
20,999,554,677
37,271,340,091
31,016,902,989
22,084,780,875
13,218,815,212
24,492,132,559
18,502,381,126
23,383,140,000
21,806,006,000
35,727,765,389
22,980,237,637
35,351,056,588
20,370,647,471
29,462,406,464
18,595,918,427
42,904,687,063
19,241,797,435
15,208,571,823
25,954,865,166
19,955,510,772
26,675,955,089
22,878,215,537
21,607,946,000
3,839,014,861
2,778,119,000
5,091,189,998
32,114,061,378
11,557,734,971
32,806,124,681
17,227,915,475
23,016,289,000
34,591,935,714
32,518,737,385
48,975,910,000
26,117,191,000
13,022,783,058
16,333,254,312
15,820,580,774
15,470,566,874
32,943,133,544
19,688,435,561
176
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
No.
Name of LGA
121 Songea DC
122 Songea MC
123 Sumbawanga DC
124 Tabora DC
125 Tabora MC
126 Tanga CC
127 Tarime DC
128 Temeke MC
129 Tunduru DC
130 Ukerewe DC
131 Ulanga DC
132 Urambo DC
133 Ushetu DC
134 Uvinza DC
135 Wanging‟ombe DC
Total
% of misstatement
Understatement
(TZS)
1,121,527,498
5,402,807,359
4,083,700,061
183,875,701
1,154,588,361
398,776,450
2,953,240,237
418,176,257
35,000,000
651,998,052
5,011,548,254
8,010,500
742,523,062
357,687,188,942
11
Overstatement
(TZS)
998,620,326
710,570,985
4,915,490,248
153,167,424
1,281,679,520
716,861,444
14,515,621,463
527,792,336
733,343,955
619,786,000
695,406,493
68,701,000
397,605,059
248,951,299,472
8
Total Expenditure
(TZS)
21,616,308,889
24,485,534,504
34,376,673,366
19,787,676,340
25,025,533,785
46,315,691,411
28,337,813,538
73,925,208,400
25,402,091,524
25,757,436,340
23,763,315,616
25,101,093,240
24,429,670,227
15,406,511,000
2,437,162,624
3,233,770,929,439
177
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexture (ii): Trend of Audit Opinions Issued to LGAs for the Financial Years 2009/10,
2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14
Region
ARUSHA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
COAST
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
DSM
15
16
17
18
DODOMA
19
20
Name of the LGA
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
Arusha DC
Karatu DC
Meru DC
Longido DC
Ngorongoro DC
Arusha CC
Monduli DC
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Adverse
Qualified
Unqualified
unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Bagamoyo DC
Kibaha DC
Kibaha TC
Kisarawe DC
Mafia DC
Mkuranga DC
Rufiji/Utete DC
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Ilala MC
Temeke MC
Dar es Salaam CC
Kinondoni MC
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Chamwino DC
Kondoa DC
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
179
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Region
21
22
23
24
25
IRINGA
26
27
28
29
NJOMBE
30
31
32
33
34
35
KAGERA
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Name of the LGA
Bahi DC
Kongwa DC
Mpwapwa DC
Dodoma MC
Chemba DC
2009/10
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
2010/11
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
2011/12
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
2012/13
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
2013/14
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Mufindi DC
Iringa DC
Iringa MC
Kilolo DC
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Ludewa DC
Njombe DC
Njombe TC
Makete DC
Makambako TC
Wanging’ombe DC
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
-
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Biharamulo DC
Ngara DC
Missenyi DC
Bukoba DC
Bukoba MC
Muleba DC
Karagwe DC
Kyerwa DC
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
-
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
180
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Region
KIGOMA
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
KILIMANJARO
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
LINDI
58
59
60
61
62
63
MANYARA
64
65
66
Name of the LGA
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
Kasulu DC
Kibondo DC
Kigoma DC
Kigoma/Ujiji MC
Buhigwe DC
Kakonko DC
Uvinza Dc
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
-
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
-
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
-
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Moshi MC
Hai DC
Moshi DC
Mwanga DC
Rombo DC
Same DC
Siha DC
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Adverse
Adverse
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Kilwa DC
Lindi DC
Lindi MC
Liwale DC
Nachingwea DC
Ruangwa DC
Adverse
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Babati DC
Hanang‟ DC
Babati TC
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
181
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Region
67
68
69
MARA
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
MBEYA
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
MOROGORO
88
89
90
Name of the LGA
Mbulu DC
Simanjiro DC
Kiteto DC
2009/10
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
2010/11
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
2011/12
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
2012/13
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
2013/14
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Serengeti DC
Musoma DC
Bunda DC
Musoma MC
Rorya DC
Tarime DC
Tarime TC
Butiama DC
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Mbeya DC
Rungwe DC
Chunya DC
Mbeya CC
Mbozi DC
Ileje DC
Kyela DC
Mbarali DC
Busokelo Dc
Momba Dc
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
-
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Disclaimer
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Kilombero DC
Kilosa DC
Ulanga DC
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
182
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Region
91
92
93
94
MTWARA
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
MWANZA
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
GEITA
109
110
111
112
113
114
Name of the LGA
Morogoro DC
Morogoro MC
Mvomero DC
Gairo DC
2009/10
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
-
2010/11
Adverse
Qualified
Qualified
-
2011/12
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
-
2012/13
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
-
2013/14
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Masasi TC
Masasi DC
Mtwara DC
Newala DC
Tandahimba DC
Nanyumbu DC
Mtwara MC
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Kwimba DC
Magu DC
Misungwi DC
Mwanza CC
Ilemela MC
Sengerema DC
Ukerewe DC
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Adverse
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Adverse
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Geita TC
Geita DC
Bukombe DC
Chato DC
Nyang‟hwale DC
Mbogwe DC
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
-
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
-
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
183
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Region
RUKWA
115
116
117
118
KATAVI
119
120
121
122
RUVUMA
123
124
125
126
127
128
SHINYANGA
129
130
131
132
133
134
SIMIYU
135
136
Name of the LGA
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
Sumbawanga DC
Nkasi DC
Sumbawanga MC
Kalambo DC
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
-
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
-
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Mpanda TC
Mpanda DC
Mlele DC
Nsimbo DC
Qualified
Qualified
-
Qualified
Unqualified
-
Qualified
Unqualified
-
Qualified
Unqualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Songea MC
Tunduru DC
Namtumbo DC
Mbinga DC
Songea DC
Nyasa DC
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Adverse
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Shinyanga DC
Shinyanga MC
Kishapu DC
Kahama TC
Ushetu DC
Msalala DC
Unqualified
Unqualified
Adverse
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
-
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Maswa DC
Meatu DC
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
184
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Region
137
138
139
140
SINGIDA
141
142
143
144
145
146
TANGA
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
TABORA
157
158
159
160
Name of the LGA
Bariadi DC
Bariadi TC
Itilima DC
Busega DC
2009/10
Unqualified
-
2010/11
Unqualified
-
2011/12
Unqualified
-
2012/13
Qualified
Unqualified
-
2013/14
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Iramba DC
Manyoni DC
Singida DC
Singida MC
Ikungi DC
Mkalama DC
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
-
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
-
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Pangani DC
Tanga CC
Mkinga DC
Lushoto DC
Muheza DC
Handeni DC
Korogwe DC
Korogwe TC
Kilindi DC
Bumbuli DC
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
-
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Adverse
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
-
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
-
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Igunga DC
Urambo DC
Tabora MC
Nzega DC
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Adverse
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Qualified
Qualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
Unqualified
185
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Region
161
162
163
Name of the LGA
Sikonge DC
Tabora DC
Kaliua DC
2009/10
Qualified
Unqualified
-
2010/11
Qualified
Qualified
-
2011/12
Qualified
Qualified
-
2012/13
Unqualified
Unqualified
-
2013/14
Unqualified
Unqualified
Ualified
186
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexture (iii) : Basis for qualified and/ or adverse opinion issued during the year
Name of the
LGA
Mwanza CC
Opinion
issued
Qualified
Kasulu DC
Qualified
Iramba DC
Qualified
Basis for qualified
Revenue
20 earning
receipt books
not submitted
for audit
and/ or adverse opinion
Expenditure
Non-current assets
Improperly
Plotter machine
vouched
purchased above
expenditure TZS the price and not
13,224,500
included in the
Assets schedule TZS
14,500,000
Current assets
Supply of
62,483 books
from PMORALG not
reported in
the Financial
Statement
Understateme
nt of
Receivables by
TZS
90,306,900
Overstatement
Development
funds received
in the Cash
Flow
Statement by
TZS
378,464,437
49 earning
receipt books
Liabilities
Payment made to
unconfirmed creditors
TZS 215,703,097
Unconfirmed reported
payables TZS
164,035,432
Understatement of
payable by TZS
223,781,544
Understatement of
Payables by TZS
575,331,844
Unconfirmed
delivery of
187
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Name of the
LGA
Opinion
issued
Bukoba DC
Qualified
Kwimba DC
Qualified
Basis for qualified
Revenue
not submitted
for audit
Non submission
of collected
funds to main
cashier TZS
5,402,500
30 earning
receipt books
not submitted
for audit
and/ or adverse opinion
Expenditure
Non-current assets
Procurement of
building
materials TZS
62,715,000
Missing
Supporting
Documents
TZS6,315,000
Contract
Documents for
TZS 299,897,290
not produced
Missing Payment
Vouchers TZS
250,338,612
Inadequately
supported
Expenditure TZS
838,105,331
Current assets
Liabilities
Overstatement
of cash and
cash
equivalent TZS
304,580,986
Understateme
nt of increase
in receivable
and
prepayment in
the Cash Flow
Statement by
TZS
576,096,158
Accountability
of remaining
leave and
moving grants
not confirmed
TZS
Lack of documentary
evidence to justify
existence of the
reported payables TZS
62,503,293
Withheld funds for
unclaimed salaries not
available in the
Council‟s Miscellaneous
Deposit account TZS
92,348,102
Food relief funds not
found in the
miscellaneous deposit
account on 30th June,
188
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Name of the
LGA
Opinion
issued
Basis for qualified and/ or adverse opinion
Revenue
Expenditure
Non-current assets
Sengerema DC
Qualified
Understatement
of own source
cash book
balance by TZS
152,506,807
Understatement
of amortization
of recurrent
grants by TZS
9,898,000
Expenditures
not supported
with relevant
documents TZS
84,533,059
Current assets
60,413,100
Stores records
not tallying
with physical
stock TZS 24,
053,260
Liabilities
2014, TZS 87,116,200.
Understateme
nt of cash and
cash
equivalent
reported in
the Statement
of Financial
Position by
TZS
194,458,230
Inventories of
350,763 books
not reported
in the financial
statement due
to lack of
value for each
book.
Retained
earnings
Lack of documentary
evidence to justify
existence of the
reported Trade payables
TZS 272,572,000
189
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Name of the
LGA
Opinion
issued
Revenue
Expenditure
Non-current assets
Longido DC
Qualified
Revenue
collected but
not recorded in
the General
Ledger
amounting to
TZS 150,
868,328
37 earning
receipt books
not submitted
for audit
Overstatements
of own source
revenue by
double
receipting of
the same
amount
TZS39,252,998.9
9
Improperly
Vouched
Expenditure TZS
453,134,128
Missing Payment
Vouchers for
TZS 50,459,550
Overstatement of
depreciation charge
during the year
amounting to TZS
202,975,000
Current assets
shown in Trial
balance not
reported in
the Financial
Statement
TZS.
979,368,163
Understateme
nt of cash and
cash
equivalent TZS
275,652,060
Liabilities
Misstatement of
deferred recurrent
grants Shs.631, 798,000
190
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Name of the
LGA
Opinion
issued
Revenue
Expenditure
Non-current assets
Current assets
Mbinga DC
Qualified
Inconsistence in
disclosure of a
transaction in
the Statement
of Financial
Performance for
the year ended
30 June, 2014
Inconsistence
in the
disclosure of
transaction in
Cash Flow
Statement for
the year ended
30 June, 2014
Namtumbo DC
Qualified
Inadequately
supported
expenditure
TZS6,077,800
Payments
charged to
different line
item of budget
expenditure
code TZS
24,340,847
Depreciation of
Primary
Education
Support Project
(PESP) books
not supported
with accounting
policies TZS 55,
212,667
Inconsistence in
disclosure of
Property, Plant and
Equipment in the
Statement of
Financial Position
as at 30 June, 2014
Lower level
authorities‟
account
balances not
consolidated
in the
Council‟s
financial
statements
Subsidiary
records for
account
balances not
submitted TZS
836,574,314
Decrease in
Liabilities
Payables balance not
justified TZS
208,437,377
191
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Name of the
LGA
Opinion
issued
Songea MC
Qualified
Kalambo DC
Qualified
Revenue
Expenditure
Non-current assets
Salaries paid to
employees who
were no longer
in public service
TZS 25,563,328
Inconsistence in
disclosure of
revenue from
Overstatement of
PPE by TZS
532,387,185
Non - disclosure of
non – current assets
transferred from
Current assets
unapplied
Capital grant
not justified
TZS
1,861,325,743
Understateme
nt of
unapplied
funds by TZS
327,939,815
Overstatement
of capital
grants
available by
TZS 7,313,020
Discrepancies
between
opening and
closing
balances in
the Statement
of Account
issued by MSD
TZS
46,804,001
Inventories
disclosed in
the Financial
Liabilities
192
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Name of the
LGA
Opinion
issued
Revenue
Expenditure
Non-current assets
exchange
Sumbawanga DC in
transactions
the Statement of
made in the
Financial Position
Statement of
as at 30th June,
Revenue and
2014 TZS
Expenses – Note
4,342,865,268
23 TZS
Non - disclosure of
58,275,000
depreciation charge
Inconsistency in
on non – current
disclosure of
assets transferred
other own
from Sumbawanga
revenue made
DC in Statement of
in the
Financial
Statement of
Performance for
Revenue and
the year ended
Expenses – Note
30th June, 2014
23 TZS 229,000
TZS 351,993,329
Understatement of
depreciation on
Property, Plant and
Equipment in Cash
Flow Statement for
the year ended 30
June, 2014 TZS
351,993,329
Questionable
disclosure of
purchase of
Current assets
Statements
not supported
by evidence
from stock
taking TZS
1,354,000
Understateme
nt of the
effect changes
in working
capital items
in Cash Flow
Statement for
the year ended
30 June, 2014
TZS
1,944,299,000
Questionable
disclosure of
Development
Grant received
reported in
Cash Flow
Statement for
the year ended
30 June, 2014
TZS
2,066,257,000
Liabilities
193
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Name of the
LGA
Kiteto DC
Opinion
issued
Revenue
Expenditure
Non-current assets
Property, Plant and
Equipment made in
Cash Flow
Statement for the
year ended 30
June, 2014 TZS
3,573,089,000
Medical supplies
costing
TZS.13,344,500
which as at the
year end had
not been
delivered.
Current assets
Unjustified
disclosure of
grant
refunded/tran
sferred in Cash
Flow
statement for
the year ended
30 June, 2014
TZS
56,700,000
Liabilities
Included under note
29 are Non current
assets reported at
cost of
TZS.139,768,650
which are not in
use and have been
grounded for a long
time without being
tested for
impairment in
order to determine
whether the assets
have deteriorated
in terms of their
future economic
194
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Name of the
LGA
Opinion
issued
Kaliua DC
Qualified
Revenue
Expenditure
Non-current assets
benefits or service
potentials
Note 32 to the
financial
statements
reflected
capital
grants
received
of
TZS.2,700,675,7
11 for the year
ending 30 June
2014. The Cash
Flows
Statement
reflected
Capital Grants
received during
the
year
as
TZS.4,055,146,2
32. Under sound
accounting
practice these
figures
should
have been the
same, but it has
resulted
to
unexplained
difference
of
TZS.1,354,470,5
Current assets
Liabilities
195
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Name of the
LGA
Opinion
issued
Revenue
Expenditure
Non-current assets
21(4,055,146,23
2
2,700,675,711)
a
situation
which
creates
doubts‟ as to
the correctness
of the financial
statements as a
whole.
Current assets
Liabilities
196
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (iv): Outstanding matters from General Report
Para
9.1.1
9.1.2
Details of findings
Status
Implement
ed
Comment
Under
implementa
tion
Shortcomings in LGAs budget processes
Under Collection of
√
own source revenue
Not
implemente
d
Existence of huge
balances of unspent
funds at the year
end
√
Unauthorized
expenditures due to
reallocation of
funds without
proper approval
√
Weakness in own source revenue collection controls
Non-performance of
√
feasibility studies
on revenue
collections
Revenue by-laws
are not updated to
reflect the current
environment and no
√
The Government
responses have
pointed out
strategies that
are in place to
overcome this
matter; evidence
of
implementation
and outcomes is
awaited.
The Government
has not responded
to this matter;
audit
recommendation
is insisted.
The Government
has not responded
to this matter;
the audit
recommendation
is insisted.
The Government
responses have no
vivid examples
that feasibility
studies have been
carried to
improve revenue
collections. The
audit
recommendation
is still insisted.
The Government
responses have
pointed out
strategies in place
197
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Para
Details of findings
Status
Implement
ed
Comment
Under
implementa
tion
Not
implemente
d
new by-laws
established of for
other sources of
revenue
Non remittance of
own source revenue
from collecting
Agents
√
9.1.3
Weaknesses in
Human resource
management
√
9.1.4
Weaknesses in
Expenditure
management
√
9.1.5
Migration from Old
to New six LGAs‟
bank accounts
√
to overcome this
matter; evidence
of
implementation
and outcomes
thereof are
awaited.
The Government
responses have
pointed out
strategies in place
to overcome this
matter; evidence
of
implementation
and outcomes
thereof are
awaited.
The Government
responses have
pointed out
strategies in place
to mitigate
weaknesses in
human resource
management;
evidence of
implementation
and outcomes
thereof are
awaited.
Effort to ensure
that all EPICOR‟s
controls are
applicable and
are put into use
to mitigate the
weaknesses noted
in expenditure
management is
insisted.
The Government
has not responded
to this matter;
the audit
198
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Para
Details of findings
Status
Implement
ed
Comment
Under
implementa
tion
Not
implemente
d
recommendation
is insisted.
9.1.6
Inadequate preparation and presentation of financial statements
Submitted Financial
√
Statements with
irregularities
Financial
Statements not
directly generated
from IFMS
√
Non-disclosure of
PPEs owned by the
LGAs
9.1.7
m
√
Non-compliance
with procurement
legislation
√
LGAs do not have
adequate
administration and
monitoring
mechanisms to
ensure that
√
The Government
responses have
pointed out
strategies in place
to overcome this
matter, evidence
of
implementation
and outcomes are
awaited.
Outcome of the
strategies to
generate financial
statements
directly from the
Integrated
Financial
Management
System (IFMS) is
awaited.
The Government
has not responded
to this matter,
audit
recommendation
is insisted.
The Government
responses have
pointed strategies
in place to
overcome this
problem,
evidence of
implementation
and outcomes are
awaited.
The Government
responses have
pointed out
strategies in place
to overcome this
challenge;
199
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Para
Details of findings
Status
Implement
ed
Comment
Under
implementa
tion
Not
implemente
d
procurement and
contracting process
for goods and
services attain
value for money
9.1.8
Shortage of
teachers and school
infrastructures in
Primary and
Secondary Schools
9.1.9
Weakness in implementation of development projects
9.1.10
evidence of
implementation
and outcomes are
awaited.
√
The Government
has not responded
to this matter,
audit
recommendation
is insisted.
Under release of
LGDG projects
funds & Cofinancing of 5% not
contributed by
LGAs
√
Completed projects
were not put in
use, there were
projects
implemented below
standards, delay in
completion of the
projects within the
stipulated period
and funds budgeted
for implementing
projects were spent
to other activities
√
CDCF projects were
implemented
without being
initiated by
community
members.
√
The Government
has not responded
to this matter,
audit
recommendation
is insisted.
√
The Government
Weaknesses emerged from Special Audits
LGA‟s revenue was
The Government
has not responded
to these matters,
audit
recommendation
is insisted.
No vivid examples
were given to
support responses
from the
Government on
the actions taken
to ensure that
there is
efficiently
implementation
of the projects.
200
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Para
Details of findings
Status
Implement
ed
Comment
Under
implementa
tion
Not
implemente
d
stolen by dishonest
employees in
collaboration with
bank staff
Revenue collected
by Council‟s staff
was neither banked
nor physically
available in the
cash office
Potential own
sources revenue
were not collected
by the LGA
√
Missing revenue
receipt books
√
Non adherence to
procurement
procedures
√
Payments were
made without being
authorized by
Accounting Officers
and Council‟s
Treasurers
√
Payments were
√
√
has not responded
to this matter,
audit
recommendation
is insisted.
The Government
has not responded
to this matter,
audit
recommendation
is insisted.
The Government
responses have
pointed strategies
in place to
overcome this
matter, evidence
of
implementations
and outcomes is
awaited.
The Government
has not responded
to this matter,
audit
recommendation
is insisted.
The Government
responses have
pointed strategies
in place to
overcome this
matter, evidence
of
implementations
and outcomes is
awaited.
The Government
has not responded
to this matter,
audit
recommendation
is insisted.
The Government
201
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Para
Details of findings
made for
implementation of
activities which
were not
undertaken
Status
Implement
ed
Comment
Under
implementa
tion
Not
implemente
d
has not responded
to this matter,
audit
recommendation
is insisted.
202
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (v): Outstanding matters from individual audit reports
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Name of LGA
Arusha CC
Arusha DC
Babati DC
Babati TC
Bagamoyo DC
Bahi DC
Bariadi DC
Bariadi TC
Biharamulo DC
Bukoba DC
Bukoba MC
Bukombe DC
Bunda DC
Busokelo DC
Chamwino DC
Chato DC
Chunya DC
Dar es salaam CC
Dodoma MC
Geita DC
Geita TC
Hai DC
Hanang' DC
Handeni DC
Igunga DC
Ilala MC
Ileje DC
Ilemela MC
Iramba DC
Iringa DC
Iringa MC
Kahama DC
Kahama TC
Karagwe DC
Karatu DC
Kasulu DC
Kibaha DC
Kibaha TC
Kibondo DC
Recom
mendations
made
124
94
32
27
51
21
81
40
43
39
50
36
28
13
46
89
67
25
91
53
24
18
43
62
26
29
75
68
72
27
24
40
21
75
97
68
5
15
73
Implemented
Under
impleme
ntati-on
Not
implem
ent-ed
37
82
8
6
27
10
35
15
17
17
12
28
0
9
17
28
10
15
44
30
14
14
19
21
7
17
13
28
40
16
14
22
10
29
52
18
0
8
43
16
12
10
11
18
5
31
18
26
20
38
8
9
3
9
29
35
6
47
12
2
4
5
21
5
11
40
4
12
5
10
16
10
46
25
8
5
4
0
71
0
14
10
6
6
15
7
0
2
0
0
19
1
20
32
22
4
0
11
8
0
19
20
14
1
22
36
20
6
0
2
1
0
20
42
0
3
30
Outstanding amount
(TZS)
10,288,464,724.25
728,563,879.00
494,153,812.08
632,063,126.20
112,975,078.00
716,036,811.00
9,139,341,179.00
1,604,484,065.00
505,968,083.00
1,211,526,924.00
2,134,441,568.00
452,638,337.50
1,052,277,966.00
7,553,976,637.00
5,786,292,071.17
3,128,595,252.00
1,071,206,187.00
5,667,099,343.00
11,806,200.00
106,615,181.70
410,205,425.54
733,903,085.00
1,944,450,726.00
10,240,337,785.00
2,138,443,869.44
2,779,046,519.00
1,482,179,818.00
508,718,898.00
8,683,203,906.00
241,159,266.00
5,250,454,553.00
1,177,114,244.88
6,881,926,382.00
1,147,801,367.00
203
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
Name of LGA
Kigoma DC
Kigoma/Ujiji MC
Kilindi DC
Kilolo DC
Kilombero DC
Kilosa DC
Kilwa DC
Kinondoni MC
Kisarawe DC
Kishapu DC
Kiteto DC
Kondoa DC
Kongwa DC
Korogwe DC
Korogwe TC
Kwimba DC
Kyela DC
Lindi DC
Lindi MC
Liwale DC
Longido DC
Ludewa DC
Lushoto DC
Mafia DC
Magu DC
Makambako TC
Makete DC
Manyoni DC
Masasi DC
Masasi TC
Maswa DC
Mbarali DC
Mbeya CC
Mbeya DC
Mbinga DC
Mbozi DC
Mbulu DC
Meatu DC
Meru DC
Misenyi DC
Recom
mendations
made
41
40
85
33
6
61
12
16
8
164
35
6
22
53
79
100
79
49
31
26
109
23
105
30
59
9
5
77
27
27
47
60
72
88
80
116
29
57
71
43
Implemented
Under
impleme
ntati-on
Not
implem
ent-ed
9
24
63
26
5
12
0
8
1
26
11
2
15
23
52
58
42
34
8
2
5
19
31
0
13
7
2
23
8
5
19
34
7
26
73
59
14
18
23
26
22
12
20
4
1
19
0
3
0
86
3
3
7
24
13
16
23
3
0
2
104
2
70
2
27
1
3
48
8
0
23
20
36
15
3
35
9
37
11
17
10
4
2
3
0
30
12
5
7
52
21
1
0
6
14
26
14
12
23
22
0
2
4
28
19
1
0
6
11
22
5
6
29
47
4
22
6
2
37
0
Outstanding amount
(TZS)
1,602,373,928.00
633,739,202.80
1,279,490,725.00
26,000,000.00
210,732,518.00
2,396,650,562.00
1,715,180,872.00
4,639,455,460.00
75,978,200.00
33,727,718,305.00
3,386,176,437.53
216,758,429.00
6,769,053.00
546,098,093.65
1,326,171,296.49
4,049,055,063.00
3,368,562,895.26
661,980,557.80
286,778,504.00
456,406,857.00
3,415,125,711.85
792,669,321.00
408,675,619.26
348,627,321.00
1,856,659,676.00
16,117,666.00
663,864,941.00
10,687,810,289.00
797,972,558.00
51,058,440.00
8,860,908,881.50
4,710,392,000.00
9,981,232,589.45
20,344,236.40
6,590,319,549.95
294,573,455.09
663,826,353.00
3,022,669,833.77
827,948,465.00
204
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
Name of LGA
Misungwi DC
Mkinga DC
Mkuranga DC
Monduli DC
Morogoro DC
Morogoro MC
Moshi DC
Moshi MC
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
Mpwapwa DC
Mtwara DC
Mtwara MC
Mufindi DC
Muheza DC
Muleba DC
Musoma DC
Musoma MC
Mvomero DC
Mwanga DC
Mwanza CC
Nachingwea DC
Namtumbo DC
Nanyumbu DC
Newala DC
Ngara DC
Ngorongoro DC
Njombe DC
Njombe TC
Nkasi DC
Nzega DC
Pangani DC
Rombo DC
Rorya DC
Ruangwa DC
Rufiji DC
Rungwe DC
Same DC
Sengerema DC
Serengeti DC
Recom
mendations
made
149
41
29
32
58
24
27
41
32
67
57
25
31
24
68
54
28
20
48
62
172
37
46
12
33
57
16
36
25
74
105
35
42
83
34
22
120
51
139
35
Implemented
Under
impleme
ntati-on
Not
implem
ent-ed
67
35
7
12
6
3
26
23
5
32
33
9
10
16
39
9
6
9
0
45
86
10
16
5
5
27
0
26
14
29
50
17
38
51
3
15
15
38
63
24
49
6
0
9
20
7
1
18
15
12
24
0
5
8
29
42
6
1
10
16
40
1
12
0
2
30
4
9
5
14
8
17
4
5
2
2
90
10
29
3
33
0
22
11
32
14
0
0
12
23
0
16
16
0
0
3
16
10
38
1
46
26
18
7
26
0
12
1
6
31
47
1
0
27
29
5
15
3
47
8
Outstanding amount
(TZS)
2,349,111,108.00
2,022,875,307.00
7,530,395,533.74
510,181,174.00
3,053,783,054.45
454,685,077.00
1,541,475,051.00
1,843,227,138.80
1,076,564,270.00
966,933,190.98
731,085,494.00
3,226,160.18
272,047,891.00
2,898,079,327.00
1,886,775,598.00
89,164,992.00
4,707,878,218.54
317,592,974.90
29,181,151,099.00
114,594,306.86
5,269,700.00
605,294,967.00
664,538,264.00
1,141,156,782.00
757,700,206.66
1,271,950,146.00
5,425,929,270.11
2,048,381,203.00
1,416,615,559.70
1,412,349,368.23
6,638,943,560.00
1,430,948,089.69
23,729,481.00
111,156,949,002.62
408,000,695.45
2,041,252,513.00
523,722,474.00
205
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
Name of LGA
Shinyanga DC
Shinyanga MC
Siha DC
Sikonge DC
Simanjiro DC
Singida DC
Singida MC
Songea DC
Songea MC
Sumbawanga DC
Sumbawanga MC
Tabora DC
Tabora MC
Tandahimba DC
Tanga CC
Tarime DC
Temeke MC
Tunduru DC
Ukerewe DC
Ulanga DC
Urambo DC
TOTAL
Recom
mendations
made
95
35
60
46
36
64
65
82
54
69
86
58
91
31
103
52
29
53
165
63
54
7474
Implemented
Under
impleme
ntati-on
Not
implem
ent-ed
Outstanding amount
(TZS)
65
3
49
14
22
9
59
33
29
9
14
32
41
0
85
28
14
0
105
7
10
3217
26
14
11
21
7
43
5
31
13
15
14
3
15
0
15
5
11
13
8
7
1
2171
4
18
0
11
7
12
1
18
12
45
58
23
35
31
3
19
4
40
52
49
43
2086
2,092,644,024.00
412,361,150.00
3,020,890,444.00
283,559,831.00
5,440,914,657.00
88,008,183.00
2,307,289,349.84
7,090,426,782.00
3,133,277,431.24
1,003,861,409.00
1,215,128,276.00
5,733,103,296.30
2,097,320,384.00
421,703,529.00
2,548,494,856.32
2,130,624,030.02
6,206,907,820.00
2,831,692,992.00
4,329,781,989.00
461,551,894,819.19
206
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (vi): Directives issued by LAAC to individual Councils
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
11
12
13
15
19
20
22
24
25
27
28
30
32
33
35
36
37
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
53
54
55
56
57
Name of LGA
Arusha CC
Arusha DC
Babati DC
Babati TC
Bagamoyo DC
Bahi DC
Bariadi DC
Biharamulo DC
Bukoba DC
Bukoba MC
Bukombe DC
Bunda DC
Chamwino DC
Chato DC
Chunya DC
Dodoma MC
Geita DC
Hai DC
Hanang' DC
Igunga DC
Ilala MC
Ileje DC
Iramba DC
Iringa DC
Iringa MC
Karagwe DC
Karatu DC
Kasulu DC
Kibaha DC
Kibaha TC
Kibondo DC
Kigoma DC
Kigoma/Ujiji MC
Kilindi DC
Kilombero DC
Kilosa DC
Kilwa DC
Kinondoni MC
Kisarawe DC
Recommendationsmade
13
11
11
2
12
4
5
9
10
11
5
2
3
5
4
1
5
6
9
14
13
11
5
10
10
12
6
35
2
3
31
12
12
11
10
41
8
2
8
Implem
en-ted
0
4
1
1
7
0
5
6
5
0
5
1
0
4
0
0
1
6
6
14
10
2
2
0
0
3
4
26
1
3
28
7
7
0
8
10
1
0
1
Under
implementation
0
7
4
1
5
3
0
3
5
7
0
1
3
1
0
1
4
0
3
0
3
4
3
10
10
9
1
0
1
0
3
5
0
0
2
5
0
0
7
Not
implement
ed
13
0
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
1
9
0
0
0
0
5
11
0
26
7
2
0
207
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
80
81
82
83
84
86
87
88
89
90
91
94
97
98
99
100
102
103
104
106
107
Name of LGA
Kishapu DC
Kiteto DC
Kondoa DC
Kongwa DC
Korogwe DC
Korogwe TC
Kwimba DC
Kyela DC
Lindi DC
Lindi MC
Liwale DC
Longido DC
Ludewa DC
Lushoto DC
Mafia DC
Magu DC
Makambako TC
Makete DC
Manyoni DC
Masasi DC
Maswa DC
Mbarali DC
Mbeya CC
Mbeya DC
Mbinga DC
Mbozi DC
Mbulu DC
Meatu DC
Meru DC
Misenyi DC
Misungwi DC
Mkuranga DC
Monduli DC
Morogoro DC
Morogoro MC
Moshi DC
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
Mpwapwa DC
Mtwara DC
Mtwara MC
Recommendationsmade
4
11
4
6
11
8
11
79
5
10
9
9
7
8
5
8
0
5
0
18
7
7
14
10
7
4
7
8
3
6
5
6
13
23
16
2
28
9
4
6
7
Implem
en-ted
2
2
2
2
6
2
7
42
5
6
9
0
6
2
0
0
0
3
0
5
7
4
11
10
6
0
3
6
3
2
0
4
0
7
9
2
24
0
0
3
3
Under
implementation
2
4
0
4
4
6
3
23
0
0
0
3
0
3
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
4
0
0
0
2
Not
implement
ed
0
5
2
0
1
0
1
14
0
4
0
6
1
3
0
8
0
0
0
13
0
0
1
0
1
4
2
0
0
4
5
2
13
15
6
0
0
9
4
3
2
208
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
108
109
110
111
112
113
115
116
117
118
119
120
124
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
155
156
157
Name of LGA
Mufindi DC
Muheza DC
Muleba DC
Musoma DC
Musoma MC
Mvomero DC
Mwanza CC
Nachingwea DC
Namtumbo DC
Nanyumbu DC
Newala DC
Ngara DC
Nkasi DC
Nzega DC
Pangani DC
Rombo DC
Rorya DC
Ruangwa DC
Rufiji DC
Rungwe DC
Same DC
Sengerema DC
Serengeti DC
Shinyanga DC
Shinyanga MC
Sikonge DC
Simanjiro DC
Singida DC
Singida MC
Songea DC
Songea MC
Sumbawanga DC
Sumbawanga MC
Tabora DC
Tabora MC
Tandahimba DC
Tanga CC
Tarime DC
Temeke MC
Tunduru DC
Ukerewe DC
Recommendationsmade
9
8
12
3
5
16
11
5
5
5
14
9
8
16
20
3
5
14
2
3
8
4
5
6
6
19
4
7
5
8
9
1
10
13
17
4
6
3
8
2
5
Implem
en-ted
0
6
9
0
3
7
0
0
2
0
0
6
0
0
12
2
3
10
0
3
4
0
5
4
3
13
2
3
5
2
7
0
8
0
0
1
3
2
5
1
3
Under
implementation
9
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
3
3
0
0
8
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
3
5
1
2
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
Not
implement
ed
0
0
3
2
1
9
11
5
1
5
11
0
8
16
0
0
2
3
1
0
4
4
0
1
0
1
1
2
0
4
1
1
0
13
17
3
3
0
2
1
2
209
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
158
159
Name of LGA
Ulanga DC
Urambo DC
Total
Recommendationsmade
21
8
1146
Implem
en-ted
16
2
56
Under
implementation
2
0
240
Not
implement
ed
3
6
370
210
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (vii): Approved Budget Vs Actual Collections for own source
revenue
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
Name
of
Region
Arusha
7
8
9
10
11
Coast
12
13
15
16
17
18
Dar es
salaam
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Dodom
a
26
27
28
29
30
31
Geita
32
33
Iringa
Name of
LGA
Arusha CC
Arusha DC
Karatu DC
Longido DC
Meru DC
Monduli DC
Ngorongoro
DC
Bagamoyo
DC
Kibaha DC
Kibaha TC
Kisarawe
DC
Mafia DC
Mkuranga
DC
Rufiji DC
Dar es
salaam CC
Ilala MC
Kinondoni
MC
Temeke MC
Bahi DC
Chamwino
DC
Chemba DC
Dodoma MC
Kondoa DC
Kongwa DC
Mpwapwa
DC
Bukombe
DC
Chato DC
Geita DC
Geita TC
Mbogwe DC
Nyang'wale
DC
Iringa DC
11,278,924,000
2,076,750,000
1,712,918,000
1,398,203,000
2,393,556,000
1,475,776,000
10,119,100,000
2,128,257,479
2,032,608,396
990,586,000
1,455,326,796
1,341,491,360
-1,159,824,000
51,507,479
319,690,396
-407,617,000
-938,229,204
-134,284,640
1,530,238,900
816,408,689
-713,830,211
% of
under/
Over
collecti
on
10
3
19
29
39
9
47
2,373,820,000
2,955,297,830
581,477,830
25
1,645,042,000
3,803,959,975
1,415,531,000
3,522,042,432
-229,511,000
-281,917,543
1,459,532,000
1,413,879,084
-45,652,916
14
7
3
691,082,000
613,401,000
-77,681,000
1,940,378,297
2,148,991,083
208,612,786
1,802,785,000
1,657,500,508
-145,284,492
7,661,174,000
6,150,027,000
-1,511,147,000
27,860,424,039
28,060,374,082
199,950,043
36,165,860,537
37,018,216,932
852,356,395
25,243,405,600
707,068,800
27,441,013,080
472,301,337
2,197,607,480
-234,767,463
1,053,130,051
639,727,295
-413,402,756
925,273,000
2,880,485,000
977,604,366
1,535,745,905
596,713,818
2,847,418,231
893,774,669
982,804,319
-328,559,182
-33,066,769
-83,829,697
-552,941,586
662,362,000
784,936,292
122,574,292
36
1
9
36
19
1,165,788,902
1,328,880,000
163,091,098
14
1,775,114,000
2,341,002,000
3,472,124,000
767,778,400
1,065,266,728
2,245,883,554
1,570,465,000
295,284,602
-709,847,272
-95,118,446
-1,901,659,000
-472,493,798
1,083,788,000
488,724,000
-595,064,000
40
4
55
62
55
3,342,000,000
3,424,601,563
82,601,563
3
Approved Budget
(TZS)
Actual Revenue
Collected (TZS)
(Under)/Over
Collection (TZS)
211
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
11
11
8
20
1
2
9
33
39
No
Name
of
Region
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Kagera
Katavi
50
51
52
53
Kigoma
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
Kilima
njaro
Lindi
67
68
68
69
70
Manyar
a
Name of
LGA
Iringa MC
Kilolo DC
Mufindi DC
Biharamulo
DC
Bukoba DC
Bukoba MC
Karagwe
DC
Kyerwa DC
Misenyi DC
Muleba DC
Ngara DC
Mlele DC
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
Nsimbo DC
Buhigwe DC
Kakonko
DC
Kasulu DC
Kibondo DC
Kigoma DC
Kigoma/Uji
ji MC
Uvinza DC
Hai DC
Moshi DC
Moshi MC
Mwanga DC
Rombo DC
Same DC
Siha DC
Kilwa DC
Lindi DC
Lindi MC
Liwale DC
Nachingwe
a DC
Ruangwa
DC
Babati DC
Babati TC
Hanang' DC
Approved Budget
(TZS)
Actual Revenue
Collected (TZS)
(Under)/Over
Collection (TZS)
% of
under/
Over
collecti
on
7
14
18
32
3,342,922,270
1,468,910,000
4,703,417,000
3,105,483,856
1,258,145,527
3,866,667,286
-237,438,414
-210,764,473
-836,749,714
1,230,997,643
1,628,093,897
397,096,254
1,372,445,000
2,836,522,211
1,316,756,554
2,622,942,959
-55,688,446
-213,579,252
1,422,187,000
1,087,317,000
-334,870,000
1,764,492,300
1,070,000,000
2,166,224,000
840,352,342
1,214,078,000
1,093,673,000
926,422,050
713,328,000
501,800,000
1,234,143,524
1,085,869,935
1,886,411,087
518,035,586
991,416,000
1,632,023,000
1,009,256,813
781,618,622
95,570,183
-530,348,776
15,869,935
-279,812,913
-322,316,756
-222,662,000
538,350,000
82,834,763
68,290,622
-406,229,817
479,932,000
133,575,000
-346,357,000
940,084,393
726,829,000
1,083,724,000
885,695,529
551,136,000
854,489,000
-54,388,864
-175,693,000
-229,235,000
1,587,937,000
1,371,110,000
-216,827,000
1,186,175,000
1,634,333,540
2,027,765,653
5,028,735,729
972,045,000
1,036,027,000
1,544,644,713
1,886,906,548
2,278,140,000
875,960,000
1,070,251,110
1,876,739,000
724,654,000
1,422,532,545
1,830,744,060
5,259,315,049
721,491,481
1,042,422,045
1,414,578,212
1,130,349,269
2,228,462,519
866,276,000
1,194,518,841
1,849,388,000
-461,521,000
-211,800,995
-197,021,593
230,579,320
-250,553,519
6,395,045
-130,066,501
-756,557,279
-49,677,481
-9,684,000
124,267,731
-27,351,000
2,308,551,000
1,535,022,000
-773,529,000
39
13
10
5
26
1
8
40
2
1
12
2
34
1,514,131,000
1,723,565,000
209,434,000
14
1,867,801,000
2,026,289,000
1,597,644,000
1,758,753,000
1,410,939,612
1,420,969,000
-109,048,000
-615,349,388
-176,675,000
6
30
11
212
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
4
8
24
30
2
13
38
18
49
9
10
81
72
6
24
21
14
No
Name
of
Region
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
Mara
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
Mbeya
92
93
94
95
Morogo
ro
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Mtwar
a
Name of
LGA
Kiteto DC
Mbulu DC
Simanjiro
DC
Bunda DC
Butiama DC
Musoma DC
Musoma MC
Rorya DC
Serengeti
DC
Tarime DC
Tarime TC
Busokelo
DC
Chunya DC
Ileje DC
Kyela DC
Mbarali DC
Mbeya CC
Mbeya DC
Mbozi DC
Momba DC
Rungwe DC
Kilombero
DC
Kilosa DC
Morogoro
DC
Morogoro
MC
Mvomero
DC
Ulanga DC
Gairo DC
Masasi DC
Masasi TC
Mtwara DC
Mtwara MC
Nanyumbu
DC
Newala DC
Tandahimb
a DC
Approved Budget
(TZS)
Actual Revenue
Collected (TZS)
(Under)/Over
Collection (TZS)
% of
under/
Over
collecti
on
25
19
9
1,173,735,000
966,013,000
882,990,574
785,624,430
-290,744,426
-180,388,570
1,172,793,000
1,067,869,516
-104,923,484
2,074,469,000
1,288,498,348
508,009,644
1,813,737,664
2,290,484,500
1,558,974,000
429,810,153
414,850,991
1,292,592,665
618,945,939
-515,495,000
-858,688,195
-93,158,653
-521,144,999
-1,671,538,561
1,795,262,000
1,774,559,900
-20,702,100
3,087,439,193
675,000,000
3,059,579,242
603,439,988
-27,859,951
-71,560,012
550,450,000
592,752,628
42,302,628
4,316,936,232
1,146,564,893
2,604,938,823
1,627,798,000
9,870,081,000
1,723,737,000
2,684,527,665
1,635,558,000
3,057,170,628
3,750,798,080
1,039,644,773
2,385,872,119
1,525,613,683
6,814,448,000
1,781,207,548
2,061,179,610
1,157,244,466
2,123,257,412
-566,138,152
-106,920,120
-219,066,704
-102,184,317
-3,055,633,000
57,470,548
-623,348,055
-478,313,534
-933,913,216
5,013,479,000
3,953,972,418
-1,059,506,582
2,670,884,000
1,650,363,606
-1,020,520,394
1,087,741,045
728,913,545
-358,827,500
38
33
4,135,691,700
3,787,815,134
-347,876,566
8
1,829,364,700
952,194,593
-877,170,107
48
3,006,264,555
937,447,000
2,503,620,000
1,452,936,200
1,876,888,000
2,367,315,000
2,586,673,954
308,731,000
1,742,338,932
1,371,633,129
680,387,000
2,131,621,000
-419,590,601
-628,716,000
-761,281,068
-81,303,071
-1,196,501,000
-235,694,000
1,180,000,000
1,290,849,574
110,849,574
14
67
30
6
64
10
9
2,000,400,000
1,946,989,429
-53,410,571
3,019,192,500
2,197,819,369
-821,373,131
213
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
25
67
18
29
73
1
1
11
8
13
9
8
6
31
3
23
29
31
21
3
27
No
Name
of
Region
106
107
108
109
110
Mwanz
a
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
Njomb
e
118
119
120
121
Rukwa
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
Ruvum
a
Shinya
nga
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
Simiyu
Name of
LGA
Ilemela MC
Kwimba DC
Magu DC
Misungwi
DC
Mwanza CC
Sengerema
DC
Ukerewe
DC
Ludewa DC
Makambako
TC
Makete DC
Njombe DC
Njombe TC
Wang‟ing‟o
mbe DC
Kalambo
DC
Nkasi DC
Sumbawang
a DC
Sumbawang
a MC
Mbinga DC
Namtumbo
DC
Nyasa DC
Songea DC
Songea MC
Tunduru DC
Kahama TC
Kishapu DC
Msalala DC
Shinyanga
DC
Shinyanga
MC
Ushetu DC
Bariadi DC
Bariadi TC
Busega DC
Itilima DC
Maswa DC
Approved Budget
(TZS)
Actual Revenue
Collected (TZS)
(Under)/Over
Collection (TZS)
% of
under/
Over
collecti
on
29
60
0
6
4,422,040,500
2,494,032,000
1,427,618,000
3,149,909,112
1,005,748,017
1,428,549,627
-1,272,131,388
-1,488,283,983
931,627
1,043,172,000
977,187,473
-65,984,527
7,503,048,000
8,380,628,791
877,580,791
1,604,152,000
1,303,616,000
-300,536,000
12
19
1,198,664,530
830,277,814
-368,386,716
31
1,570,789,840
1,360,639,858
-210,149,982
1,314,416,226
1,561,049,047
246,632,821
13
19
1,117,781,000
619,400,000
3,910,202,586
740,374,784
670,957,885
3,905,278,588
-377,406,216
51,557,885
-4,923,998
778,875,769
677,645,095
-101,230,674
34
8
36
13
872,242,000
742,809,000
-129,433,000
15
1,027,051,000
949,234,000
-77,817,000
1,130,603,472
987,246,196
-143,357,276
8
13
1,436,646,600
1,279,464,305
-157,182,295
11
2,032,520,598
1,714,070,907
-318,449,691
1,402,718,000
910,871,106
-491,846,894
16
35
862,675,500
1,027,129,800
1,469,678,000
2,583,594,000
2,452,425,000
2,348,494,710
2,066,614,504
377,848,968
314,760,225
1,066,938,106
1,041,289,479
2,406,756,737
1,945,444,939
1,499,354,445
-484,826,532
-712,369,575
-402,739,894
-1,542,304,521
-45,668,263
-403,049,771
-567,260,059
749,418,000
690,217,099
-59,200,901
56
69
27
60
2
17
27
8
1,928,411,000
1,807,863,336
-120,547,664
6
2,305,565,480
2,047,392,918
2,555,326,886
938,628,931
1,598,071,000
1,794,310,058
1,632,899,204
1,886,151,078
843,132,145
716,276,975
541,190,168
1,467,784,766
-672,666,276
-161,241,840
-1,712,194,741
-222,351,956
-1,056,880,832
-326,525,292
29
8
67
24
66
18
214
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
No
Name
of
Region
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
Singida
Tabora
157
158
Tanga
159
160
161
162
163
Total
Name of
LGA
Meatu DC
Ikungi DC
Iramba DC
Manyoni DC
Mkalama
DC
Singida DC
Singida MC
Igunga DC
Kaliua DC
Nzega DC
Sikonge DC
Tabora DC
Tabora MC
Urambo DC
Bumbuli DC
Handeni DC
Kilindi DC
Korogwe
DC
Korogwe
TC
Lushoto DC
Mkinga DC
Muheza DC
Pangani DC
Tanga CC
Approved Budget
(TZS)
Actual Revenue
Collected (TZS)
(Under)/Over
Collection (TZS)
% of
under/
Over
collecti
on
23
28
2
1
35
2,703,894,987
509,701,000
744,025,000
1,294,846,500
2,071,511,499
367,798,300
732,968,197
1,280,074,635
-632,383,488
-141,902,700
-11,056,803
-14,771,865
183,260,050
247,420,522
64,160,472
495,118,000
1,747,189,004
2,280,670,000
2,049,874,000
2,900,630,631
2,003,374,300
2,231,400,000
2,469,223,575
2,071,357,100
376,580,000
1,226,283,955
1,065,479,000
340,824,751
1,562,132,200
1,514,446,000
3,161,868,472
2,255,533,939
2,259,280,505
2,321,115,140
1,625,204,144
4,534,100,977
334,987,949
1,041,005,645
723,291,338
-154,293,249
-185,056,804
-766,224,000
1,111,994,472
-645,096,692
255,906,205
89,715,140
-844,019,431
2,462,743,877
-41,592,051
-185,278,310
-342,187,662
1,708,362,587
825,230,128
-883,132,459
31
11
34
54
22
13
4
34
119
11
15
32
52
2,249,382,655
1,850,771,405
-398,611,250
18
1,640,990,000
629,609,490
876,199,000
340,715,000
6,391,683,600
400,389,496,906
1,042,182,324
459,965,036
911,855,676
402,399,986
5,432,832,860
353,530,397,453
-598,807,676
-169,644,454
35,656,676
61,684,986
-958,850,740
-46,859,099,453
37
27
4
18
15
12
215
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (viii): Over released Recurrent Grants during the year
2013/2014
No
Name of LGA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Arusha CC
Butiama DC
Geita DC
Ikungi DC
Ilala MC
Ilemela MC
Kakonko DC
Kasulu DC
Kibondo DC
Kilindi DC
Kilolo DC
Kinondoni MC
Kyerwa DC
Liwale DC
Mafia DC
Magu DC
Makambako
TC
Manyoni DC
Masasi DC
Mbeya CC
Mbulu DC
Mkuranga DC
Monduli DC
Morogoro MC
Mtwara MC
Muheza DC
Njombe TC
Nsimbo DC
Pangani DC
Shinyanga DC
Singida DC
Sumbawanga
DC
Tabora MC
Tandahimba
DC
Tarime TC
Urambo DC
Total
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
30,376,842,000
3,173,596,200
33,384,066,000
14,419,896,000
71,461,121,840
24,168,670,965
1,002,681,000
34,600,000,000
19,964,763,000
1,065,479,000
19,147,281,504
68,604,584,000
1,269,286,160
9,649,228,000
7,179,167,000
24,965,342,719
32,224,637,000
3,562,522,316
37,777,605,000
16,709,636,000
73,040,514,512
24,451,759,623
1,915,071,000
35,536,614,325
25,107,775,277
12,222,495,381
22,934,490,663
79,620,111,076
1,661,579,806
12,596,090,000
7,511,097,000
33,853,754,742
Over leased
recurrent Grant
(TZS.)
1,847,795,000
388,926,116
4,393,539,000
2,289,740,000
1,579,392,672
283,088,658
912,390,000
936,614,325
5,143,012,277
11,157,016,381
3,787,209,159
11,015,527,076
392,293,646
2,946,862,000
331,930,000
8,888,412,023
8,356,532,910
8,527,994,405
171,461,495
16,030,240,079
19,421,128,275
33,018,334,000
26,277,676,000
18,474,413,293
16,337,918,000
33,497,991,601
10,208,622,000
17,561,196,842
14,111,775,008
2,261,759,300
8,379,820,375
18,336,801,904
28,436,109,000
17,440,461,897
20,607,156,518
36,501,805,000
27,646,087,000
20,807,705,660
16,412,778,000
33,686,146,265
12,025,305,000
19,897,734,899
18,012,688,988
2,270,395,283
10,231,103,338
18,454,745,967
28,542,443,000
1,410,221,818
1,186,028,243
3,483,471,000
1,368,411,000
2,333,292,367
74,860,000
188,154,664
1,816,683,000
2,336,538,057
3,900,913,980
8,635,983
1,851,282,963
117,944,063
106,334,000
17,378,385,875
25,213,768,649
7,835,382,774
21,311,586,817
22,471,451,026
1,159,864,209
17,119,261,234
17,363,743,428
244,482,194
2,599,490,309
18,236,653,836
711,787,702,046
3,434,613,387
19,875,970,909
800,149,852,340
835,123,078
1,639,317,073
88,362,150,294
Recurrent Grant Budget
(TZS.)
Actual Recurrent Grant
received (TZS.)
216
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (ix): Over released Development Grants
during the year 2013/2014
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Name of LGA
Arusha DC
Kakonko DC
Kalambo DC
Kaliua DC
Kilwa DC
Kinondoni MC
Kisarawe DC
Longido DC
Mafia DC
Mbulu DC
Mkinga DC
Momba DC
Mpanda TC
Mtwara MC
Mufindi DC
Ngorongoro DC
Njombe DC
Sikonge DC
Songea MC
Sumbawanga DC
Tanga CC
Total
Final Budget
Development Grants
(TZS.)
1,518,302,000
346,362,000
1,859,276,000
1,375,602,319
4,221,942,374
13,695,849,294
3,214,617,773
3,429,730,000
2,067,548,000
2,475,413,740
1,563,341,500
2,121,361,774
3,838,377,000
4,148,697,000
4,473,701,910
5,205,662,778
1,876,739,963
1,622,331,684
2,112,213,572
2,786,817,087
8,641,315,467
72,595,203,235
Actual Amount
of Development
Grants Received
(TZS.)
5,081,399,664
1,585,320,000
1,942,467,000
1,720,349,900
4,271,007,174
18,313,285,170
3,398,337,572
3,510,360,000
2,669,171,000
2,594,067,580
2,791,198,430
2,586,037,846
4,781,639,075
7,084,374,000
4,626,675,915
5,578,495,570
2,910,428,373
2,298,708,749
2,768,801,395
4,023,244,507
10,654,517,201
95,189,886,121
Over released
development
Grants(TZS.)
3,563,097,664
1,238,958,000
83,191,000
344,747,581
49,064,800
4,617,435,876
183,719,799
80,630,000
601,623,000
118,653,840
1,227,856,930
464,676,072
943,262,075
2,935,677,000
152,974,005
372,832,792
1,033,688,410
676,377,065
656,587,823
1,236,427,420
2,013,201,734
22,594,682,886
217
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (x): Unreleased Recurrent Grants during the year 2013/2014
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Name of LGA
Itilima DC
Musoma DC
Wang‟ing‟ombe
DC
Ushetu DC
Igunga DC
Buhigwe DC
Misungwi DC
Kilosa DC
Ngorongoro DC
Njombe DC
Mbogwe DC
Lushoto DC
Ukerewe DC
Nanyumbu DC
Kiteto DC
Korogwe TC
Mbarali DC
Gairo DC
Mbeya DC
Tanga CC
Busokelo DC
Nyasa DC
Rufiji DC
Simanjiro DC
Kalambo DC
Momba DC
Iramba DC
Iringa DC
Kigoma/Ujiji MC
Lindi DC
Mwanza CC
Masasi TC
Newala DC
Ruangwa DC
Tabora DC
Nzega DC
Karagwe DC
Geita TC
Kilwa DC
Hai DC
Karatu DC
18,122,208,339
30,956,519,616
Actual Amount of
Recurrent Grants
Received (TZS.)
3,257,454,722
16,209,263,804
Unreleased
Recurrent
Grants(TZS.)
14,864,753,617
14,747,255,812
15,355,899,633
1,844,938,076
13,510,961,557
30,889,924,900
25,478,180,000
14,220,307,271
33,565,650,424
45,018,319,196
22,911,493,040
32,594,593,290
11,203,825,385
33,598,548,409
27,219,909,564
18,967,435,900
22,583,693,891
16,819,803,101
27,350,514,123
11,184,192,000
37,802,187,644
34,994,108,020
18,162,640,617
10,983,110,140
25,911,708,000
17,550,600,302
12,367,916,000
10,457,697,331
28,863,600,000
31,806,020,171
21,583,913,000
20,315,893,000
36,564,039,477
12,851,173,600
16,278,997,162
16,524,133,000
22,106,368,042
31,189,999,764
32,760,826,000
12,637,090,000
21,335,444,948
26,382,997,486
24,231,404,834
19,039,631,597
13,939,749,000
3,902,695,054
23,887,484,716
36,157,113,341
14,175,587,401
23,891,510,475
3,404,821,334
26,028,829,722
19,712,256,289
11,507,090,321
15,405,694,477
9,655,368,807
20,200,274,823
4,073,256,000
31,194,303,290
28,429,842,281
11,617,220,259
4,550,124,512
19,686,132,000
11,547,050,921
6,514,861,000
10,415,885,881
23,636,949,000
26,692,661,168
16,638,601,000
15,437,929,000
31,732,768,724
8,056,575,661
11,518,614,070
11,766,144,000
17,476,915,966
26,645,108,104
28,350,156,000
8,242,137,000
17,404,505,050
22,458,011,129
20,407,177,062
11,850,293,303
11,538,431,000
10,317,612,217
9,678,165,708
8,861,205,855
8,735,905,639
8,703,082,815
7,799,004,051
7,569,718,687
7,507,653,275
7,460,345,579
7,177,999,414
7,164,434,294
7,150,239,300
7,110,936,000
6,607,884,354
6,564,265,739
6,545,420,358
6,432,985,628
6,225,576,000
6,003,549,381
5,853,055,000
41,811,450
5,226,651,000
5,113,359,003
4,945,312,000
4,877,964,000
4,831,270,753
4,794,597,939
4,760,383,092
4,757,989,000
4,629,452,076
4,544,891,660
4,410,670,000
4,394,953,000
3,930,939,898
3,924,986,357
3,824,227,772
Recurrent Grant
Budget(TZS.)
218
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
No
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
Name of LGA
Dodoma MC
Kyela DC
Bukombe DC
Korogwe DC
Babati DC
Mkinga DC
Hanang' DC
Mkalama DC
Kigoma DC
Temeke MC
Kilombero DC
Mpwapwa DC
Bariadi TC
Tunduru DC
Namtumbo DC
Ngara DC
Rombo DC
Sumbawanga MC
Mpanda DC
Bunda DC
Moshi DC
Babati TC
Mtwara DC
Uvinza DC
Mlele DC
Maswa DC
Muleba DC
Chunya DC
Makete DC
Handeni DC
Musoma MC
Iringa MC
Kondoa DC
Busega DC
Chamwino DC
Siha DC
Chato DC
Bahi DC
Rorya DC
Moshi MC
Mwanga DC
Rungwe DC
Nachingwea DC
Chemba DC
Ludewa DC
Recurrent Grant
Budget(TZS.)
29,403,099,800
25,929,982,715
26,068,580,611
21,035,498,015
24,548,245,000
13,606,974,110
24,624,637,000
13,236,260,867
31,559,654,000
73,653,478,441
33,034,997,745
23,349,317,239
9,887,144,363
25,221,398,416
17,306,801,482
24,211,032,554
31,224,444,097
20,975,047,499
19,278,783,000
29,056,430,000
48,378,550,437
13,804,071,707
20,534,605,000
14,895,822,000
6,469,413,000
23,600,082,380
27,273,102,200
18,029,649,632
16,051,732,997
25,808,834,598
17,735,620,034
19,819,110,282
26,628,511,082
3,739,524,276
22,185,099,250
13,734,385,554
19,065,503,903
16,092,126,676
13,610,570,037
24,843,908,804
16,331,562,091
33,052,661,170
17,274,287,000
15,004,069,547
17,897,824,673
Actual Amount of
Recurrent Grants
Received (TZS.)
25,791,648,815
22,377,891,619
22,668,396,781
17,909,033,931
21,432,313,000
10,639,461,039
21,680,165,000
10,330,080,000
28,659,784,000
70,763,561,032
30,205,984,698
20,587,114,837
7,259,482,666
22,654,480,045
14,762,455,643
21,729,726,291
28,816,922,700
18,582,300,064
16,896,762,000
26,761,051,000
46,107,710,062
11,611,154,833
18,549,620,000
12,986,609,000
4,594,639,000
21,773,936,858
25,459,912,957
16,291,343,115
14,313,530,532
24,103,632,610
16,062,781,666
18,251,580,311
25,073,372,478
2,197,367,426
20,643,147,135
12,243,170,773
17,589,454,749
14,654,150,560
12,189,262,109
23,435,229,672
14,929,523,533
31,667,097,633
15,899,548,000
13,644,633,605
16,601,353,196
Unreleased
Recurrent
Grants(TZS.)
3,611,450,985
3,552,091,096
3,400,183,830
3,126,464,084
3,115,932,000
2,967,513,071
2,944,472,000
2,906,180,867
2,899,870,000
2,889,917,409
2,829,013,047
2,762,202,402
2,627,661,697
2,566,918,371
2,544,345,839
2,481,306,263
2,407,521,397
2,392,747,435
2,382,021,000
2,295,379,000
2,270,840,375
2,192,916,874
1,984,985,000
1,909,213,000
1,874,774,000
1,826,145,522
1,813,189,243
1,738,306,517
1,738,202,465
1,705,201,988
1,672,838,368
1,567,529,971
1,555,138,604
1,542,156,850
1,541,952,115
1,491,214,781
1,476,049,154
1,437,976,116
1,421,307,928
1,408,679,132
1,402,038,558
1,385,563,537
1,374,739,000
1,359,435,942
1,296,471,477
219
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
No
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
Name of LGA
Recurrent Grant
Budget(TZS.)
Tarime DC
Ulanga DC
Serengeti DC
Mbozi DC
Meatu DC
Nyang'wale DC
Kaliua DC
Mvomero DC
Mbinga DC
Morogoro DC
Same DC
Misenyi DC
Longido DC
Kisarawe DC
Sengerema DC
Mufindi DC
Bukoba DC
Mpanda TC
Kongwa DC
Bumbuli DC
Sikonge DC
Lindi MC
Songea DC
Dar es salaam CC
Songea MC
Msalala DC
Kibaha DC
Nkasi DC
Singida MC
Kahama TC
Arusha DC
Bukoba MC
Meru DC
Shinyanga MC
Bariadi DC
Kishapu DC
Kwimba DC
Ileje DC
Kibaha TC
Bagamoyo DC
Total
26,401,594,904
21,241,521,767
21,363,300,000
30,125,986,000
17,701,789,060
2,928,147,000
9,121,876,697
27,450,891,700
37,503,345,941
19,030,094,237
29,467,224,054
16,644,553,029
12,368,990,000
17,333,597,503
40,811,040,000
32,430,854,962
21,804,050,144
8,079,078,768
20,801,843,153
14,086,096,960
11,929,635,038
8,251,476,900
17,073,024,404
3,434,227,000
23,450,000,000
13,015,270,815
13,588,766,900
16,346,474,015
14,127,810,996
13,437,497,432
28,993,916,460
12,983,071,877
28,028,962,041
14,971,027,840
29,874,762,993
19,658,898,683
27,443,601,158
17,540,471,218
14,407,780,513
29,090,752,000
2,755,118,626,066
Actual Amount of
Recurrent Grants
Received (TZS.)
25,108,828,100
19,951,643,583
20,108,701,000
23,481,526,827
16,471,714,301
1,721,083,000
7,944,677,149
26,274,656,937
36,331,893,341
17,883,503,111
28,411,448,613
15,601,952,518
11,332,731,000
16,299,634,605
39,802,400,000
31,552,893,764
20,939,422,956
7,252,519,267
19,986,732,327
13,283,608,001
11,149,941,656
7,513,768,915
16,353,698,390
2,858,137,000
22,910,904,553
12,539,535,199
13,160,298,285
15,946,517,000
13,746,258,863
13,062,995,145
28,638,414,702
12,650,032,106
27,699,222,111
14,654,509,194
29,594,352,439
19,406,392,088
27,207,116,023
17,483,970,047
14,394,516,979
29,082,563,117
2,337,889,784,223
Unreleased
Recurrent
Grants(TZS.)
1,292,766,804
1,289,878,184
1,254,599,000
6,644,459,173
1,230,074,759
1,207,064,000
1,177,199,548
1,176,234,763
1,171,452,600
1,146,591,126
1,055,775,441
1,042,600,511
1,036,259,000
1,033,962,898
1,008,640,000
877,961,198
864,627,188
826,559,501
815,110,826
802,488,959
779,693,382
737,707,985
719,326,014
576,090,000
539,095,447
475,735,616
428,468,615
399,957,015
381,552,133
374,502,287
355,501,758
333,039,771
329,739,930
316,518,646
280,410,554
252,506,595
236,485,135
56,501,171
13,263,534
8,188,883
417,228,841,843
220
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xi):
2013/2014
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Name of LGA
Magu DC
Sengerema DC
Songea DC
Chamwino DC
Dodoma MC
Arusha CC
Mbeya CC
Mpwapwa DC
Ulanga DC
Handeni DC
Bagamoyo DC
Serengeti DC
Bukoba DC
Kahama TC
Morogoro DC
Tabora DC
Geita DC
Kwimba DC
Monduli DC
Geita TC
Kigoma DC
Uvinza DC
Iringa MC
Mbeya DC
Maswa DC
Buhigwe DC
Mvomero DC
Korogwe DC
Mkalama DC
Bunda DC
Lushoto DC
Musoma DC
Tunduru DC
Nkasi DC
Msalala DC
Kilosa DC
Njombe TC
Tarime DC
Kondoa DC
Busega DC
Rorya DC
Unreleased
Development
Development
Grant
Budget(TZS)
13,178,528,653
13,236,574,000
12,828,566,179
10,197,666,255
12,309,696,554
11,543,595,000
28,584,551,000
7,624,631,484
8,512,373,568
8,258,736,891
8,603,167,041
9,300,265,000
7,017,578,112
10,322,472,066
7,448,923,391
6,113,251,553
8,269,888,203
9,212,204,750
8,201,633,000
7,551,349,311
5,040,353,000
6,050,941,000
7,729,540,208
8,533,772,943
6,634,391,156
4,148,954,395
6,754,669,922
5,750,692,168
3,852,867,840
6,555,552,000
6,414,399,092
5,234,296,590
7,020,421,962
7,380,968,985
5,850,280,169
7,644,478,933
7,880,569,196
5,793,149,572
5,069,715,502
4,733,136,042
8,036,896,223
Grants
Actual
Development
Grant
received(TZS)
2,534,669,254
3,753,432,000
4,146,356,499
2,822,756,443
5,302,600,497
4,929,979,000
22,246,622,000
2,105,028,038
3,386,647,408
3,136,381,198
3,539,233,673
4,423,853,000
2,296,145,528
5,683,309,329
2,965,013,299
1,713,932,912
3,877,725,816
4,827,898,383
3,914,712,000
3,449,752,787
1,045,994,000
2,061,080,000
3,814,631,189
4,765,518,688
2,889,161,509
550,753,514
3,188,909,127
2,238,546,309
451,124,000
3,257,451,000
3,204,166,594
2,031,884,249
3,864,504,224
4,272,593,000
2,767,197,866
4,561,605,455
4,812,391,087
2,726,093,170
2,051,031,833
1,771,820,591
5,104,860,080
during
the
Unreleased
Development
Grants(TZS)
(10,643,859,399)
(9,483,142,000)
(8,682,209,680)
(7,374,909,812)
(7,007,096,057)
(6,613,616,000)
(6,337,929,000)
(5,519,603,446)
(5,125,726,160)
(5,122,355,693)
(5,063,933,368)
(4,876,412,000)
(4,721,432,584)
(4,639,162,737)
(4,483,910,092)
(4,399,318,641)
(4,392,162,387)
(4,384,306,367)
(4,286,921,000)
(4,101,596,524)
(3,994,359,000)
(3,989,861,000)
(3,914,909,019)
(3,768,254,255)
(3,745,229,647)
(3,598,200,881)
(3,565,760,795)
(3,512,145,859)
(3,401,743,840)
(3,298,101,000)
(3,210,232,498)
(3,202,412,341)
(3,155,917,738)
(3,108,375,985)
(3,083,082,303)
(3,082,873,478)
(3,068,178,109)
(3,067,056,402)
(3,018,683,669)
(2,961,315,451)
(2,932,036,143)
221
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
year
No
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
Name of LGA
Kilombero DC
Misenyi DC
Namtumbo DC
Masasi DC
Simanjiro DC
Kishapu DC
Muleba DC
Ukerewe DC
Kyerwa DC
Kibaha TC
Busokelo DC
Manyoni DC
Dar es salaam CC
Kiteto DC
Bariadi DC
Rombo DC
Ludewa DC
Babati DC
Bukoba MC
Bariadi TC
Hanang' DC
Bukombe DC
Lindi DC
Temeke MC
Musoma MC
Tandahimba DC
Nsimbo DC
Ilemela MC
Meru DC
Kongwa DC
Ruangwa DC
Moshi MC
Moshi DC
Mbarali DC
Urambo DC
Makete DC
Shinyanga MC
Tabora MC
Morogoro MC
Bahi DC
Biharamulo DC
Mbinga DC
Korogwe TC
Development
Grant
Budget(TZS)
7,171,036,000
5,941,464,068
6,396,018,441
4,885,828,392
6,186,612,726
5,946,662,297
6,482,033,102
5,270,813,570
4,036,149,455
5,238,953,856
4,056,873,957
6,701,308,833
3,701,740,672
4,968,403,000
5,609,646,000
3,992,758,976
5,308,327,845
4,429,261,000
4,250,217,720
4,657,501,860
4,824,606,000
4,786,484,900
5,487,547,000
6,820,612,548
3,272,858,214
4,428,249,886
3,660,622,300
4,335,220,959
5,218,339,062
4,119,791,925
4,404,208,000
4,038,418,391
4,262,210,111
5,163,690,081
4,337,977,837
4,670,960,244
4,747,365,568
4,168,549,273
5,315,296,377
3,482,832,325
6,244,977,396
3,906,780,239
3,102,295,665
Actual
Development
Grant
received(TZS)
4,342,863,339
3,120,870,076
3,589,620,608
2,117,775,466
3,456,398,966
3,289,831,829
3,997,391,367
2,790,648,322
1,563,237,163
2,781,126,591
1,728,319,437
4,378,592,453
1,392,850,898
2,700,675,711
3,363,970,037
1,790,892,821
3,130,270,285
2,281,682,000
2,111,243,181
2,618,774,542
2,790,300,000
2,800,495,357
3,534,862,000
4,885,588,241
1,348,436,861
2,506,705,098
1,797,170,650
2,488,921,376
3,380,761,803
2,331,974,603
2,635,639,000
2,281,600,409
2,522,971,186
3,430,013,707
2,611,316,161
2,966,115,313
3,130,912,947
2,554,561,919
3,712,483,359
1,983,577,130
4,769,631,538
2,440,733,967
1,643,256,574
Unreleased
Development
Grants(TZS)
(2,828,172,661)
(2,820,593,992)
(2,806,397,833)
(2,768,052,926)
(2,730,213,760)
(2,656,830,468)
(2,484,641,735)
(2,480,165,248)
(2,472,912,292)
(2,457,827,265)
(2,328,554,520)
(2,322,716,380)
(2,308,889,774)
(2,267,727,289)
(2,245,675,963)
(2,201,866,155)
(2,178,057,560)
(2,147,579,000)
(2,138,974,539)
(2,038,727,318)
(2,034,306,000)
(1,985,989,543)
(1,952,685,000)
(1,935,024,307)
(1,924,421,353)
(1,921,544,788)
(1,863,451,650)
(1,846,299,583)
(1,837,577,259)
(1,787,817,322)
(1,768,569,000)
(1,756,817,982)
(1,739,238,925)
(1,733,676,374)
(1,726,661,676)
(1,704,844,931)
(1,616,452,621)
(1,613,987,354)
(1,602,813,018)
(1,499,255,195)
(1,475,345,858)
(1,466,046,272)
(1,459,039,091)
222
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
No
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
Name of LGA
Mkuranga DC
Ushetu DC
Kyela DC
Ngara DC
Nachingwea DC
Kibondo DC
Nanyumbu DC
Kigoma/Ujiji MC
Mpanda DC
Rufiji DC
Same DC
Babati TC
Kasulu DC
Rungwe DC
Newala DC
Karagwe DC
Masasi TC
Singida MC
Karatu DC
Siha DC
Muheza DC
Makambako TC
Ileje DC
Nzega DC
Chemba DC
Igunga DC
Mlele DC
Mwanza CC
Mwanga DC
Kilindi DC
Mbozi DC
Singida DC
Lindi MC
Kilolo DC
Misungwi DC
Kibaha DC
Ilala MC
Wang‟ing‟ombe DC
Liwale DC
Chato DC
Nyasa DC
Sumbawanga MC
Pangani DC
Development
Grant
Budget(TZS)
2,644,730,147
4,031,963,642
4,240,153,592
4,843,063,637
5,057,737,038
5,817,095,412
3,679,508,808
7,643,705,052
3,862,587,000
3,450,000,000
4,698,944,200
3,128,166,005
4,713,653,124
4,095,493,720
5,033,698,157
4,902,267,700
2,298,973,603
3,833,972,028
3,981,230,221
2,989,134,513
3,063,315,108
2,094,286,176
4,716,068,497
3,933,424,759
1,794,059,468
2,300,835,679
1,373,524,000
6,544,347,759
4,756,001,909
3,696,091,696
1,920,614,072
2,793,765,251
4,332,340,767
3,554,481,209
3,869,024,629
2,406,750,496
7,660,058,818
1,542,696,142
2,699,923,000
3,745,327,897
825,647,266
4,056,000,000
1,993,863,414
Actual
Development
Grant
received(TZS)
1,197,323,527
2,605,815,509
2,865,979,880
3,559,653,070
3,825,885,610
4,594,549,078
2,458,402,705
6,428,652,793
2,716,840,273
2,356,942,670
3,621,068,133
2,101,558,591
3,704,996,626
3,087,603,691
4,035,593,020
3,923,909,492
1,323,208,546
2,873,192,626
3,027,136,404
2,054,154,683
2,199,393,776
1,235,811,533
3,993,417,585
3,244,509,091
1,109,402,517
1,644,088,244
723,394,000
5,902,139,558
4,150,742,712
3,129,373,538
1,387,912,079
2,287,934,409
3,838,815,651
3,084,546,918
3,413,892,242
1,951,906,850
7,247,882,070
1,227,069,614
2,392,830,000
3,549,442,008
649,861,708
3,887,922,245
1,835,092,459
Unreleased
Development
Grants(TZS)
(1,447,406,620)
(1,426,148,133)
(1,374,173,712)
(1,283,410,567)
(1,231,851,428)
(1,222,546,334)
(1,221,106,103)
(1,215,052,259)
(1,145,746,727)
(1,093,057,330)
(1,077,876,067)
(1,026,607,414)
(1,008,656,498)
(1,007,890,029)
(998,105,137)
(978,358,208)
(975,765,057)
(960,779,402)
(954,093,817)
(934,979,830)
(863,921,332)
(858,474,643)
(722,650,912)
(688,915,668)
(684,656,951)
(656,747,435)
(650,130,000)
(642,208,201)
(605,259,197)
(566,718,158)
(532,701,993)
(505,830,842)
(493,525,116)
(469,934,291)
(455,132,387)
(454,843,646)
(412,176,748)
(315,626,528)
(307,093,000)
(195,885,889)
(175,785,558)
(168,077,755)
(158,770,955)
223
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
No
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
Name of LGA
Nyang'hwale DC
Ikungi DC
Iringa DC
Mtwara DC
Butiama DC
Bumbuli DC
Hai DC
Shinyanga DC
Meatu DC
Chunya DC
Total
Development
Grant
Budget(TZS)
806,139,024
1,218,032,000
8,435,477,592
3,954,672,000
3,794,825,534
1,685,774,651
3,033,695,982
2,720,376,790
3,420,975,057
3,070,000,000
743,215,699,222
Actual
Development
Grant
received(TZS)
656,400,000
1,075,000,000
8,305,604,879
3,826,864,000
3,677,629,546
1,592,075,294
2,948,459,982
2,658,444,879
3,365,056,699
3,040,806,239
431,178,620,091
Unreleased
Development
Grants(TZS)
(149,739,024)
(143,032,000)
(129,872,713)
(127,808,000)
(117,195,988)
(93,699,357)
(85,236,000)
(61,931,911)
(55,918,358)
(29,193,761)
(312,037,079,131)
224
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xii): Comparison of actual own source revenue collections
against recurrent expenditure
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Region
Arusha
Coast
Dar es
salaam
Dodoma
Geita
Iringa
Kagera
Name of LGA
Arusha CC
Arusha DC
Karatu DC
Longido DC
Meru DC
Monduli DC
Ngorongoro DC
Bagamoyo DC
Kibaha DC
Kibaha TC
Kisarawe DC
Mafia DC
Mkuranga DC
Rufiji DC
Dar es salaam CC
Ilala MC
Kinondoni MC
Temeke MC
Bahi DC
Chamwino DC
Chemba DC
Dodoma MC
Kondoa DC
Kongwa DC
Mpwapwa DC
Bukombe DC
Chato DC
Geita DC
Geita TC
Mbogwe DC
Nyang'hwale DC
Iringa DC
Iringa MC
Kilolo DC
Mufindi DC
Biharamulo DC
Bukoba DC
Bukoba MC
Karagwe DC
Kyerwa DC
Misenyi DC
Actual Revenue
Collected(TZS)
10,119,100,000
2,128,257,479
2,032,608,396
990,586,000
1,455,326,796
1,341,491,360
816,408,689
2,955,297,830
1,415,531,000
3,522,042,432
1,413,879,084
613,401,000
2,148,991,083
1,657,500,508
6,150,027,000
28,060,374,082
37,018,216,932
27,441,013,080
472,301,337
639,727,295
596,713,818
2,847,418,231
893,774,669
982,804,319
784,936,292
1,328,880,000
1,065,266,728
2,245,883,554
1,570,465,000
295,284,602
488,724,000
3,424,601,563
3,105,483,856
1,258,145,527
3,866,667,286
1,628,093,897
1,316,756,554
2,622,942,959
1,087,317,000
1,234,143,524
1,085,869,935
Actual Recurrent
Spent (TZS)
32,556,681,000
28,638,414,702
20,229,439,902
13,504,610,000
28,490,633,778
15,728,316,000
14,546,204,515
28,782,044,228
13,396,201,032
14,394,516,979
16,299,634,605
7,519,038,000
19,217,465,787
20,085,141,000
5,135,526,574
73,040,514,513
79,771,566,409
70,763,561,032
14,789,817,748
20,771,315,805
13,257,224,016
24,330,023,577
25,656,548,013
20,466,484,833
21,921,484,648
23,386,095,125
19,264,860,581
41,766,389,000
8,949,997,000
3,885,691,372
2,173,119,000
29,288,880,810
21,882,073,010
23,459,876,817
35,348,462,229
14,332,018,797
24,150,367,944
15,097,397,570
29,223,080,000
1,834,218,656
15,574,553,030
% of own
source to
recurrent
expenditure
31%
7%
10%
7%
5%
9%
6%
10%
11%
24%
9%
8%
11%
8%
120%
38%
46%
39%
3%
3%
5%
12%
3%
5%
4%
6%
6%
5%
18%
8%
22%
12%
14%
5%
11%
11%
5%
17%
4%
67%
7%
225
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
No
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
Region
Katavi
Kigoma
Kilimanjaro
Lindi
Manyara
Mara
Mbeya
Name of LGA
Muleba DC
Ngara DC
Mlele DC
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
Nsimbo DC
Buhigwe DC
Kakonko DC
Kasulu DC
Kibondo DC
Kigoma DC
Kigoma/Ujiji MC
Uvinza DC
Hai DC
Moshi DC
Moshi MC
Mwanga DC
Rombo DC
Same DC
Siha DC
Kilwa DC
Lindi DC
Lindi MC
Liwale DC
Nachingwea DC
Ruangwa DC
Babati DC
Babati TC
Hanang' DC
Kiteto DC
Mbulu DC
Simanjiro DC
Bunda DC
Butiama DC
Musoma DC
Musoma MC
Rorya DC
Serengeti DC
Tarime DC
Tarime TC
Busokelo DC
Chunya DC
Ileje DC
Actual Revenue
Collected(TZS)
1,886,411,087
518,035,586
991,416,000
1,632,023,000
1,009,256,813
781,618,622
95,570,183
133,575,000
885,695,529
551,136,000
854,489,000
1,371,110,000
724,654,000
1,422,532,545
1,830,744,060
5,259,315,049
721,491,481
1,042,422,045
1,414,578,212
1,130,349,269
2,228,462,519
866,276,000
1,194,518,841
1,849,388,000
1,535,022,000
1,723,565,000
1,758,753,000
1,410,939,612
1,420,969,000
882,990,574
785,624,430
1,067,869,516
1,558,974,000
429,810,153
414,850,991
1,292,592,665
618,945,939
1,774,559,900
3,059,579,242
603,439,988
592,752,628
3,750,798,080
1,039,644,773
Actual Recurrent
Spent (TZS)
27,434,815,227
21,968,330,972
4,852,338,000
22,809,320,000
9,086,530,915
3,310,782,184
3,265,113,577
1,844,746,000
35,536,614,325
22,175,175,431
28,659,784,000
16,569,356,000
12,986,609,000
22,400,678,797
46,107,710,062
23,435,229,672
15,689,272,586
29,788,807,459
29,727,952,269
12,656,132,161
17,208,567,305
15,437,929,000
8,524,164,027
12,392,977,000
15,360,432,000
11,766,382,000
21,338,273,000
11,611,154,833
22,245,496,000
17,599,680,861
27,906,214,000
13,108,264,364
27,818,250,000
2,740,758,735
17,305,065,257
16,948,908,000
12,010,706,390
20,365,688,000
25,503,827,737
3,165,641,719
10,439,263,401
19,908,369,724
14,280,500,006
% of own
source to
recurrent
expenditure
7%
2%
20%
7%
11%
24%
3%
7%
2%
2%
3%
8%
6%
6%
4%
22%
5%
3%
5%
9%
13%
6%
14%
15%
10%
15%
8%
12%
6%
5%
3%
8%
6%
16%
2%
8%
5%
9%
12%
19%
6%
19%
7%
226
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
No
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
Region
Morogoro
Mtwara
Mwanza
Njombe
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
Rukwa
Ruvuma
Name of LGA
Kyela DC
Mbarali DC
Mbeya CC
Mbeya DC
Mbozi DC
Momba DC
Rungwe DC
Kilombero DC
Kilosa DC
Morogoro DC
Morogoro MC
Mvomero DC
Ulanga DC
Gairo DC
Masasi DC
Masasi TC
Mtwara DC
Mtwara MC
Nanyumbu DC
Newala DC
Tandahimba DC
Ilemela MC
Kwimba DC
Magu DC
Misungwi DC
Mwanza CC
Sengerema DC
Ukerewe DC
Ludewa DC
Makambako TC
Makete DC
Njombe DC
Njombe TC
Wang‟ing‟ombe
DC
Kalambo DC
Nkasi DC
Sumbawanga DC
Sumbawanga MC
Mbinga DC
Namtumbo DC
Nyasa DC
Songea DC
2,385,872,119
1,525,613,683
6,814,448,000
1,781,207,548
2,061,179,610
1,157,244,466
2,123,257,412
3,953,972,418
1,650,363,606
728,913,545
3,787,815,134
952,194,593
2,586,673,954
308,731,000
1,742,338,932
1,371,633,129
680,387,000
2,131,621,000
1,290,849,574
1,946,989,429
2,197,819,369
3,149,909,112
1,005,748,017
1,428,549,627
977,187,473
8,380,628,791
1,303,616,000
830,277,814
1,360,639,858
1,561,049,047
740,374,784
670,957,885
3,889,407,520
24,982,000,201
20,340,880,190
36,661,199,000
31,078,156,925
30,907,864,708
4,777,947,085
32,682,473,999
30,679,744,190
36,202,070,483
18,763,011,762
33,686,146,265
25,579,524,525
22,129,743,007
2,975,355,000
20,607,156,518
7,044,391,468
18,515,626,000
12,025,305,000
11,507,090,321
11,450,046,575
18,070,639,160
26,645,356,610
28,021,007,930
36,211,792,314
25,956,501,456
35,438,801,289
39,479,727,000
21,596,578,757
16,601,353,196
8,634,168,196
13,745,346,076
24,133,376,833
18,092,750,003
% of own
source to
recurrent
expenditure
10%
8%
19%
6%
7%
24%
6%
13%
5%
4%
11%
4%
12%
10%
8%
19%
4%
18%
11%
17%
12%
12%
4%
4%
4%
24%
3%
4%
8%
18%
5%
3%
21%
677,645,095
742,809,000
949,234,000
987,246,196
1,279,464,305
1,714,070,907
910,871,106
377,848,968
314,760,225
1,716,860,647
6,402,322,000
17,610,529,000
31,615,677,819
23,222,094,940
38,036,891,553
14,762,455,644
4,668,936,954
15,994,603,273
39%
12%
5%
3%
6%
5%
6%
8%
2%
Actual Revenue
Collected(TZS)
Actual Recurrent
Spent (TZS)
227
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
No
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
Region
Shinyanga
Simiyu
Singida
Tabora
Tanga
Total
Name of LGA
Songea MC
Tunduru DC
Kahama TC
Kishapu DC
Msalala DC
Shinyanga DC
Shinyanga MC
Ushetu DC
Bariadi DC
Bariadi TC
Busega DC
Itilima DC
Maswa DC
Meatu DC
Ikungi DC
Iramba DC
Manyoni DC
Mkalama DC
Singida DC
Singida MC
Igunga DC
Kaliua DC
Nzega DC
Sikonge DC
Tabora DC
Tabora MC
Urambo DC
Bumbuli DC
Handeni DC
Kilindi DC
Korogwe DC
Korogwe TC
Lushoto DC
Mkinga DC
Muheza DC
Pangani DC
Tanga CC
Actual Revenue
Collected(TZS)
Actual Recurrent
Spent (TZS)
1,066,938,106
1,041,289,479
2,406,756,737
1,945,444,939
1,499,354,445
690,217,099
1,807,863,336
1,632,899,204
1,886,151,078
843,132,145
716,276,975
541,190,168
1,467,784,766
2,071,511,499
367,798,300
732,968,197
1,280,074,635
247,420,522
340,824,751
1,562,132,200
1,514,446,000
3,161,868,472
2,255,533,939
2,259,280,505
2,321,115,140
1,625,204,144
4,534,100,977
334,987,949
1,041,005,645
723,291,338
825,230,128
1,850,771,405
1,042,182,324
459,965,036
911,855,676
402,399,986
5,432,832,860
353,514,526,384
22,605,322,978
23,214,523,612
15,396,714,602
21,035,341,111
13,022,783,058
20,128,184,649
16,583,130,266
21,204,758,069
31,921,528,888
7,855,864,416
2,560,129,532
2,422,442,032
23,444,557,377
18,442,112,799
16,945,651,000
24,230,368,000
17,440,461,897
9,307,513,000
29,607,616,000
16,490,613,439
16,014,853,000
7,944,677,149
27,674,154,544
11,624,118,433
17,036,551,481
22,850,068,084
21,803,299,868
11,158,862,260
24,374,951,544
12,206,764,911
17,909,033,931
9,271,095,213
28,902,667,673
11,533,852,265
19,741,398,897
9,843,046,411
33,668,670,203
3,264,872,488,097
% of own
source to
recurrent
expenditure
5%
4%
16%
9%
12%
3%
11%
8%
6%
11%
28%
22%
6%
11%
2%
3%
7%
3%
1%
9%
9%
40%
8%
19%
14%
7%
21%
3%
4%
6%
5%
20%
4%
4%
5%
4%
16%
11%
228
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure(xiii): Unutilized Recurrent Grants
No.
Name of LGA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Arusha CC
Arusha DC
Babati DC
Bagamoyo DC
Bahi DC
Bariadi DC
Biharamulo DC
Buhigwe DC
Bukoba DC
Bukoba MC
Bukombe DC
Bumbuli DC
Bunda DC
Busega DC
Busokelo DC
Butiama DC
Chamwino DC
Chato DC
Chemba DC
Chunya DC
Dodoma MC
Gairo DC
Geita DC
Geita TC
Hai DC
Handeni DC
Igunga DC
Ilala MC
Ileje DC
Ilemela MC
Iramba DC
Iringa DC
Iringa MC
Itilima DC
Kahama TC
Kakonko DC
Kalambo DC
Karagwe DC
Karatu DC
Kasulu DC
Kibaha DC
Amount of Recurrent
Grants available
(TZS.)
34,324,144,000
28,852,593,786
21,781,368,000
29,777,315,750
15,796,911,545
30,300,096,549
13,610,909,419
3,902,695,054
21,925,562,173
12,985,265,580
23,451,371,611
14,137,037,462
26,974,180,000
2,197,367,426
11,638,341,694
3,562,522,316
21,566,756,885
18,731,827,453
13,644,633,605
16,629,498,487
26,515,625,347
4,073,256,000
40,522,453,000
8,242,137,000
22,963,025,901
26,253,053,316
17,598,360,000
74,109,909,337
18,959,587,933
24,476,364,956
24,572,821,000
27,375,113,524
18,356,675,849
3,257,454,722
13,327,671,610
1,915,071,000
6,514,861,000
28,566,156,000
20,523,853,322
36,348,438,554
13,878,837,944
Actual amount of
Recurrent Grants
Spent (TZS.)
32,556,681,000
28,638,414,702
21,338,273,000
28,782,044,228
14,789,817,748
29,828,389,329
13,079,465,946
3,265,113,577
21,279,031,195
12,850,740,050
22,901,577,054
11,158,862,260
26,387,496,000
1,887,949,685
9,846,510,782
1,871,248,035
20,771,315,805
18,203,972,359
13,257,224,016
15,936,757,922
24,330,023,577
2,975,355,000
38,336,619,000
7,461,300,000
22,400,678,797
24,374,951,544
16,014,853,000
73,040,514,513
13,287,569,698
24,099,666,636
24,230,368,000
26,608,995,561
18,286,757,911
2,422,442,032
12,921,798,837
1,844,746,000
5,355,069,000
28,350,156,000
20,229,439,902
35,536,614,325
13,396,201,032
Unutilized
Recurrent Grants
(TZS.)
1,767,463,000
214,179,084
443,095,000
995,271,522
1,007,093,797
471,707,220
531,443,473
637,581,477
646,530,978
134,525,530
549,794,557
2,978,175,202
586,684,000
309,417,741
1,791,830,912
1,691,274,281
795,441,080
527,855,094
387,409,589
692,740,565
2,185,601,770
1,097,901,000
2,185,834,000
780,837,000
562,347,104
1,878,101,772
1,583,507,000
1,069,394,824
5,672,018,235
376,698,320
342,453,000
766,117,963
69,917,938
835,012,690
405,872,773
70,325,000
1,159,792,000
216,000,000
294,413,420
811,824,229
482,636,912
229
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
% of
Unutili
zed
Recurr
ent
Grant
5%
1%
2%
3%
6%
2%
4%
16%
3%
1%
2%
21%
2%
14%
15%
47%
4%
3%
3%
4%
8%
27%
5%
9%
2%
7%
9%
1%
30%
2%
1%
3%
0%
26%
3%
4%
18%
1%
1%
2%
3%
No.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
Name of LGA
Kibaha TC
Kibondo DC
Kigoma DC
Kigoma/Ujiji MC
Kilindi DC
Kilolo DC
Kilombero DC
Kilosa DC
Kilwa DC
Kinondoni MC
Kisarawe DC
Kishapu DC
Kiteto DC
Kondoa DC
Kongwa DC
Korogwe DC
Korogwe TC
Kwimba DC
Kyela DC
Kyerwa DC
Lindi DC
Liwale DC
Ludewa DC
Lushoto DC
Mafia DC
Magu DC
Makambako TC
Makete DC
Manyoni DC
Masasi DC
Masasi TC
Maswa DC
Mbarali DC
Mbeya CC
Mbeya DC
Mbinga DC
Mbogwe DC
Mbozi DC
Mbulu DC
Meatu DC
Meru DC
Misenyi DC
Amount of Recurrent
Grants available
(TZS.)
15,576,031,000
26,076,912,277
28,988,572,000
17,279,983,000
12,251,872,701
23,818,085,011
32,101,975,935
36,746,049,608
17,566,479,637
80,200,750,419
16,776,957,105
19,779,222,889
16,687,100,307
25,789,552,613
20,837,898,190
18,191,845,251
9,800,846,372
27,536,727,344
24,548,333,440
1,661,579,806
18,140,636,000
12,600,923,000
17,255,753,815
30,868,770,743
7,954,163,000
34,775,963,216
8,861,591,664
15,015,807,737
20,056,249,905
21,897,062,903
8,452,654,764
22,182,979,242
20,640,231,659
37,048,581,000
31,969,725,703
38,005,215,724
3,639,879,581
24,024,493,918
28,332,707,000
16,618,636,299
29,466,945,274
15,609,314,203
Actual amount of
Recurrent Grants
Spent (TZS.)
14,394,516,979
22,175,175,431
28,659,784,000
16,569,356,000
12,206,764,911
22,372,230,399
30,679,744,190
36,202,070,483
17,208,567,305
79,771,566,409
16,299,634,605
18,954,212,640
16,421,743,926
25,656,548,013
20,466,484,833
17,909,033,931
9,271,095,213
27,004,316,941
22,627,737,705
1,615,290,557
15,437,929,000
12,392,977,000
16,601,353,196
28,318,947,845
7,519,038,000
34,417,694,551
8,634,168,196
13,745,346,076
17,440,461,897
20,607,156,518
7,044,391,468
22,035,546,464
20,340,880,190
36,661,199,000
31,078,156,925
36,789,963,825
3,287,104,381
23,963,103,570
27,906,214,000
16,612,663,541
28,490,633,778
15,574,553,030
Unutilized
Recurrent Grants
(TZS.)
1,181,514,021
3,901,736,846
328,788,000
710,627,000
45,107,790
1,445,854,612
1,422,231,745
543,979,125
357,912,332
429,184,010
477,322,500
825,010,249
265,356,381
133,004,600
371,413,357
282,811,320
529,751,159
532,410,403
1,920,595,735
46,289,249
2,702,707,000
207,946,000
654,400,619
2,549,822,898
435,125,000
358,268,665
227,423,468
1,270,461,661
2,615,788,008
1,289,906,385
1,408,263,296
147,432,778
299,351,469
387,382,000
891,568,778
1,215,251,899
352,775,200
61,390,348
426,493,000
5,972,758
976,311,496
34,761,173
230
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
% of
Unutili
zed
Recurr
ent
Grant
8%
15%
1%
4%
0%
6%
4%
1%
2%
1%
3%
4%
2%
1%
2%
2%
5%
2%
8%
3%
15%
2%
4%
8%
5%
1%
3%
8%
13%
6%
17%
1%
1%
1%
3%
3%
10%
0%
2%
0%
3%
0%
No.
Name of LGA
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
Misungwi DC
Mkalama DC
Mkinga DC
Mkuranga DC
Mlele DC
Momba DC
Monduli DC
Morogoro DC
Morogoro MC
Moshi DC
Moshi MC
Mpanda TC
Mpwapwa DC
Msalala DC
Mtwara DC
Mtwara MC
Mufindi DC
Muheza DC
Muleba DC
Musoma DC
Musoma MC
Mvomero DC
Mwanga DC
Mwanza CC
Nachingwea DC
Namtumbo DC
Nanyumbu DC
Newala DC
Ngara DC
Ngorongoro DC
Njombe DC
Nkasi DC
Nsimbo DC
Nyang'hwale DC
Nyasa DC
Nzega DC
Pangani DC
Rombo DC
Rorya DC
Ruangwa DC
Rufiji DC
Rungwe DC
Amount of Recurrent
Grants available
(TZS.)
25,349,369,989
10,330,080,000
11,575,535,400
21,861,480,681
4,594,639,000
5,024,888,608
16,601,153,000
19,536,962,771
34,526,123,804
47,311,399,593
24,060,950,401
8,506,111,050
22,306,999,036
12,539,535,199
19,867,703,000
13,331,016,000
32,229,096,765
20,696,623,054
26,012,279,796
16,419,475,172
16,248,869,666
27,047,460,992
15,530,810,528
35,803,688,792
16,826,248,000
15,219,609,075
11,907,989,706
12,247,714,327
22,551,728,566
15,375,065,470
24,400,300,692
15,990,238,000
2,270,395,283
1,721,083,000
4,550,124,512
31,422,969,355
10,755,948,101
30,493,983,799
12,473,093,731
11,953,441,000
21,001,095,000
33,408,104,625
Actual amount of
Recurrent Grants
Spent (TZS.)
24,690,648,264
9,307,513,000
11,533,852,265
19,217,465,787
3,809,607,000
4,777,947,085
15,728,316,000
18,763,011,762
33,686,146,265
46,107,710,062
23,435,229,672
8,437,176,137
21,921,484,648
12,108,206,948
18,515,626,000
12,025,305,000
31,552,893,764
19,741,398,897
25,639,422,719
16,327,404,164
15,721,118,473
25,579,524,525
14,992,695,104
35,438,801,289
15,360,432,000
14,762,455,644
11,507,090,321
11,450,046,575
21,764,556,297
14,546,204,515
24,133,376,833
15,900,975,000
2,249,823,771
1,509,605,000
4,154,655,598
27,674,154,544
9,843,046,411
29,788,807,459
12,010,706,390
11,766,382,000
20,085,141,000
30,708,241,153
Unutilized
Recurrent Grants
(TZS.)
658,721,725
1,022,567,000
41,683,135
2,644,014,894
785,032,000
246,941,523
872,837,000
773,951,009
839,977,539
1,203,689,531
625,720,729
68,934,913
385,514,388
431,328,251
1,352,077,000
1,305,711,000
676,203,001
955,224,157
372,857,077
92,071,008
527,751,193
1,467,936,467
538,115,424
364,887,503
1,465,816,000
457,153,431
400,899,385
797,667,752
787,172,269
828,860,955
266,923,859
89,263,000
20,571,512
211,478,000
395,468,914
3,748,814,811
912,901,690
705,176,340
462,387,341
187,059,000
915,954,000
2,699,863,472
231
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
% of
Unutili
zed
Recurr
ent
Grant
3%
10%
0%
12%
17%
5%
5%
4%
2%
3%
3%
1%
2%
3%
7%
10%
2%
5%
1%
1%
3%
5%
3%
1%
9%
3%
3%
7%
3%
5%
1%
1%
1%
12%
9%
12%
8%
2%
4%
2%
4%
8%
No.
Name of LGA
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
Same DC
Sengerema DC
Serengeti DC
Shinyanga DC
Shinyanga MC
Siha DC
Sikonge DC
Simanjiro DC
Singida DC
Songea DC
Songea MC
Sumbawanga DC
Sumbawanga MC
Tabora DC
Tabora MC
Tandahimba DC
Tanga CC
Tarime DC
Tarime TC
Temeke MC
Tunduru DC
Ukerewe DC
Urambo DC
Ushetu DC
Wang‟ing‟ombe
DC
Total
150
Amount of Recurrent
Grants available
(TZS.)
Actual amount of
Recurrent Grants
Spent (TZS.)
Unutilized
Recurrent Grants
(TZS.)
% of
Unutili
zed
Recurr
ent
Grant
3%
3%
2%
1%
1%
4%
3%
10%
2%
7%
3%
1%
5%
3%
2%
8%
8%
7%
8%
4%
2%
2%
4%
4%
29,355,454,168
40,747,166,000
20,861,945,000
19,403,589,697
14,822,676,724
13,226,703,305
11,963,086,082
13,354,331,425
30,325,500,000
17,255,172,450
23,188,430,345
32,002,987,280
20,170,154,399
17,632,553,286
23,382,216,765
19,718,443,963
29,970,740,093
27,311,369,403
3,434,613,387
73,385,393,279
22,837,335,568
20,699,569,069
22,766,627,597
20,671,160,854
28,389,446,328
39,479,727,000
20,365,688,000
19,141,160,361
14,662,433,639
12,656,132,161
11,624,118,433
12,059,658,631
29,607,616,000
15,994,603,273
22,605,322,978
31,615,677,819
19,074,236,046
17,036,551,481
22,850,068,084
18,070,639,160
27,543,442,568
25,503,827,737
3,165,641,719
70,763,561,032
22,309,670,820
20,349,646,237
21,803,299,868
19,900,257,465
966,007,840
1,267,439,000
496,257,000
262,429,336
160,243,085
570,571,144
338,967,649
1,294,672,794
717,884,000
1,260,569,177
583,107,367
387,309,461
1,095,918,353
596,001,805
532,148,681
1,647,804,803
2,427,297,525
1,807,541,666
268,971,668
2,621,832,247
527,664,748
349,922,832
963,327,729
770,903,389
1,844,938,076
1,716,860,647
128,077,429
7%
3,111,989,730,119
2,982,063,854,808
129,925,875,311
4%
232
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure(xiv): Unutilized Development Grants
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Name of LGA
Arusha CC
Arusha DC
Babati DC
Babati TC
Bagamoyo DC
Bahi DC
Bariadi DC
Bariadi TC
Biharamulo DC
Buhigwe DC
Bukoba DC
Bukombe DC
Bumbuli DC
Bunda DC
Busega DC
Butiama DC
Chamwino DC
Chato DC
Chemba DC
Chunya DC
Dar es salaam CC
Dodoma MC
Gairo DC
Geita DC
Geita TC
Hai DC
Hanang' DC
Handeni DC
Igunga DC
Ikungi DC
Ilala MC
Ilemela MC
Iramba DC
Iringa DC
Iringa MC
Itilima DC
Kahama TC
Kakonko DC
Kalambo DC
Kaliua DC
Karagwe DC
Developments
Grants
available(TZS.)
7,531,544,000
6,117,753,762
3,573,921,000
3,038,692,453
5,536,687,911
3,477,360,079
6,220,989,595
3,239,423,878
6,244,977,396
550,753,514
4,031,824,454
5,816,539,109
1,592,075,294
3,720,425,000
1,771,820,591
3,677,629,546
5,565,480,005
5,304,685,711
1,109,402,517
6,081,612,478
3,079,869,543
9,124,652,289
1,031,207,000
6,401,677,120
3,449,752,787
4,170,680,527
4,518,772,000
6,458,779,730
3,300,818,944
1,075,000,000
8,762,721,785
2,912,222,878
5,785,387,000
9,805,816,014
5,449,780,347
1,315,364,989
6,276,060,633
1,719,320,000
1,942,467,000
1,984,057,016
6,039,141,660
Development
Grants
spent(TZS.)
5,843,359,000
5,097,626,687
3,430,558,000
2,575,943,040
4,248,259,470
2,577,170,397
4,130,335,092
1,741,176,062
5,952,855,129
424,546,774
3,828,953,376
4,492,144,226
496,657,949
3,346,203,000
971,964,481
2,149,151,023
4,110,615,465
4,364,723,239
521,197,315
3,040,806,239
2,852,035,426
5,217,595,796
371,467,000
6,072,744,821
2,452,401,744
3,247,332,299
3,423,281,000
2,396,650,599
2,359,303,223
454,481,000
7,017,879,374
993,454,707
5,019,087,000
7,233,683,445
4,327,541,547
1,174,364,989
5,307,407,751
843,048,000
1,002,330,000
1,249,690,696
5,519,521,000
Unspent
amount(TZS.)
1,688,185,000
1,020,127,075
143,363,000
462,749,413
1,288,428,441
900,189,682
2,090,654,503
1,498,247,816
292,122,267
126,206,740
202,871,078
1,324,394,883
1,095,417,346
374,222,000
799,856,110
1,528,478,523
1,454,864,540
939,962,472
588,205,202
3,040,806,239
227,834,117
3,907,056,493
659,740,000
328,932,299
997,351,043
923,348,227
1,095,491,000
4,062,129,131
941,515,721
620,519,000
1,744,842,411
1,918,768,171
766,300,000
2,572,132,569
1,122,238,800
141,000,000
968,652,882
876,272,000
940,137,000
734,366,320
519,620,660
% of
unspe
nt
22%
17%
4%
15%
23%
26%
34%
46%
5%
23%
5%
23%
69%
10%
45%
42%
26%
18%
53%
50%
7%
43%
64%
5%
29%
22%
24%
63%
29%
58%
20%
66%
13%
26%
21%
11%
15%
51%
48%
37%
9%
233
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
No
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
Name of LGA
Karatu DC
Kasulu DC
Kibaha DC
Kibaha TC
Kibondo DC
Kigoma DC
Kigoma/Ujiji MC
Kilindi DC
Kilolo DC
Kilombero DC
Kilosa DC
Kilwa DC
Kinondoni MC
Kisarawe DC
Kishapu DC
Kiteto DC
Kondoa DC
Kongwa DC
Korogwe DC
Korogwe TC
Kwimba DC
Kyela DC
Kyerwa DC
Lindi DC
Lindi MC
Liwale DC
Longido DC
Ludewa DC
Lushoto DC
Mafia DC
Magu DC
Makambako TC
Makete DC
Manyoni DC
Masasi DC
Masasi TC
Maswa DC
Mbarali DC
Mbeya DC
Mbinga DC
Mbogwe DC
Mbozi DC
Mbulu DC
Meatu DC
Developments
Grants
available(TZS.)
3,802,168,698
5,504,662,585
2,406,750,496
4,491,442,868
5,680,467,078
3,914,271,000
8,609,115,305
5,039,526,112
3,748,227,822
8,286,329,257
8,119,193,535
4,271,007,174
22,468,980,997
4,274,357,131
4,382,914,163
3,790,011,503
4,067,830,513
3,018,644,768
4,327,924,511
2,825,097,817
5,638,742,156
5,304,433,153
1,563,237,163
5,409,557,000
5,098,436,737
3,006,445,000
5,763,120,000
4,122,061,148
3,883,083,777
3,119,432,000
5,660,126,563
1,235,811,533
4,059,541,261
6,381,739,017
4,058,280,566
1,434,701,246
3,773,490,617
4,832,029,370
5,836,032,985
4,375,461,441
343,266,030
2,199,696,305
4,164,090,580
4,332,103,566
Development
Grants
spent(TZS.)
3,725,957,903
4,011,633,753
2,253,592,902
3,002,555,832
5,120,531,788
3,745,527,000
7,929,690,000
4,131,192,985
3,158,397,061
4,377,210,809
3,942,387,303
3,083,526,130
18,313,285,170
3,146,253,701
3,651,486,725
1,742,685,844
3,369,787,704
2,504,486,300
1,756,625,717
2,141,401,972
5,157,115,176
2,648,579,910
1,099,365,512
3,700,007,000
3,350,605,525
1,301,611,000
3,121,038,000
2,345,615,780
2,871,708,550
2,393,467,000
4,912,509,878
651,468,104
2,385,069,531
2,022,104,025
3,761,605,441
512,652,316
3,273,789,502
4,335,613,695
4,929,780,556
3,454,877,606
225,647,585
1,899,649,516
2,310,113,580
3,179,721,654
Unspent
amount(TZS.)
76,210,795
1,493,028,832
153,157,594
1,488,887,036
559,935,290
168,744,000
679,425,305
908,333,127
589,830,761
3,909,118,448
4,176,806,232
1,187,481,044
4,155,695,827
1,128,103,430
731,427,438
2,047,325,659
698,042,809
514,158,468
2,571,298,794
683,695,845
481,626,980
2,655,853,243
463,871,651
1,709,550,000
1,747,831,212
1,704,834,000
2,642,082,000
1,776,445,368
1,011,375,227
725,965,000
747,616,685
584,343,429
1,674,471,730
4,359,634,992
296,675,125
922,048,930
499,701,115
496,415,675
906,252,429
920,583,835
117,618,445
300,046,789
1,853,977,000
1,152,381,912
% of
unspe
nt
2%
27%
6%
33%
10%
4%
8%
18%
16%
47%
51%
28%
18%
26%
17%
54%
17%
17%
59%
24%
9%
50%
30%
32%
34%
57%
46%
43%
26%
23%
13%
47%
41%
68%
7%
64%
13%
10%
16%
21%
34%
14%
45%
27%
234
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
No
Name of LGA
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
Meru DC
Misenyi DC
Misungwi DC
Mkalama DC
Mkinga DC
Mkuranga DC
Mlele DC
Momba DC
Monduli DC
Morogoro DC
Morogoro MC
Moshi DC
Moshi MC
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
Mpwapwa DC
Msalala DC
Mtwara DC
Mtwara MC
Mufindi DC
Muheza DC
Muleba DC
Musoma DC
Musoma MC
Mvomero DC
Mwanga DC
Mwanza CC
Nachingwea DC
Namtumbo DC
Nanyumbu DC
Newala DC
Ngara DC
Ngorongoro DC
Njombe DC
Njombe TC
Nkasi DC
Nsimbo DC
Nyang‟hwale DC
Nyasa DC
Nzega DC
Pangani DC
Rombo DC
Rorya DC
Ruangwa DC
Developments
Grants
available(TZS.)
4,550,104,064
5,100,249,337
4,500,166,944
451,124,000
4,988,609,733
3,256,415,857
723,394,000
2,586,037,846
9,001,305,000
4,512,364,779
5,486,212,946
4,189,973,715
3,425,132,293
5,664,021,698
6,513,525,015
3,555,225,968
2,767,197,866
5,581,433,000
13,303,468,000
6,685,546,713
3,141,710,677
7,976,078,462
2,951,197,758
1,951,394,861
6,212,932,497
4,425,819,484
8,460,513,748
3,839,885,610
7,186,529,076
3,763,577,523
5,655,902,447
4,834,189,668
5,578,495,570
3,971,208,676
7,947,014,277
5,309,533,000
1,797,170,650
656,400,000
649,861,708
6,354,075,965
2,479,928,042
3,234,631,875
7,255,365,497
3,783,813,000
Development
Grants
spent(TZS.)
3,778,487,461
4,776,269,011
2,654,811,038
301,189,000
3,657,834,458
2,120,070,957
696,654,000
964,709,811
7,886,910,000
2,236,542,915
3,585,193,826
3,280,902,930
2,322,358,268
3,605,017,875
4,277,377,591
2,570,647,911
1,890,592,071
4,867,514,000
9,780,701,000
4,174,871,625
2,326,983,064
6,525,352,932
2,294,902,555
846,643,359
3,882,881,939
3,603,223,323
7,465,885,774
2,367,254,075
4,479,341,792
3,701,481,502
4,117,036,411
4,095,290,363
4,649,931,881
2,542,578,256
4,785,465,534
3,997,417,000
528,232,677
605,000,000
378,134,945
4,439,906,834
1,714,688,560
2,199,822,274
5,217,209,085
3,307,987,000
Unspent
amount(TZS.)
771,616,603
323,980,326
1,845,355,906
149,935,000
1,330,775,275
1,136,344,900
26,740,000
1,621,328,035
1,114,395,000
2,275,821,864
1,901,019,120
909,070,785
1,102,774,025
2,059,003,823
2,236,147,424
984,578,057
876,605,795
713,919,000
3,522,767,000
2,510,675,088
814,727,613
1,450,725,530
656,295,203
1,104,751,502
2,330,050,558
822,596,161
994,627,974
1,472,631,535
2,707,187,284
62,096,021
1,538,866,036
738,899,305
928,563,689
1,428,630,420
3,161,548,743
1,312,116,000
1,268,937,973
51,400,000
271,726,763
1,914,169,131
765,239,482
1,034,809,601
2,038,156,412
475,826,000
% of
unspe
nt
17%
6%
41%
33%
27%
35%
4%
63%
12%
50%
35%
22%
32%
36%
34%
28%
32%
13%
26%
38%
26%
18%
22%
57%
38%
19%
12%
38%
38%
2%
27%
15%
17%
36%
40%
25%
71%
8%
42%
30%
31%
32%
28%
13%
235
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
No
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
Name of LGA
Rufiji DC
Same DC
Sengerema DC
Serengeti DC
Shinyanga DC
Shinyanga MC
Siha DC
Sikonge DC
Simanjiro DC
Singida DC
Singida MC
Songea DC
Songea MC
Sumbawanga DC
Sumbawanga MC
Tabora DC
Tabora MC
Tandahimba DC
Tanga CC
Tarime DC
Temeke MC
Tunduru DC
Ukerewe DC
Ulanga DC
Urambo DC
Ushetu DC
Uvinza DC
Wanging‟ombe
DC
Total
Developments
Grants
available(TZS.)
3,648,116,560
4,477,287,514
6,248,118,000
5,109,723,000
3,295,846,284
4,095,118,670
3,754,037,964
5,098,731,655
3,996,129,151
4,275,152,460
4,740,956,304
7,544,144,932
3,315,911,472
4,921,010,989
5,120,460,689
4,556,038,804
4,273,939,195
3,225,609,577
13,874,558,658
5,674,951,067
6,372,832,110
7,726,249,836
4,948,986,629
6,639,092,000
5,133,598,674
5,677,298,332
2,061,080,000
Development
Grants
spent(TZS.)
2,931,148,000
2,790,785,116
5,904,162,000
4,174,079,000
2,871,875,520
3,839,947,487
2,629,640,081
4,196,462,341
3,410,908,243
3,335,517,544
3,197,822,122
5,621,705,616
1,880,211,526
2,760,995,547
3,675,244,106
2,751,124,859
2,175,465,701
2,738,370,944
11,954,884,378
2,833,985,801
3,161,647,368
3,092,420,704
4,160,857,583
4,214,749,231
3,297,793,372
3,224,912,158
1,714,809,000
1,227,069,614
734,721,779,087
720,301,977
531,594,614,629
Unspent
amount(TZS.)
716,968,560
1,686,502,398
343,956,000
935,644,000
423,970,764
255,171,183
1,124,397,883
902,269,314
585,220,908
939,634,916
1,543,134,182
1,922,439,316
1,435,699,946
2,160,015,442
1,445,216,583
1,804,913,945
2,098,473,494
487,238,633
1,919,674,280
2,840,965,266
3,211,184,742
4,633,829,132
788,129,046
2,424,342,769
1,835,805,302
2,452,386,174
346,271,000
506,767,637
203,127,164,458
% of
unspe
nt
20%
38%
6%
18%
13%
6%
30%
18%
15%
22%
33%
25%
43%
44%
28%
40%
49%
15%
14%
50%
50%
60%
16%
37%
36%
43%
17%
41%
28%
236
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xv): List of Councils showing under collection of Produce cess
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Name of LGA
Karatu DC
Monduli DC
Ngorongoro DC
Meru DC
Longido DC
Bagamoyo DC
Mkuranga DC
Geita DC
Bukombe DC
Muleba DC
Ngara DC
Kyerwa DC
Missenyi DC
Buhigwe DC
Uvinza DC
Hai DC
Siha DC
Mwanga DC
Hanang‟ DC
Bunda DC
Mbeya DC
Mbozi DC
Kilombero DC
Morogoro MC
Newala DC
Kwimba DC
Magu DC
Kalambo DC
Songea DC
Tunduru DC
Namtumbo DC
Kishapu DC
Msalala DC
Ikungi DC
Iramba DC
Singida DC
Bariadi TC
Maswa DC
Korogwe DC
Lushoto DC
Pangani DC
Approved
Budget (TZS.)
220,000,000
12,060,000
20,000,000
115,800,000
32,022,000
248,800,000
132,000,000
340,000,000
584,310,000
489,900,000
153,000,000
1,044,700,000
80,000,000
82,000,000
804,822,320
156,000,000
264,740,000
25,110,000
175,050,000
619,000,000
706,239,000
2,000,000,000
3,271,555,000
520,000,000
1,208,500,000
616,377,000
553,728,000
12,281,500
889,671,677
1,203,251,000
804,897,000
1,554,477,435
60,661,592
132,000,000
270,000,000
188,514,000
24,680,000
1,582,551,000
200,006,000
475,943,000
67,050,000
Actual collection
(TZS.)
0
702,000
1,430,000
25,900,710
15,900,000
113,204,500
103,700,000
154,009,450
375,090,643
287,781,765
116,898,765
740,112,340
31,646,308
48,710,000
492,371,000
78,746,923
199,219,599
8,915,715
86,384,000
311,718,625
526,845,911
1,312,993,965
2,659,273,640
351,627,406
889,441,894
370,526,944
349,776,275
6,886,000
179,720,478
581,392,514
524,089,615
1,193,709,985
35,922,100
69,776,300
206,863,398
129,197,300
21,060,000
1,135,904,269
123,571,598
364,754,926
36,061,500
% of
under
collecti
on
(100)
(94)
(93)
(78)
(50)
(54)
(21)
(55)
(36)
(41)
(24)
(29)
(60)
(41)
(39)
(50)
(25)
(64)
(51)
(50)
(25)
(34)
(19)
(32)
(26)
(40)
(37)
(44)
(80)
(52)
(35)
(23)
(41)
(47)
(23)
(31)
(15)
(28)
(38)
(23)
(46)
Under
collection
(TZS.)
(220,000,000)
(11,358,000)
(18,570,000)
(89,899,290)
(16,122,000)
(135,595,500)
(28,300,000)
(185,990,550)
(209,219,357)
(202,118,235)
(36,101,235)
(304,587,660)
(48,353,692)
(33,290,000)
(312,451,320)
(77,253,077)
(65,520,401)
(16,194,285)
(88,666,000)
(307,281,375)
(179,393,089)
(687,006,035)
(612,281,360)
(168,372,594)
(319,058,106)
(245,850,056)
(203,951,725)
(5,395,500)
(709,951,199)
(621,858,486)
(280,807,385)
(360,767,450)
(24,739,492)
(62,223,700)
(63,136,602)
(59,316,700)
(3,620,000)
(446,646,731)
(76,434,402)
(111,188,074)
(30,988,500)
237
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
No
Name of LGA
42
Mkinga DC
Total
Approved
Budget (TZS.)
67,000,000
22,008,697,524
Actual collection
(TZS.)
38,610,550
14,300,448,911
% of
under
collecti
on
(42)
(35)
Under
collection
(TZS.)
(28,389,450)
(7,708,248,613)
238
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xvi): Under performance of Epicor 9.05 system
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
NAME OF LGA
Bahi DC
Bariadi TC
Bumbuli DC
Busega DC
Busokelo DC
Chemba DC
Chunya DC
Dodoma MC
Geita DC
Geita TC
Hai DC
Igunga DC
Ileje DC
Ilemela MC
Iramba DC
Iringa DC
Iringa MC
Itilima DC
Kalambo DC
Kaliua DC
Kasulu DC
Kibaha DC
Kibaha TC
Kibondo DC
Kigoma DC
Kigoma/Ujiji MC
Kilolo DC
Kilombero DC
Kilosa DC
Kiteto DC
Kondoa DC
Kongwa DC
Korogwe DC
Kyela DC
Kyerwa DC
Lushoto DC
Masasi TC
Mbinga DC
Mbogwe DC
Mbozi DC
Mbulu DC
Not
align
with
IPSAS
No
reconcili
ation
No interface
with
Planrep/Law
son
Network
problem
Epicor
not
installed
v
Non use
of all
modules
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
239
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
NAME OF LGA
Mkinga DC
Mlele DC
Momba DC
Morogoro DC
Moshi DC
Moshi MC
Mpwapwa DC
Msalala DC
Mtwara MC
Mufindi DC
Muheza DC
Musoma DC
Mvomero DC
Mwanga DC
Nanyumbu DC
Newala DC
Ngara DC
Nkasi DC
Nsimbo DC
Nyasa DC
Nzega DC
Pangani DC
Rombo DC
Ruangwa DC
Same DC
Sengerema DC
Serengeti DC
Siha DC
Sikonge DC
Singida DC
Singida MC
Songea MC
Sumbawanga DC
Sumbawanga MC
Tabora DC
Tabora MC
Tanga CC
Tarime DC
Tarime TC
Ulanga DC
Urambo DC
Wang‟ing‟ombe
DC
Not
align
with
IPSAS
v
No
reconcili
ation
No interface
with
Planrep/Law
son
v
Network
problem
Epicor
not
installed
v
Non use
of all
modules
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
240
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
NAME OF LGA
Buhigwe DC
Kakonko DC
Uvinza DC
Ikungi DC
Mkalama DC
Nyanghw'ale DC
Kahama TC
Not
align
with
IPSAS
No
reconcili
ation
No interface
with
Planrep/Law
son
Network
problem
Epicor
not
installed
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
241
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Non use
of all
modules
Annexure (xvii): IT general control environment
Name of LGA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Arusha CC
Arusha DC
Babati DC
Babati TC
Bagamoyo DC
Bahi DC
Bukombe DC
Bumbuli DC
Busega DC
Busokelo DC
Butiama DC
Chamwino DC
Chunya DC
Dodoma MC
Geita TC
Hanang' DC
Ikungi DC
Ilala MC
Ilemela MC
Iringa DC
Iringa MC
Itilima DC
Kahama TC
Kalambo DC
Kaliua DC
Karatu DC
Kibaha DC
Kigoma DC
Kilindi DC
Kilolo DC
Kilombero DC
Kilosa DC
Kilwa DC
Kinondoni MC
Kishapu DC
Kondoa DC
Kongwa DC
Korogwe DC
Korogwe TC
Kyerwa DC
Lindi DC
No IT
policy
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
No disaster
recovery
plan
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Lack of
skilled
staff/traini
ng
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Insufficient
protection of
IT equipment
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
No
documented
user
standards
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
242
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Name of LGA
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
Lindi MC
Liwale DC
Longido DC
Ludewa DC
Lushoto DC
Mafia DC
Magu DC
Makambako TC
Makete DC
Masasi DC
Masasi TC
Maswa DC
Mbeya CC
Mbeya DC
Mbinga DC
Mbozi DC
Mbulu DC
Meatu DC
Meru DC
Misungwi DC
Mkalama DC
Momba DC
Monduli DC
Morogoro MC
Moshi DC
Moshi MC
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
Mpwapwa DC
Msalala DC
Mtwara MC
Mufindi DC
Muheza DC
Mvomero DC
Mwanga DC
Namtumbo DC
Newala DC
Ngorongoro DC
Nsimbo DC
Nyang‟hwale DC
Nyasa DC
Nzega DC
Pangani DC
No IT
policy
No disaster
recovery
plan
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
No
documented
user
standards
√
√
Insufficient
protection of
IT equipment
√
√
√
Lack of
skilled
staff/traini
ng
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
243
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Name of LGA
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
Rombo DC
Rorya DC
Ruangwa DC
Rungwe DC
Sengerema DC
Serengeti DC
Shinyanga MC
Sikonge DC
Simanjiro DC
Singida DC
Singida MC
Songea DC
Songea MC
Sumbawanga DC
Sumbawanga
MC
Tabora DC
Tanga CC
Tarime TC
Ukerewe DC
Ulanga DC
Urambo DC
Wang‟ing‟ombe
DC
Gairo DC
No IT
policy
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
No disaster
recovery
plan
No
documented
user
standards
√
√
√
Lack of
skilled
staff/traini
ng
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Insufficient
protection of
IT equipment
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
244
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xviii): Performance of internal Audit
S/N
NAME OF LGA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Arusha CC
Arusha DC
Babati DC
Babati TC
Bahi DC
Bariadi TC
Buhigwe DC
Bukombe DC
Bumbuli DC
Bunda DC
Busega DC
Busokelo DC
Butiama DC
Chamwino DC
Chato DC
Chemba DC
Chunya DC
Dodoma MC
Geita DC
Geita TC
Hai DC
Hanang' DC
Handeni DC
Ikungi DC
Ileje DC
Ilemela MC
Iringa MC
Itilima DC
Kahama TC
Kakonko DC
Kalambo DC
Karatu DC
Kibaha DC
Kibaha TC
Kibondo DC
Kigoma DC
Kigoma/Ujiji
MC
Kilindi DC
Kilolo DC
Kilombero DC
37
38
39
40
Insufficient
number of
staff
Lack of
facilities
Lack of
training
v
v
v
v
v
v
Non
preparation
of audit
programme
No quality
review
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
245
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
NAME OF LGA
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
Kilosa DC
Kilwa DC
Kinondoni MC
Kishapu DC
Kiteto DC
Kondoa DC
Kongwa DC
Korogwe DC
Korogwe TC
Kyela DC
Kyerwa DC
Lindi DC
Lindi MC
Liwale DC
Longido DC
Ludewa DC
Lushoto DC
Mafia DC
Magu DC
Makete DC
Masasi DC
Masasi TC
Maswa DC
Mbarali DC
Mbeya CC
Mbeya DC
Mbinga DC
Mbogwe DC
Mbozi DC
Mbulu DC
Meatu DC
Meru DC
Misungwi DC
Mkalama DC
Mkinga DC
Mlele DC
Momba DC
Morogoro DC
Moshi MC
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
Mpwapwa DC
Mtwara DC
Mtwara MC
Insufficient
number of
staff
Lack of
facilities
Lack of
training
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
Non
preparation
of audit
programme
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
No quality
review
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
246
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
NAME OF LGA
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
Mufindi DC
Muheza DC
Musoma DC
Musoma MC
Mvomero DC
Mwanga DC
Mwanza CC
Namtumbo DC
Nanyumbu DC
Ngorongoro
DC
Nkasi DC
Nsimbo DC
Nyanghw'ale
DC
Nyasa DC
Nzega DC
Pangani DC
Rombo DC
Rorya DC
Ruangwa DC
Sengerema DC
Serengeti DC
Shinyanga DC
Siha DC
Sikonge DC
Simanjiro DC
Singida DC
Singida MC
Songea DC
Sumbawanga
DC
Sumbawanga
MC
Tabora DC
Tabora MC
Tanga CC
Tarime DC
Tarime TC
Tunduru DC
Ukerewe DC
Ulanga DC
Ushetu DC
Uvinza DC
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
Insufficient
number of
staff
Lack of
facilities
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
Non
preparation
of audit
programme
No quality
review
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
Lack of
training
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
247
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
NAME OF LGA
Insufficient
number of
staff
125
Wanging‟ombe
DC
v
Lack of
facilities
v
Lack of
training
Non
preparation
of audit
programme
No quality
review
v
248
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xix): Performance of Audit Committee
S/N
NAME OF LGA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Arusha DC
Babati DC
Bariadi TC
Bunda DC
Busega DC
Busokelo DC
Butiama DC
Chamwino DC
Chato DC
Chemba DC
Chunya DC
Geita DC
Hai DC
Hanang' DC
Handeni DC
Igunga DC
Ilala MC
Ileje DC
Ilemela MC
Iringa DC
Itilima DC
Kahama TC
Kakonko DC
Kalambo DC
Kaliua DC
Karatu DC
Kasulu DC
Kibaha TC
Kibondo DC
Kigoma DC
Kigoma/Ujiji
MC
Kilindi DC
Kilolo DC
Kilombero DC
Kilosa DC
Kinondoni MC
Kishapu DC
Kiteto DC
Kondoa DC
Kongwa DC
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Lack of
financial
expertise &
experience
v
v
No
regular
meeting
F/S Not
reviewed
risk,
fraud
V
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
V
V
v
v
v
v
v
Did not
prepare &
submit
annual
report
Not
established
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
V
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
V
V
v
v
V
v
V
v
v
v
v
v
V
V
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
249
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
NAME OF LGA
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Korogwe DC
Korogwe TC
Kwimba DC
Kyerwa DC
Lindi DC
Liwale DC
Longido DC
Ludewa DC
Lushoto DC
Mafia DC
Magu DC
Makambako
TC
Maswa DC
Mbarali DC
Mbeya CC
Mbeya DC
Mbogwe DC
Mbozi DC
Mbulu DC
Meatu DC
Meru DC
Misungwi DC
Mkalama DC
Momba DC
Monduli DC
Morogoro DC
Morogoro MC
Moshi DC
Moshi MC
Mpwapwa DC
Mtwara DC
Mufindi DC
Musoma DC
Mvomero DC
Mwanga DC
Mwanza CC
Namtumbo DC
Nanyumbu DC
Newala DC
Ngorongoro
DC
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Lack of
financial
expertise &
experience
No
regular
meeting
F/S Not
reviewed
risk,
fraud
v
v
v
v
v
v
V
v
v
V
v
Did not
prepare &
submit
annual
report
v
v
v
Not
established
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
v
V
V
V
V
v
V
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
250
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
NAME OF LGA
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
Nsimbo DC
Nyasa DC
Nzega DC
Pangani DC
Rombo DC
Rorya DC
Ruangwa DC
Rungwe DC
Same DC
Sengerema DC
Serengeti DC
Shinyanga DC
Siha DC
Simanjiro DC
Singida DC
Singida MC
Songea DC
Songea MC
Sumbawanga
MC
Tabora DC
Tabora MC
Tanga CC
Tarime DC
Tarime TC
Tunduru DC
Ukerewe DC
Urambo DC
Ushetu DC
Wanging‟ombe
DC
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
Gairo DC
Lack of
financial
expertise &
experience
No
regular
meeting
V
V
V
V
F/S Not
reviewed
risk,
fraud
Did not
prepare &
submit
annual
report
Not
established
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
V
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
V
v
V
v
v
V
V
v
v
V
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
251
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xx): Risk Management Assessment
S/N
NAME OF LGA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Arusha CC
Arusha DC
Babati DC
Babati TC
Bahi DC
Bariadi TC
Bukombe DC
Bumbuli DC
Bunda DC
Busokelo DC
Butiama DC
Chunya DC
Geita TC
Hai DC
Hanang' DC
Ikungi DC
Ilala MC
Iramba DC
Itilima DC
Kahama TC
Kaliua DC
Kibaha DC
Kigoma DC
Kigoma/Ujiji MC
Kilindi DC
Kiteto DC
Kondoa DC
Kongwa DC
Korogwe TC
Kwimba DC
Kyela DC
Ludewa DC
Lushoto DC
Mafia DC
Magu DC
Manyoni DC
Maswa DC
Mbeya CC
Mbinga DC
Mbogwe DC
Mbulu DC
Misungwi DC
Mkalama DC
No regular
Assessment
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
No risk
management
policy
No risk
report
No risk
register
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
252
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
NAME OF LGA
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Mkinga DC
Mlele DC
Momba DC
Monduli DC
Moshi DC
Msalala DC
Muheza DC
Musoma DC
Mwanga DC
Namtumbo DC
Nanyumbu DC
Ngorongoro DC
Njombe TC
Nkasi DC
Nsimbo DC
Nyasa DC
Nzega DC
Pangani DC
Rombo DC
Rorya DC
Same DC
Sengerema DC
Siha DC
Singida DC
Singida MC
Songea DC
Songea MC
Sumbawanga DC
Tanga CC
Tarime TC
Tunduru DC
Urambo DC
No regular
Assessment
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
No risk
management
policy
No risk
report
No risk
register
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
253
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xxi): Fraud prevention and controls
S/N
NAME OF LGA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Arusha CC
Arusha DC
Babati TC
Bumbuli DC
Busokelo DC
Butiama DC
Chamwino DC
Chemba DC
Chunya DC
Dodoma MC
Geita TC
Handeni DC
Ilemela MC
Iramba DC
Kaliua DC
Karatu DC
Kibaha DC
Kilombero DC
Kinondoni MC
Kishapu DC
Korogwe DC
Kwimba DC
Kyela DC
Lindi DC
Liwale DC
Mafia DC
Magu DC
Manyoni DC
Mbeya CC
Mbogwe DC
Mbozi DC
Meatu DC
Misungwi DC
Mkinga DC
Mlele DC
Momba DC
Monduli DC
Morogoro MC
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
Mpwapwa DC
Musoma DC
Musoma MC
No
Approved
document
v
No specific
control
No process to
identify and
mitigate
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
254
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
NAME OF LGA
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Mvomero DC
Ngorongoro DC
Njombe TC
Nyanghw'ale DC
Nyasa DC
Nzega DC
Pangani DC
Shinyanga DC
Shinyanga MC
Sikonge DC
Singida DC
Songea MC
Tabora DC
Tarime TC
Tunduru DC
Ukerewe DC
Urambo DC
Wang‟ing‟ombe
DC
Gairo DC
61
62
No
Approved
document
v
v
v
v
v
No specific
control
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
No process to
identify and
mitigate
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
255
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xxii) Missing Receipt books
S/No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Name of the
LGA
Bahi DC
Baradi DC
Baradi TC
Buhigwe DC
Bukoba MC
Bunda DC
Busega DC
Busekelo DC
Chemba DC
Dodoma MC
Ileje DC
Karatu DC
Kibondo DC
Kigoma Ujiji
MC
Kilindi DC
Kishapu DC
Kiteto DC
Korogwe DC
Kwimba DC
Longido DC
Mafia
Magu DC
Masasi TC
Maswa DC
Number of
books
10
4
1
16
1
3
2
2
4
1
1
9
79
S/No
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Name of the LGA
Meru DC
Misungwi DC
Mkinga DC
Mlele DC
Monduli
Mtwara DC
Musoma MC
Mvomero DC
Mwanza CC
Nantumbo DC
Nanyumbu DC
Newala DC
Ngorongoro
19
38
Nzega DC
3
3
4
4
26
37
1
2
34
4
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Pangani DC
Rungwe
Same DC
Sindida MC
Songea DC
Sumbawanga DC
Tabora DC
Tunduru DC
Ushetu DC
Total
Number of
books
17
1
3
13
1
1
2
49
20
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
3
1
2
24
55
1
474
256
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xxiii) Revenue collection not remitted by collecting
agents TZS.4,898,468,318
S/No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LGAs
Arusha CC
Bariadi DC
Bariadi TC
Biharamulo
Bukoba DC
Bukumbe DC
Bumbuli DC
Bunda DC
Butiama DC
Dodoma MC
Gairo DC
Hanang DC
Handeni DC
Ilala MC
Ilemela MC
Iringa MC
Kalembo DC
Karatu DC
Kigma Ujiji
MC
Kilindi DC
Kilolo DC
Kiteto DC
Korogwe TC
Kyela DC
Lind MC
Longido DC
Lushoto DC
Ludewa DC
Amount (TZS.)
2,944,358
13,735,000
1,980,000
3,826,000
7,232,000
4,721,000
27,131,598
13,485,000
3,484,575
8,000,000
48,770,000
7,743,065
151,755,750
235,814,400
886,416,771
8,551,500
33,300,000
39,567,940
13,900,000
29,390,000
73,000,000
1,993,430
5,180,000
23,500,000
17,509,220
63,076,000
39,329,500
19,944,919
S/No
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
LGAs
Makambako TC
Masasi TC
Mbeya CC
Mbogwe DC
Mbozi DC
Mbulu DC
Meatu DC
Misenyi DC
Misungwi DC
Mlele DC
Morogoro MC
Mpanda TC
Mpwapwa
Mwanza CC
Ngara DC
Njombe TC
Nsimbo DC
Nyang'wale DC
Pangani DC
Amount (TZS.)
147,200,000
15,528,000
50,720,000
6,029,300
2,150,000
32,272,500
82,240,628
31,746,500
4,800,000
90,015,833
148,545,000
8,674,000
2,150,000
1,191,970,000
5,200,000
10,950,000
8,917,000
17,183,500
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Rorya DC
Rufiji DC
Sengerema DC
Shinyanga MC
Simanjiro DC
Sumbawanga DC
Ukerewe DC
Total
23,650,000
583,502,298
36,017,500
15,822,500
6,498,000
522,480,100
12,410,000
4,844,013,685
2,059,000
257
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure xxiv:
Revenue from own sources not collected by LGAs
TZS.17,168,528,904
S/No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
LGA
Revenue Source
Arusha CC
Babati TC
Biharamulo DC
Biharamulo DC
Biharamulo DC
Dodoma MC
Dodoma MC
Hanang DC
Hanang DC
Hanang DC
Handeni DC
Ikungi DC
Itilima DC
Kahama TC
Kibaha TC
Kilombero DC
Kilosa DC
Kishapu DC
Ludewa DC
Ludewa DC
Magu DC
Makambako TC
Makete DC
Masasi TC
Mbinga DC
Mbinga DC
Meru DC
Meru DC
Mlele DC
Morogoro DC
Morogoro MC
Morogoro MC
Moshi MC
Moshi MC
Mpanda TC
Mpanda TC
Mpwapwa DC
Muheza DC
Musoma MC
Mwanza CC
Nachingwea DC
Hotel levy
Service levy
Produce cess
Produce cess
Service Levy
property tax
Rent
Bill board fees
Rent
Rent
Rent
Service Levy
Produce cess
Sales of plots
Service Levy
Business licences
Rent
property tax
Rent
Rent
Rent
property tax
Mineral rent/Royalties
Service levy
Service levy
Service levy
Penalties
Penalties
Sales of plots
Market dues
Guest levies
Rent
Bill board fees
Rent
Penalties
Rent
Penalties
Guest house Levy
Rent
Produce cess
Rent
Amount not Collected
(TZS.)
7,809,400
2,236,000
182,641,220
57,697,250
92,160,221
36,443,050
6,330,000
9,378,875
9,497,008
2,450,000
13,042,574
6,129,150
3,260,470
320,129,000
1,894,443
34,806,500
10,030,000
216,965,280
4,515,000
4,084,380
2,470,000
115,000,000
324,536,000
5,000,000
9,203,011,802
99,262,883
80,134,339
8,591,750
15,736,073
5,480,000
6,791,000
7,876,240
16,931,610
26,388,000
54,310,500
2,185,000
7,150,000
5,925,000
6,560,000
44,800,000
4,842,000
258
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/No
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
LGA
Revenue Source
Njombe DC
Njombe DC
Nkasi DC
Nyang'hwale
Nzega DC
Pangani DC
Rorya DC
Ruangwa DC
Serengeti DC
Serengeti DC
Shinyanga MC
Shinyanga MC
Singida MC
Songea DC
Songea MC
Tarime TC
Ulanga DC
Ushetu DC
Ushetu DC
Total
Rent
Rent
produce cess
Rent
Bill board fees
Rent
Produce cess
Bill board fees
School fee
Service levy
Produce cess
Rent
Produce cess
Hunting fee
Service levy
Produce cess
Lease rent
Rent
Produce cess
(TZS.)
14,160,000
5,803,000
5,874,400
18,210,000
70,242,500
64,737,400
42,294,000
147,800,000
67,833,200
4,601,505,909
81,947,179
23,780,000
239,839,550
10,765,120
42,502,386
453,032,243
3,720,000
2,000,000
208,000,000
17,168,528,904
259
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure xxv:
Non/improper maintenance of registers (Database)
for collected own revenue
S/No.
1
2
Name of LGA
Arusha CC
Bunda DC
3
Chato DC
4
5
Geita TC
Handeni DC
6
Ilala MC
7
Ileje DC
8
Ilemela DC
9
10
Kahama TC
Kilombero DC
11
12
Kilosa DC
Kilwa DC
13
14
15
16
Kinondoni MC
Kisarawe DC
Mafia DC
Magu DC
17
18
Masasi TC
Mbozi DC
19
Mobozi DC
20
Monduli DC
21
Morogoro DC
22
23
24
25
Mpanda DC
Msalala DC
Msalala DC
Mvomero DC
Register not maintained
Improper maintenance of revenue registers for rents
Non maintenance of intoxicating and liquor license
register
Council by-laws amendments not approved by the
Prime Minister
Service levy Register is not properly maintained
Council did not maintain property tax revenue
register
Non maintenance of Receipt Collection Cash Book
(RCCB)
Revenue registers or databases for Service Levy,
Property Tax, Land Rent, Hotel Levy, Stores Rent at
Itumba Bus Stand and rent from Government quarter
were not properly maintained for control purpose
Non maintaining of Land rent payers database and
land rent register
Service Levy Register is not properly maintained
Incomplete documentation of revenue and debtors
registers
Non Maintenance of Service Levy Register
Revenue Collector‟s Cash Book (RCCB) not
maintained
Revenue registers not properly maintained
Revenue Collector‟s Cashbooks not maintained
Revenue register not maintained by the Council
Daily Revenue Collector‟s Cash Book (RCCB) not
maintained
Non Maintenance of Service Levy register
Revenue registers or databases for Service Levy,
Property Tax, Land Rent, Hotel Levy and rent from
Government quarter are not properly maintained for
control purpose.
Revenue registers or databases for service levy,
Property tax, Land rent, Hotel Levy and rent from
Government quarter are not properly maintained for
control purpose.
Non-establishment of by-laws for collection of rental
fees from communication towers and billboards.
Non maintenance of registers/database for business
license fee
License Register not maintained
Collections of revenue basing on outdated by-laws
Non-maintenance of Service Levy Register
Non Maintenance of Trade Licence and Intoxicating
260
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/No.
Name of LGA
26
27
Mvomero DC
Nachingwea
28
29
Nanyumbu DC
Ngorongoro DC
30
Nkasi DC
31
32
33
Shinyanga MC
Shinyanga MC
Sikonge DC
34
Sumbawanga MC
35
Tabora MC
36
Ulanga DC
37
38
Wanging‟ombe DC
Wanging‟ombe DC
Register not maintained
and Liquor License Register
Non Maintenance of Service Levy Register
Business License Register not maintained by the
Council
Improper maintenance of Service Levy Registers
Non maintenance of Revenue Control Registers for
own sources revenue collections
Property Tax, building permit fees, and Business
License Registers not maintained
Improper maintenance of Service Levy Register
There was no basis of service levy collected
Revenue Collectors Cash Books (RCCB) not
maintained by revenue collectors
Absence of database for buildings supposed to pay
Property Taxes
Revenue Collectors Cash Books (RCCB) not
maintained by revenue collectors
Improper maintenance of Council own source
collection registers
Business License fees register not maintained
Non-maintenance of Service Levy Register.
261
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xxvi) 30% of land rent collections not returned to the
Council TZS.1,197,777,287
S/No
LGA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Total
Bagamoyo DC
Bunda DC
Geita TC
Handeni DC
Ileje DC
Ilemela MC
Iringa MC
Kahama TC
Kibaha TC
Kilosa DC
Kishapu TC
Korogwe DC
Korogwe TC
Makambako TC
Masasi TC
Meatu DC
Meru DC
Misungwi DC
Mwanza CC
Nanyumbu DC
Newala DC
Ngorongoro
Njombe DC
Nkasi DC
Ruangwa DC
Rufij DC
Shinyanga MC
Singida MC
Sumbawanga DC
Sumbawanga MC
Tanga TCC
Ulanga DC
(TZS.)
146,467,927.00
11,389,670.00
36,603,145.00
6,271,738.00
8,777,380.00
62,541,145.00
7,952,539.00
80,562,100.00
150,032,225.00
32,537,943.00
11,424,775.00
12,103,604.50
14,864,844.96
23,779,168.80
11,998,795.00
5,945,454.00
18,002,943.90
24,357,660.00
17,131,651.00
1,048,718.00
25,268,833.00
5,092,365.00
6,962,602.00
20,951,435.10
26,157,373.00
7,531,053.00
101,331,435.00
62,226,089.00
1,866,751.50
21,668,885.00
230,916,334.00
4,010,704.00
1,197,777,286.76
262
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xxvii)
S/No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Outstanding Items in bank reconciliation statements
LGA
Bariadi TC
Dodoma MC
Ikungi DC
Kalembo DC
Karagwe DC
Kibaha DC
Kyerwa DC
Liwale DC
Ludewa DC
Makete DC
Maswa DC
Mpanda TC
Nanyumbu DC
Njombe DC
Nkasi DC
Nsimbo DC
Nyang‟hwale DC
Same DC
Shinyanga MC
Sumbawaanga MC
Tandahmba DC
Tanga TCC
Wanging‟ombe DC
Total Receipt in cash
books not in bank
statements
30,200,590.54
37,724,206.44
31,112,553.00
54,808,873.15
171,160,500.00
26,600,000.00
39,421,192.00
135,947.40
25,301,436.15
152,979.61
4,040,000.00
160,796,152.00
21,579,267.37
5,533,969.00
63,728,596.74
3,164,071.30
675,460,334.70
Unpresented cheques
2,139,528.72
2,312,772.00
26,476,257.20
155,591,183.42
0
526,178,794.00
45,578,716.09
116,898,291.00
659,549,874.01
390,027,708.29
593,813,651.91
162,682,447.13
10,694,000.00
45,760,981.64
8,767,624.50
18,115,000.00
213,469,650.39
489,005,806.65
48,437,742.00
18,476,178.17
436,626,449.22
0
0
3,970,602,656.34
263
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xxviii) Surprise cash survey and surprise check
S/No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
LGA
Newala DC
Kibaha TC
Rufiji DC
Nachingwea DC
Gairo DC
Kilombero DC
Mafia DC
Chamwino DC
Kakonko DC
Kasulu DC
Kigoma DC
Singida MC
Longido DC
Mbulu DC
Meru DC
Moshi DC
Moshi MC
Mwanga DC
Siha DC
Simanjiro DC
Bahi DC
Butiama DC
Chato DC
Kishapu DC
Musoma MC
Shinyanga DC
Pangani DC
Rombo DC
Kaliua DC
Tabora MC
Urambo DC
Singida DC
Mbeya CC
Nantumbo DC
Nyasa DC
Songea MC
Dodoma MC
Ilemela MC
Ushetu DC
Msungwi DC
Surprise Cash Survey
not performed
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Cash Holding
limits not set
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
264
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/No
39
40
41
42
43
44
LGA
Kyela DC
Mbinga DC
Tunduru DC
Kalembo DC
Makete DC
Sumbawanga MC
Surprise Cash Survey
not performed
V
V
V
Cash Holding
limits not set
V
V
V
V
V
265
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xxix): Payment of salaries to absconded, retired, deceased
employees and respective statutory deductions paid to institutions
Payment of salaries to absconded, retired,
deceased employees
S/N
Name of LGA
Amount (TZS)
1
Bukombe DC
178,548,524
2
Geita DC
172,520,955
3
Kahama TC
122,533,350
4
Kwimba DC
49,890,739
5
Mbeya CC
44,274,500
6
Mufindi DC
42,712,700
7
Mvomero DC
42,117,590
8
Arusha DC
39,117,935
9
Karatu DC
27,983,806
10
Songea MC
25,563,328
11
Handeni DC
25,462,883
12
Lushoto DC
24,712,300
13
Bariadi DC
21,763,879
14
Kinondoni MC
18,367,800
15
Songea DC
17,714,664
16
Iringa DC
17,019,446
17
Meru DC
16,508,789
18
Tanga CC
14,562,678
19
Mwanza CC
13,525,000
20
Ulanga DC
12,176,230
21
Singida DC
10,989,790
22
Bumbuli DC
10,221,233
23
Iramba DC
9,733,024
24
Pangani DC
8,458,132
25
Same DC
7,383,938
26
Moshi MC
5,120,137
27
Geita TC
4,515,037
28
Korogwe DC
4,214,100
29
Mpanda DC
4,117,801
30
Kaliua DC
3,643,953
31
Mkinga DC
3,328,600
32
Shinyanga DC
2,668,483
33
Njombe TC
2,370,000
34
Kilindi DC
2,177,000
35
Singida MC
2,042,100
36
Longido DC
1,544,771
Total
1,009,605,195
Respective Statutory deductions paid to
other institutions
S/N
Name of LGA
Amount (TZS)
1
Bahi DC
153,574,857
2
Sumbawanga DC
138,199,860
3
Iramba DC
84,417,032
4
Sumbawanga MC
50,946,090
5
Tanga CC
35,905,805
6
Nkasi DC
35,147,734
7
Kwimba DC
34,302,661
8
Ludewa DC
28,911,026
9
Meru DC
28,475,227
10
Arusha DC
28,107,457
11
Igunga DC
27,758,484
12
Njombe TC
22,584,660
13
Bariadi DC
21,763,879
14
Moshi MC
17,230,527
15
Makambako TC
15,046,738
16
Hanang' DC
14,418,954
17
Same DC
11,169,240
18
Karatu DC
10,703,700
19
Siha DC
10,556,723
20
Babati DC
10,504,610
21
Arusha CC
9,310,611
22
Sikonge DC
8,397,398
23
Kalambo DC
7,684,106
24
Bumbuli DC
6,843,766
25
Longido DC
6,378,753
26
Mwanza CC
5,402,852
27
Mkinga DC
4,890,739
28
Ngorongoro DC
4,624,450
29
Babati TC
4,305,039
30
Simanjiro DC
3,685,530
31
Tarime TC
2,776,974
32
Ikungi DC
1,420,407
Total
845,445,888
266
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure: (xxx) List of LGAs showing shortage of staff
No.
Name of LGA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Arusha CC
Arusha DC
Babati DC
Babati TC
Bahi DC
Bariadi TC
Biharamulo DC
Buhigwe DC
Bukoba MC
Bumbuli DC
Busokelo DC
Butiama DC
Chamwino DC
Chato DC
Chemba DC
Chunya DC
Dar es salaam
CC
Dodoma MC
Gairo DC
Geita DC
Geita TC
Hai DC
Hanang' DC
Handeni DC
Igunga DC
Ikungi DC
Iramba DC
Iringa DC
Itilima DC
Kaliua DC
Kibaha TC
Kibondo DC
Kigoma/Ujiji
MC
Kilombero DC
Kilosa DC
Kiteto DC
Kondoa DC
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Required
number of staff
as per
Establishment
3,769
3,588
318
1,258
2,068
1,747
2,148
1,989
1,580
3,469
1,745
3,014
2,353
3,455
2,502
2,223
269
Actual
Available
number of
staff
3,163
3,412
144
1,157
1,678
1,392
1,689
1,098
1,354
2,545
1,044
1,925
2,047
2,579
1,699
1,746
237
Shortage
Percentag
e of
shortage
606
176
174
101
390
355
459
891
226
924
701
1,089
306
876
803
477
32
16%
5%
55%
8%
19%
20%
21%
45%
14%
27%
40%
36%
13%
25%
32%
21%
12%
1,684
1,618
6,448
2,002
3,154
1,980
2,921
3,205
2,476
2,467
3,989
2,225
2,360
235
2,651
2,255
1,391
1,148
4,057
1,570
2,792
1,597
2,005
2,539
1,905
1,572
3,135
1,733
1,345
205
1,711
1,976
293
470
2,391
432
362
383
916
666
571
895
854
492
1,015
30
940
279
17%
29%
37%
22%
11%
19%
31%
21%
23%
36%
21%
22%
43%
13%
35%
12%
3,975
4,218
1,956
2,971
3,235
3,897
1,454
2,387
740
321
502
584
19%
8%
26%
20%
267
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
No.
Name of LGA
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
Kongwa DC
Korogwe DC
Korogwe TC
Kyerwa DC
Lindi DC
Lindi MC
Longido DC
Masasi DC
Mbeya CC
Mbeya DC
Mbinga DC
Mbogwe DC
Mbozi DC
Mbulu DC
Meatu DC
Meru DC
Misenyi DC
Mkalama DC
Mkinga DC
Mlele DC
Momba DC
Monduli DC
Morogoro DC
Morogoro MC
Moshi DC
Moshi MC
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
Mpwapwa DC
Msalala DC
Mtwara MC
Musoma DC
Musoma MC
Mvomero DC
Mwanga DC
Nachingwea DC
Namtumbo DC
Ngara DC
Ngorongoro DC
Nsimbo DC
Required
number of staff
as per
Establishment
2,350
3,699
1,258
3,014
2,855
1,080
1,216
2,376
3,489
4,701
4,643
1,830
3,854
3,759
3,194
3,756
2,418
2,390
1,661
1,234
2,184
1,898
3,259
3,719
6,606
3,016
1,466
1,860
3,613
2,182
1,558
1,995
1,820
3,303
2,499
2,936
2,655
3,007
1,701
1,369
Actual
Available
number of
staff
2,079
2,783
1,094
1,631
1,766
896
1,047
1,368
3,168
3,820
3,119
1,424
3,198
2,111
2,788
3,201
1,647
1,354
1,273
872
1,576
1,644
2,866
3,679
4,805
2,847
995
1,452
2,560
1,783
1,266
1,341
1,660
2,687
2,058
1,870
2,042
1,866
1,354
908
Shortage
Percentag
e of
shortage
271
916
164
1,383
1,089
184
169
1,008
321
881
1,524
406
656
1,648
406
555
771
1,036
388
362
608
254
393
40
1,801
169
471
408
1,053
399
292
654
160
616
441
1,066
613
1,141
347
461
12%
25%
13%
46%
38%
17%
14%
42%
9%
19%
33%
22%
17%
44%
13%
15%
32%
43%
23%
29%
28%
13%
12%
1%
27%
6%
32%
22%
29%
18%
19%
33%
9%
19%
18%
36%
23%
38%
20%
34%
268
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
No.
Name of LGA
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
Nyang'wale DC
Nyasa DC
Nzega DC
Pangani DC
Rombo DC
Rungwe DC
Serengeti DC
Shinyanga DC
Shinyanga MC
Sikonge DC
Simanjiro DC
Singida MC
Songea DC
Songea MC
Tabora DC
Tabora MC
Tandahimba DC
Tanga CC
Tarime DC
Tarime TC
Ulanga DC
Urambo DC
Ushetu DC
Uvinza DC
Wanging‟ombe
DC
102
Required
number of staff
as per
Establishment
1,820
1,349
4,089
1,000
3,234
3,606
3,103
3,012
1,900
2,820
1,657
1,999
2,122
2,699
3,102
2,685
2,875
3,416
3,164
1,167
3,154
2,820
2,353
2,936
2,024
Actual
Available
number of
staff
1,366
635
2,790
742
2,803
2,766
2,049
2,579
1,579
1,799
1,511
1,642
1,993
2,481
2,017
2,100
2,173
3,028
2,199
1,024
2,513
1,799
1,674
1,724
1,468
Shortage
Percentag
e of
shortage
454
714
1,299
258
431
840
1,054
433
321
1,021
146
357
129
218
1,085
585
702
388
965
143
641
1,021
679
1,212
556
25%
53%
32%
26%
13%
23%
34%
14%
17%
36%
9%
18%
6%
8%
35%
22%
24%
11%
30%
12%
20%
36%
29%
41%
27%
263,814
200,915
62,899
24%
269
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexture (xxxi): Heads of Section in acting status for more than six
months
Name of LGA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Tarime TC
Kaliua DC
Kakonko DC
Msalala DC
Chemba DC
Ilala MC
Kyerwa DC
Gairo DC
Nyasa DC
Buhigwe DC
Busokelo DC
Dodoma MC
Kilombero DC
Ngorongoro DC
Handeni DC
Kondoa DC
Mpanda DC
Rorya DC
Same DC
Tarime DC
Uvinza DC
Rombo DC
Geita TC
Ikungi DC
Iramba DC
Kahama TC
Kongwa DC
Meru DC
Momba DC
Musoma DC
Nachingwea DC
Sikonge DC
Bumbuli DC
Kalambo DC
Longido DC
Manyoni DC
Mbogwe DC
Missenyi DC
Morogoro DC
Name of Region
Musoma
Tabora
Kigoma
Shinyanga
Dodoma
Dar es salaam
Kagera
Morogoro
Ruvuma
Kigoma
Mbeya
Dodoma
Morogoro
Arusha
Tanga
Dodoma
Katavi
Mara
Kilimanjaro
Mara
Kigoma
Kilimanjaro
Geita
Singida
Singida
Shinyanga
Dodoma
Arusha
Mbeya
Mara
Lindi
Tabora
Tanga
Rukwa
Arusha
Singida
Geita
Kagera
Morogoro
No. of acting
Officers
16
15
14
14
13
13
13
13
12
11
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Status of
the Council
New
New
New
New
New
Old
New
New
New
New
New
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
New
Old
New
New
Old
Old
Old
Old
New
Old
Old
Old
New
New
Old
Old
New
Old
Old
Vacant
Posts
1
2
1
3
1
3
1
2
1
-
270
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Name of LGA
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Moshi DC
Nzega DC
Singida MC
Ulanga DC
Mbinga DC
Monduli DC
Mpanda TC
Ruangwa DC
Tabora DC
Arusha DC
Bunda DC
Lushoto DC
Mbeya DC
Morogoro MC
Mpwapwa DC
Mufindi DC
Mvomero DC
Mwanga DC
Ngara DC
Urambo DC
Bariadi TC
Musoma MC
Pangani DC
Arusha CC
Tabora MC
Songea DC
Name of Region
Kilimanjaro
Tabora
Singida
Morogoro
Ruvuma
Arusha
Katavi
Lindi
Tabora
Arusha
Mara
Tanga
Mbeya
Morogoro
Dodoma
Iringa
Morogoro
Kilimanjaro
Kagera
Tabora
Simiyu
Mara
Tanga
Arusha
Tabora
Ruvuma
No. of acting
Officers
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
1
464
Status of
the Council
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Old
Vacant
Posts
2
2
19
271
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xxxii) List of Councils which demonstrated weaknesses in
environment management
S.N
1
Name of the
LGA
Babati DC
2
Bariadi TC
3
Busokelo DC
4
Chunya DC
5
Dodoma MC
6
Gairo DC
7
Igunga DC
8
Kibaha TC
Noted weaknesses
 Council did not have Environmental Conservation Plan.
 The Council did not manage to implement fully the National
Environmental Conservation Plan Strategies which require each
District Council to plant 2,500,000 trees per year. Instead, the Council
planted 1,122,445 trees.
 The Council did not establish a Standing Committee on Economic
Affairs Works and Environment.
 The Council did not identify types of projects requiring
 The Council did not prepare reports on environmental issues.
 The Council did not prepare annual environmental action plan.
 The Council did not establish Standing Committee on Economic
Affairs.
 The Council did not conduct environmental impact assessment to
identified projects before their implementation.
 Waste collection points were not properly constructed.
 Use of un- updated Environmental Profile and Policy.
 Lack of budget for environmental issues.
 Lack of working facilities for implementation of environmental
activities.
 Poor understanding and participation of community on protection
and management of environment.
 Many projects in the District did not have environmental impact
assessment reports.
 Lack of Environmental Strategic Plan which addresses environmental
problems facing the Council.
 The Council had not prepared the Environmental Action Plan for the
year 2013/2014.
 Massive environmental degradation associated with cutting
down trees, uncontrolled forest burning.
 Influx of small sand mining without proper arrangements.
 Harvesting of firewood and charcoal for home and commercial use.
 Inadequate management of domestic, commercial, institutional,
hospital and industrial wastes including:- Shortage of solid waste trucks for keeping and transportation of
waste to the marked disposal areas.
- Residents did not dispose waste in the provided skips.
272
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S.N
Name of the
LGA
9
Kilwa DC
10
11
12
Kiteto DC
Kyerwa DC
Liwale DC
13
Makete DC
14
Mbeya CC
15
Mbogwe DC
16
Mbozi DC
17
Meatu DC
18
Mkuranga DC
19
20
21
Mpanda TC
Mtwara MC
Njombe TC
22
Rufiji DC
23
Serengeti DC
Noted weaknesses
- Lack of systematic method of solid waste management.
- Lack of community awareness on environmental issues.
 Lack of collection and transport facilities for waste products and no
solid waste disposal collection site/dumps.
 The Council had no sustainable plans on solid waste management.
 Absence of waste dumping places in Kyerwa DC.
 Inadequate environmental management involving agriculture
activities carried around water sources.
 Various dumping/collection points were not built, enclosed and
fenced to prevent unauthorized access by people and other scavengers
 Inadequate solid waste equipment, machines and tools.
 Low budget allocation for waste management activities.
 Inadequate involvement of stakeholders in solid waste collection and
transportation.
 Inadequate public awareness and participation in waste
management.
 Increase of unplanned settlements.
 Low capacity of City Council to provide solid waste collection
services which discourages communities from contributing the monthly
Refuse Fees.
 There was no incinerator at the Council Headquarters to burn
hospital wastes/garbage collected; instead they were burnt in an open
space at Health Centre which could be hazardous to people‟s health.
 Non-management of environmental degradation and pollution within
the District.
 The Council did not have a dumping site where garbage collected
from various collection points equal to be disposed.
 Agricultural activities implemented within the road reserve at
Isebanda – Ng‟hoboko road
 Increase in firewood/charcoal harvest for home and commercial use
with no adequate measures taken to establish and expand
reforestation accompanied by sensitization on the use of alternative
source of energy.
 Use of fire to clear farms before cultivation leading the Council to be
exposed to a risk of deforestation and diminishing crop production.
 Lack of Capacity in collection and transportation of solid waste.
 Waste collecting stations constructed but not put in use.
 Various dumping/collection points were not enclosed/fenced to
prevent unauthorized access by people and other scavengers.
 Non Compliance with the PMO - RALG Directives Ref. FB/149/298/01
in regard to planting trees to the tune of 1,500,000 trees annually.
 Absence of Environmental Inspector within Serengeti DC.
273
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S.N
24
25
26
Name of the
LGA
Tabora MC
Tarime DC
Wang‟ing‟ombe
DC
Noted weaknesses
 The Council did not prepare Environmental Action Plan.
 Environmental impact assessment study was not done before
implementing two projects.
 The Council did not establish Standing Committee on Economic
Affairs Works and Environment in respect of performing such functions
as provided by Sec.37 (2) of Environmental Management Act No. 20 of
2004.
environmental impact assessment and audit before their
implementation as required by 1st Schedule of the Environmental
(Registration of Environmental Experts) Regulations of 2005.
274
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexture
(xxxiii):
TZS.3,878,602,680.00
S/No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
Name of LGA
Arusha CC
Karatu DC
Monduli DC
Ngorongoro DC
Longido DC
Arusha DC
Bagamoyo DC
Kibaha TC
Rufiji/Utete DC
Ilala MC
Bahi DC
Dodoma MC
Geita DC
Chato DC
Bukombe DC
Nyang`wale Dc
Mpanda TC
Nsimbo DC
Mulele DC
Kakonko DC
Kasulu DC
Kibondo DC
Kigoma DC
Kigoma/Ujiji MC
Siha DC
Rombo DC
Kilwa DC
Lindi DC
Liwale DC
Ruangwa DC
Hanang‟ DC
Kiteto DC
Mbulu DC
Simanjiro DC
Babati TC
Bunda DC
Musoma MC
Tarime DC
Tarime TC
Kilosa DC
Mvomero DC
Tandahimba DC
Nanyumbu DC
Kwimba DC
Ilemela DC
Inadequately
supported
payments
Amount (TZS.)
25,068,940.00
22,722,297.00
2,270,004.00
19,310,464.00
453,134,128.00
6,604,458.00
1,610,000.00
64,996,000.00
20,061,402.00
234,990,860.00
35,318,000.00
23,261,400.00
111,469,115.00
2,160,000.00
15,456,461.00
3,366,450.00
15,160,869.00
10,473,100.00
23,944,000.00
2,736,910.00
57,158,000.00
2,258,226.00
6,511,000.00
22,304,010.00
5,377,763.00
7,150,500.00
3,155,000.00
10,101,076.00
5,180,120.00
1,925,000.00
70,207,708.00
11,356,276.00
2,369,500.00
30,576,500.00
3,821,756.00
4,360,000.00
3,954,069.00
7,324,000.00
2,000,000.00
16,060,233.00
124,424,318.00
43,785,000.00
4,057,500.00
1,046,164,281.00
383,123,031.00
275
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
Total
Magu DC
Mwanza CC
Sengerema DC
Ukerewe DC
Makete DC
Njombe TC
Nkasi DC
Sumbawanga DC
Mbinga DC
Songea DC
Tunduru DC
Nyasa DC
Kishapu DC
Shinyanga DC
Kahama TC
Ushetu DC
Singida DC
Bariadi DC
Bariadi TC
Itilima DC
Maswa DC
Meatu DC
Busega DC
Bumbuli DC
Korogwe TC
Muheza DC
Pangani DC
Kilindi DC
Mkinga DC
Igunga DC
Kaliua DC
Nzega DC
Sikonge DC
Tabora MC
Urambo DC
10,235,000.00
13,224,500.00
84,533,059.00
27,415,750.00
14,933,678.00
6,141,000.00
3,365,000.00
25,286,120.00
6,077,800.00
9,995,000.00
30,550,000.00
46,951,181.00
8,338,500.00
3,950,000.00
8,036,000.00
57,717,664.00
18,320,000.00
15,067,000.00
2,926,400.00
7,733,800.00
2,032,700.00
32,059,000.00
5,100,000.00
14,000,200.00
38,023,306.00
65,708,705.00
245,012,272.00
4,087,700.00
4,139,500.00
36,836,100.00
1,778,391.00
25,789,000.00
20,815,742.00
5,433,887.00
8,169,000.00
3,878,602,680.00
276
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xxxiv): List of LGAs with expenditure charged to wrong
account codes TZS. 2,446,994,307
S/No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Name of LGA
Arusha CC
Karatu DC
Monduli DC
Ngorongoro DC
Meru DC
Arusha DC
Kibaha DC
Mafia DC
Temeke MC
Kyerwa DC
Buhigwe DC
Kigoma DC
Siha DC
Rombo DC
Lindi DC
Liwale DC
Hanang‟ DC
Simanjiro DC
Babati TC
Musoma DC
Bunda DC
Butiama DC
Busokelo DC
Chunya DC
Mbeya CC
Mbozi DC
Newala DC
Ilemela DC
Ukerewe DC
Nkasi DC
Sumbawanga DC
Mbinga DC
Songea MC
Tunduru DC
Nyasa DC
Kahama TC
Ushetu DC
Bariadi DC
Meatu DC
Handeni DC
Korogwe TC
Pangani DC
Tanga CC
Mkinga DC
Igunga DC
Sikonge DC
Amount (TZS)
68,810,081
69,459,600
7,899,900
10,555,790
15,999,640
116,363,695
16,027,500
8,485,118
42,606,093
26,127,250
37,269,002
22,300,000
39,306,280
41,320,354
17,745,420
4,043,000
155,026,353
58,102,174
2,340,000
28,678,757
16,708,400
17,147,400
9,601,500
30,421,400
20,839,500
16,410,000
86,540,068
15,403,515
501,497,635
75,652,695
76,071,752
24,340,847
8,406,842
30,999,500
4,931,000
20,456,500
106,499,379
196,351,320
15,316,000
85,786,055
31,578,890
106,356,048
9,931,000
4,456,000
7,298,538
28,994,850
277
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/No.
47
Name of LGA
Urambo DC
Total
Amount (TZS)
49,249,716
2,385,712,357
278
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xxxv): Non review of residual
maintenance/updating of Fixed Assets Register
S/No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Councils
Mtwara DC
Gairo DC
Simanjiro
Masasi TC
Bagamoyo DC
Arusha DC
Babati TC
Hai DC
Hanang DC
Karatu DC
Longido DC
Bumbuli DC
Lushoto DC
Meru DC
Mwanga DC
Kongwa DC
Mpwapwa DC
Kigoma/Ujiji MC
Bariadi DC
Karagwe DC
Kyerwa DC
Mbogwe DC
Mbozi DC
Mpanda TC
Msalala DC
Muleba DC
Songea DC
Songea MC
Tunduru DC
Kakonko DC
Kibondo DC
Kigoma DC
Ikungi DC
Iramba DC
Singida MC
Non review of
residual value
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
value
and
Non maintenance
of Fixed assets
register
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
-
279
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
non
Annexure (xxxvi): Grounded and un-serviceable Non-current assets
S/N
Name of the Council
1
Masasi DC
2
Dar CC
3
Temeke DC
4
Simanjiro DC
5
Kilindi DC
6
Longido DC
7
Lushoto DC
8
Meru DC
9
Mwanga DC
10
Handeni DC
11
Kaliua DC
12
Kinondoni MC
13
Mpanda DC
14
Mpanda TC
15
Chunya DC
16
Mbeya CC
17
Rungwe DC
18
19
Kalambo DC
Nkasi DC
20
Nkasi DC
Description
Two motor vehicles were found
grounded and a Motor Grader not
in use
Seven motor vehicles and two
plants were found grounded at
Mwananyamala depot for more
than 2 years
Three motor vehicles classified as
non-current assets held for sale
Six motor vehicles, one Bulldozer
and one generator
Five motor vehicles grounded
since 2011
One motor vehicle grounded for
two years
One motor vehicle grounded for
two years
4 motor vehicles grounded at the
Council yard
3 motor vehicles grounded at the
Council‟s premises since 2011
Eleven motor vehicles were
grounded for unidentified period
of time
Three motor vehicles and a motor
cycle transferred from Urambo DC
Two Trucks and three motor
vehicles
Two trucks and seven motor
vehicles
Two trucks and four motor
vehicles grounded
Six motor vehicles and one motor
cycle
Two trucks, seven motor vehicles
and four plants
Four motor vehicles and three
motor cycles
Eight motor vehicles grounded
Two motor vehicle grounded at
Lwiche (09) Workshop
One truck, a tractor, and seven
vehicles grounded at Council
No. of
PPEs
Amount (Shs.)
3
Not reported
9
285,503,500
3
8,384,568
8
Not reported
5
Not reported
1
Not reported
1
Not reported
4
Not reported
3
18,086,260
11
80,884,207
4
139,768,650
5
233,134,580
9
Not reported
6
Not reported
7
Not reported
13
Not reported
7
Not reported
8
2
Not reported
Not reported
9
Not reported
280
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
Name of the Council
21
Sumbawanga DC
22
Sumbawanga DC
23
Sumbawanga DC
24
Sumbawanga MC
25
Bahi DC
26
Chemba DC
27
Kondoa DC
Description
premises
Five motor vehicles grounded at
Lwiche w/shop
Three motor vehicles grounded at
Council premises
Two vehicle grounded at Kalambo
DC premises
Four motor vehicles and three
m/vehicle bodies
Two trucks grounded at council
premises
One truck and two motor vehicles
grounded
One truck and four motor vehicles
No. of
PPEs
Amount (Shs.)
5
Not reported
3
Not reported
2
Not reported
4
Not reported
2
Not reported
3
49,076,655
5
Not reported
281
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xxxvii): List of Councils with PPEs lacking ownership
documents
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Council
Babati TC
Bumbuli DC
Mtwara DC
Mtwara MC
Masasi DC
Mkuranga DC
Nanyumbu DC
Newala DC
Rufiji DC
Tandahimba DC
Lindi DC
Handeni DC
Mbozi DC
Mufindi DC
Nsimbo DC
Namtumbo DC
Description
Buildings
Land and Buildings
Land and Buildings
Land and Buildings
Land and Buildings
Land and Buildings
Land and Buildings
Land and Buildings
Land and Buildings
Land and Buildings
Four motor cycles
Council Building
Share certificate (TBL and Mbozi
community Bank)
Land
PPE
Land and Buildings
Amount (TZS)
1,646,241,192
Not reported
18, 045,611
Not reported
Not reported
6,633,342,398
10,739,421,257
16,117,521,077
17,531,346
Not reported
Not reported
8,876,394,994.
32,337,000
80,340,000
5,228,556,447
23,355,116,630
282
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xxxviii): Outstanding Receivables and prepayments
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
COUNCIL
Arusha CC
Karatu DC
Monduli DC
Ngorongoro DC
Meru DC
Longido DC
Arusha DC
Kibaha TC
Kisarawe DC
Mafia DC
Rufiji/Utete DC
Dar es Salaam CC
Ilala MC
Kinondoni MC
Temeke MC
Bahi DC
Chamwino DC
Dodoma MC
Kongwa DC
Mpwapwa DC
Geita DC
Geita TC
Chato DC
Bukombe DC
Nyang`wale Dc
Mbogwe DC
Iringa DC
Iringa MC
Mufindi DC
Kilolo DC
Biharamulo DC
Bukoba DC
Bukoba MC
Karagwe DC
Muleba DC
Ngara DC
Kyerwa DC
Missenyi DC
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
Nsimbo DC
Mulele DC
Buhigwe DC
Outstanding
receivable
(
TZS )
3,899,036,000
196,853,904
435,951,000
2,150,356,753
429,493,299
486,834,000
559,521,000
613,950,620
377,180,645
604,563,000
1,289,813,750
1,478,718,000
1,213,172,525
8,598,614,410
1,730,479,760
1,286,346,958
599,232,270
512,092,606
460,580,132
896,187,911
992,597,900
102,339,078
499,362,597
712,307,563
312,194,740
492,264,867
785,479,079
204,634,747
85,255,900
431,330,000
885,172,306
575,424,716
684,902,252
1,650,955,890
615,418,298
1,044,235,705
575,433,057
1,351,739,148
67,040,000
59,337,580
182,400,604
130,776,000
78,840,237
S/N
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
Council
Mbeya CC
Rungwe DC
Kilombero DC
Kilosa DC
Morogoro DC
Ulanga DC
Mvomero DC
Masasi TC
Masasi DC
Mtwara DC
Newala DC
Tandahimba DC
Nanyumbu DC
Kwimba DC
Ilemela DC
Magu DC
Misungwi DC
Mwanza CC
Sengerema DC
Ukerewe DC
Ludewa DC
Makete DC
Njombe DC
Njombe TC
Makambako TC
Kalambo DC
Nkasi DC
Sumbawanga DC
Sumbawanga MC
Mbinga DC
Songea MC
Songea DC
Tunduru DC
Namtumbo DC
Kishapu DC
Musalala DC
Shinyanga DC
Shinyanga MC
Kahama TC
Ushetu DC
Ikungi DC
Iramba DC
Manyoni DC
Outstanding
Receivables (TZS)
905,976,000
586,030,580
268,692,323
6,616,802,000
816,778,155
690,998,780
1,055,035,210
302,734,809
1,415,676,646
739,673,000
140,267,246
2,169,348,238
1,002,581,218
1,571,208,298
1,465,008,282
305,449,014
729,923,112
2,129,078,664
1,694,374,000
1,871,313,232
1,016,684,425
121,846,809
692,750,386
487,466,330
840,486,599
951,912,000
795,719,428
492,441,088
586,378,441
808,721,449
1,931,864,792
279,488,017
15,796,922
248,025,449
283,769,085
4,986,608,701
819,438,318
558,415,702
9,400,959,360
5,120,744,859
447,275,000
359,072,213
322,712,854
283
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
COUNCIL
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
Kakonko DC
Kasulu DC
Kibondo DC
Kigoma/Ujiji MC
Uvinza DC
Hai DC
Moshi DC
Moshi MC
Siha DC
Mwanga DC
Rombo DC
Same DC
Kilwa DC
Lindi DC
Lindi MC
Liwale DC
Nachingwea DC
Ruangwa DC
Babati DC
Hanang‟ DC
Kiteto DC
Mbulu DC
Simanjiro DC
Babati TC
Musoma DC
Bunda DC
Butiama DC
Musoma MC
Serengeti DC
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Tarime DC
Tarime TC
Rorya DC
Busokelo DC
Chunya DC
Ileje DC
Kyela DC
Mbarali DC
Mbeya DC
Outstanding
receivable
(
TZS )
130,477,195
926,172,895
311,415,902
125,167,000
861,232,000
476,797,000
1,547,101,000
543,409,165
66,769,482
22,659,576
914,903,771
308,835,467
97,138,510
419,763,000
121,841,000
904,423,000
270,869,000
717,244,000
373,322,000
498,085,184
845,319,150
415,146,000
229,360,585
213,213,290
672,449,455
3,457,937,000
218,245,440
385,568,635
355,950,000
283,715,518
146,464,696
814,344,012
991,238,015
583,655,625
904,760,949
451,495,000
390,288,960
2,590,275,158
S/N
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
Council
Singida DC
Bariadi DC
Bariadi TC
Itilima DC
Maswa DC
Meatu DC
Bumbuli DC
Handeni DC
Korogwe DC
Korogwe TC
Lushoto DC
Muheza DC
Pangani DC
Tanga CC
Kilindi DC
Mkinga DC
Igunga DC
Kaliua DC
Nzega DC
Sikonge DC
Tabora DC
Tabora MC
Urambo DC
Nyasa DC
Kigoma DC
Chemba DC
Bagamoyo DC
Mkuranga DC
Mtwara/Mikinda
ni MC
Singida MC
Mkalama DC
Bumbuli DC
Waging'ombe DC
Mbozi DC
Momba DC
Morogoro MC
Gairo DC
TOTAL
Outstanding
Receivables (TZS)
198,825,000
1,221,406,547
489,208,083
241,193,137
439,616,370
291,494,290
341,135,236
482,820,728
439,310,644
121,567,907
308,971,470
378,405,514
16,147,750
829,756,613
333,944,984
85,891,637
577,328,000
38,944,850
566,894,604
70,368,129
511,246,421
2,539,989,582
480,409,296
127,797,966
139,758,000
376,109,285
999,750,158
545,404,583
1,023,468,000
387,573,658
221,330,000
341,135,236
97,396,750
1,442,340,354
1,171,008,844
439,438,644
1,360,139,000
141,648,528,746
284
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xxxix) List of LGAs with outstanding payablesTZS.143,833,939,924
S/No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
Name of LGA
Arusha CC
Karatu DC
Monduli DC
Ngorongoro DC
Meru DC
Longido DC
Arusha DC
Kibaha TC
Kisarawe DC
Mafia DC
Rufiji/Utete DC
Bagamoyo DC
Kibaha DC
Mkuranga DC
Dar es Salaam CC
Ilala MC
Kinondoni MC
Temeke MC
Bahi DC
Chamwino DC
Dodoma MC
Kongwa DC
Mpwapwa DC
Chemba DC
Geita DC
Geita TC
Chato DC
Bukombe DC
Nyang`wale Dc
Mbogwe DC
Iringa DC
Iringa MC
Mufindi DC
Kilolo DC
Biharamulo DC
Bukoba DC
Bukoba MC
Karagwe DC
Muleba DC
Ngara DC
Kyerwa DC
Missenyi DC
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
Nsimbo DC
Mulele DC
Amount (TZS)
2,115,493,000
858,491,839
873,801,000
981,482,443
721,807,678
708,429,000
339,995,000
652,594,299
1,084,648,025
849,106,000
639,370,040
1,481,690,825
166,112,045
711,699,072
3,514,332,000
6,810,999,712
7,370,078,653
1,963,071,112
1,613,658,869
589,383,828
1,840,243,189
1,062,969,475
1,516,659,020
558,131,979
1,189,607,905
171,928,000
388,001,940
678,253,238
354,281,000
286,611,372
1,279,125,995
480,531,072
18,457,123
560,668,236
337,002,508
327,923,060
1,055,297,191
842,760,000
480,227,859
1,009,449,469
779,810,204
832,348,221
642,249,193
107,082,295
112,950,738
358,387,000
285
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/No
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
Name of LGA
Buhigwe DC
Kakonko DC
Kasulu DC
Kibondo DC
Kigoma/Ujiji MC
Kigoma DC
Uvinza DC
Hai DC
Moshi DC
Moshi MC
Siha DC
Mwanga DC
Rombo DC
Same DC
Kilwa DC
Lindi DC
Lindi MC
Liwale DC
Nachingwea DC
Ruangwa DC
Babati DC
Hanang‟ DC
Kiteto DC
Mbulu DC
Simanjiro DC
Babati TC
Musoma DC
Bunda DC
Butiama DC
Musoma MC
Serengeti DC
Tarime DC
Tarime TC
Rorya DC
Busokelo DC
Chunya DC
Ileje DC
Kyela DC
Mbarali DC
Mbeya DC
Mbeya CC
Rungwe DC
Mbozi DC
Momba DC
Kilombero DC
Kilosa DC
Morogoro DC
Morogoro MC
Gairo DC
Amount (TZS)
105,834,149
734,264,439
1,429,610,285
525,984,777
825,416,988
533,560,000
313,274,000
352,126,000
2,409,940,000
906,319,982
688,636,724
586,383,029
1,267,363,364
1,964,092,166
146,678,832
87,245,000
369,329,873
443,549,000
856,192,000
335,290,801
247,678,000
497,834,169
1,040,375,167
409,641,000
204,980,358
1,171,489,844
1,011,403,572
3,384,285,000
608,675,685
1,594,502,979
856,530,000
1,303,361,806
367,354,640
948,673,539
1,312,609,027
562,212,911
590,778,640
577,705,000
437,975,171
2,344,937,061
2,544,639,000
757,038,180
557,782,451
459,493,760
464,762,562
2,490,528,000
1,993,919,065
387,939,260
214,606,000
286
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/No
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
Name of LGA
Ulanga DC
Mvomero DC
Masasi TC
Masasi DC
Mtwara DC
Mtwara MC
Newala DC
Tandahimba DC
Nanyumbu DC
Kwimba DC
Ilemela DC
Magu DC
Misungwi DC
Mwanza CC
Sengerema DC
Ukerewe DC
Ludewa DC
Makete DC
Nyasa DC
Njombe DC
Njombe TC
Makambako TC
Waging'ombe DC
Kalambo DC
Nkasi DC
Sumbawanga DC
Sumbawanga MC
Mbinga DC
Songea MC
Songea DC
Tunduru DC
Namtumbo DC
Kishapu DC
Musalala DC
Shinyanga DC
Shinyanga MC
Kahama TC
Ushetu DC
Ikungi DC
Mkalama DC
Iramba DC
Manyoni DC
Singida DC
Singida MC
Bariadi DC
Bariadi TC
Itilima DC
Meatu DC
Bumbuli DC
Amount (TZS)
2,490,528,300
1,360,820,196
482,323,786
1,058,048,883
620,303,000
521,087,000
60,985,665
626,777,862
323,782,210
514,909,345
702,307,440
538,562,673
649,127,081
1,988,967,440
272,572,000
1,803,593,585
471,301,171
365,851,019
81,050,290
2,055,129,809
818,331,084
772,290,017
425,458,315
350,979,000
298,843,000
582,804,775
488,139,169
1,139,646,369
612,396,712
515,145,347
289,206,147
267,686,795
771,076,953
244,324,008
1,419,829,180
906,662,677
408,137,997
636,828,479
426,545,000
81,790,000
314,991,000
896,520,241
472,922,000
466,393,190
1,740,264,787
170,491,000
233,418,929
818,331,084
413,361,741
287
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/No
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
Name of LGA
Handeni DC
Korogwe DC
Korogwe TC
Lushoto DC
Muheza DC
Pangani DC
Tanga CC
Kilindi DC
Bumbuli DC
Mkinga DC
Igunga DC
Kaliua DC
Nzega DC
Sikonge DC
Tabora DC
Tabora MC
Urambo DC
Total
Amount (TZS)
911,793,035
1,050,978,508
674,346,813
442,163,256
150,337,051
176,470,934
1,123,738,895
663,581,126
413,361,741
1,124,746,198
276,872,543
470,728,347
855,202,063
1,146,491,344
322,467,289
3,495,068,232
1,022,743,820
143,833,939,924
288
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xl) 20% of General Purpose Grant not disbursed to Villages
S/No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
LGA
Arusha DC
Arusha CC
Karatu DC
Ngorongoro DC
Ikungi DC
Bahi DC
Chemba DC
Kondoa DC
Kigoma/Ujiji MC
Kilindi DC
Nyasa DC
Kongwa DC
Mafia DC
Longido DC
Lushoto DC
Mbulu DC
Meru DC
Mkalama DC
Mpwapwa DC
Mwanga DC
Mbogwe DC
Simanjiro DC
Bumbuli DC
Handeni DC
Kyela DC
Momba DC
Mbeya DC
Mbeya CC
Rungwe DC
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
Nsimbo DC
Bunda DC
Rorya DC
Gairo DC
Mvomero DC
Misungwi DC
TOTAL
Amount (TZS)
7,554,316
33,721,600
45,985,708
44,256,967
33,421,400
16,755,564
24,003,223
16,278,125
13,602,584
21,820,621
23,783,140
15,118,223
67,401,692
21,600,000
45,014,720
12,864,600
4,992,600
24,000,000
24,809,283
25,683,017
27,700,000
33,512,000
33,798,838
35,314,133
24,339,208
38,572,000
10,025,600
48,529,583
472,598,432
11,303,000
21,774,533
24,000,000
5,222,752
50,386,967
27,000,000
31,682,800
12,942,900
1,431,370,129
289
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xli):
Shortage of physical infrastructure and teachers in Primary and Secondary Schools
Secondary School
Laboratories
Class room
LGAs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Bahi DC
Chamwino DC
Chato DC
Chemba
Dodoma MC
Gairo DC
Geita TC
Hai DC
Iramba DC
Karatu DC
Kigoma DC
Kilosa DC
Kondoa DC
Kongwa DC
Lindi MC
Meru DC
Mkalama DC
Mlele DC
Monduli DC
Morogoro DC
Morogoro MC
Moshi DC
Moshi MC
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
Mpwapwa DC
Mvomero DC
Nachingwea DC
Demand
Available
277
390
100
551
144
220
895
330
323
226
467
200
236
170
413
95
116
760
206
316
152
357
100
89
268
159
192
381
178
33
137
263
2030
1912
116
154
556
324
316
90
109
183
332
207
Shortag
e
77
154
-70
138
49
104
135
124
7
74
110
0
0
11
0
90
126
55
118
0
118
0
26
45
373
-8
109
Demand
80
81
66
66
551
222
30
159
Available
6
4
3
4
413
17
13
21
120
96
72
22
7
15
10
4
21
3
81
9
180
39
21
7
75
66
78
6
13
9
Shortage
74
77
63
62
138
205
17
138
0
0
0
113
81
62
18
0
0
18
0
72
0
141
0
14
0
69
53
69
Deman
d
168
440
537
374
3,072
174
414
473
474
626
874
456
275
189
378
111
297
386
12230
103
422
523
355
Pit Latrines
Availa
Shortage
ble
144
24
244
196
225
312
184
190
1,106
1966
101
73
220
194
431
42
258
216
499
127
0
437
437
329
127
201
74
130
59
0
188
190
98
13
264
33
359
27
0
926
11304
0
64
39
0
317
105
218
305
244
111
Desks
Deman
d
3334
5,998
3231
4,320
3991
22689
5468
3998
11198
5516
9524
9605
7238
11114
29268
0
226
3212
18,880
360
25780
0
69
2964
17,560
156
8510
6986
4160
1942
17292
12810
18380
9078
Available
Shortage
103
1678
0
-7
11491
-48
0
0
2286
-1509
0
3488
0
157
248
1320
204
0
0
1524
0
0
0
2218
0
0
-1088
3732
290
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Secondary School
Laboratories
Class room
LGAs
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Ngorongoro DC
Ruangwa DC
Sikonge DC
Singida MC
Tabora MC
Urambo DC
Simanjiro DC
Demand
145
155
145
285
386
189
164
9824
Available
100
100
119
216
300
140
108
7529
Shortag
e
45
55
26
69
86
49
56
2295
Teachers Houses
LGAs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Bahi DC
Chamwino DC
Chato DC
Chemba
Dodoma MC
Gairo DC
Geita TC
Hai DC
Iramba DC
Karatu DC
Kigoma DC
Kilosa DC
Kondoa DC
Kongwa DC
Lindi MC
Meru DC
Mkalama DC
Mlele DC
Monduli DC
Demand
Available
45
8
54
102
42
42
2372
7
27
7
4
656
Shortage
0
37
0
47
75
35
38
1716
Dormitories
Demand
351
403
402
260
788
222
414
611
343
513
215
799
419
306
247
Available
55
49
86
66
92
17
80
72
109
132
43
88
63
66
30
320
91
Shortage
296
354
316
194
696
205
334
539
234
381
172
711
356
240
217
0
0
0
229
Deman
d
267
274
270
519
575
332
337
25925
Pit Latrines
Availa
Shortage
ble
188
79
186
88
136
134
272
247
348
227
144
188
192
145
8653
17272
Desks
Deman
d
253
6844
6254
8067
149
6774
5750
7235
6273
6240
189258
4803
3795
158036
Teacher’s furniture
Demand
40
74
5
60
91
80
34
91
Available
5
10
4
6
5
6
21
18
5
192
65
24
189
2
14
4
1
130
32
19
Shortage
35
64
1
54
86
74
13
73
0
0
3
178
61
23
59
0
0
13
0
Demand
351
403
1023
260
1,705
444
Available
138
159
530
154
1,438
214
1857
892
513
918
363
384
853
516
306
489
1996
352
436
178
200
342
830
136
404
213
Shortage
213
244
493
106
267
230
0
939
529
129
0
417
338
106
147
1166
216
0
191
Available
Shortage
104
70
504
832
0
1470
2445
31222
Deman
d
Available
Shortage
460
351
109
0
0
355
260
95
0
0
0
0
480
330
150
732
513
219
0
1,210
787
423
516
419
97
1726
1206
520
0
998
628
370
0
100
59
41
443
404
39
291
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Teachers Houses
LGAs
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Morogoro DC
Morogoro MC
Moshi DC
Moshi MC
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
Mpwapwa DC
Mvomero DC
Nachingwea DC
Ngorongoro DC
Ruangwa DC
Sikonge DC
Singida MC
Tabora MC
Urambo DC
Simanjiro DC
LGAs
1
2
3
4
5
6
Bahi DC
Chato DC
Chemba
Dodoma MC
Gairo DC
Geita TC
Dormitories
Demand
476
Available
54
1247
164
201
192
372
687
312
253
264
300
430
628
218
166
12359
31
31
91
88
58
60
58
46
40
98
65
39
2062
Shortage
422
0
1083
0
170
161
281
599
254
193
206
254
390
530
153
127
10297
Teachers' Office
Deman
d
Available
216
83
243
120
186
131
109
88
Demand
8
Available
2
89
31
60
13
78
117
27
19
27
4
62
34
8
84
5
1
5
46
1549
398
Shortage
6
0
58
0
47
0
59
90
23
0
57
33
3
38
0
0
1151
Demand
Available
2494
2432
1370
570
318
6254
430
222
5750
219
23230
15826
Shortage
133
0
123
0
77
43
Shortage
0
0
62
0
0
0
0
800
0
0
96
504
211
0
0
0
7404
Deman
d
Available
Shortage
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
288
205
83
0
0
0
286
253
33
264
204
60
0
657
430
227
0
0
0
8515
6049
2466
Demand
1894
Available
732
2674
1070
Shortage
1162
0
1604
0
0
0
Demand
Available
839
1,851
1227
1451
Shortage
720
1,681
923
1312
119
170
304
139
0
0
292
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
LGAs
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Teachers' Office
Deman
d
Available
Hai DC
Karatu DC
Kigoma DC
Kilosa DC
Kondoa DC
Kongwa DC
Lindi MC
Meru DC
Mkalama DC
Mlele DC
Monduli DC
Morogoro DC
Moshi DC
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
Mufindi DC
Mvomero DC
Nachingwea DC
Ngorongoro DC
Ruangwa DC
Sikonge DC
Singida MC
Tabora MC
Ulanga DC
Urambo DC
Shortage
341
95
471
468
265
84
252
320
247
63
298
351
140
73
236
177
164
346
103
200
141
80
415
286
142
122
170
207
358
202
61
108
89
159
159
376
146
5746
105
310
124
3884
0
94
32
173
117
125
11
16
143
0
61
146
0
61
0
57
84
81
14
81
48
0
54
66
22
1862
Demand
Available
5004
2846
6558
2542
3,099
2057
3966
1307
1,196
935
3769
1106
2604
6014
1378
606
1157
2281
1130
113
9228
272
2935
4420
2,371
3632
2393
5109
4862
6733
80406
4758
75
1053
1723
1375
1335
1250
2488
2145
1999
35788
Shortage
0
2158
0
2592
1235
1903
1122
0
2391
500
1447
3733
0
1017
0
4470
197
1882
2697
996
2297
1143
2621
2717
4734
44618
Demand
Available
Shortage
1397
1234
1,766
1,629
1453
1174
725
1501
713
1369
2,113
1468
2,032
1453
703
671
588
633
815
775
1,428
1,302
19408
17538
0
163
0
137
0
279
0
0
0
0
12
132
0
0
0
81
15
0
115
38
0
40
0
126
0
1870
293
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Primary School
LGAs
Bahi DC
Chato DC
Chemba
Dodoma MC
Gairo DC
Geita TC
Hai DC
Karatu DC
Kigoma DC
Kilosa DC
Kondoa DC
Kongwa DC
Lindi MC
Meru DC
Mkalama DC
Mlele DC
Monduli DC
Morogoro DC
Moshi DC
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
Mufindi DC
Mvomero DC
Nachingwea DC
Ngorongoro DC
Ruangwa DC
Sikonge DC
Singida MC
Class room
Demand
Available
839
1850
1227
1702
655
1001
895
1239
1,178
1,367
1451
1,429
319
13160
1113
5005
519
724
751
820
347
393
760
923
571
1,012
806
673
285
12163
555
246
1,546
806
840
556
1,850
1599
947
692
580
797
584
824
695
305
183
1,356
789
604
429
474
509
337
Shortage
320
1126
476
882
308
608
135
316
607
355
645
756
34
997
558
4759
0
722
111
535
373
494
810
343
263
106
288
247
Pit Latrines
Demand
Available
1516
3785
2202
3,072
1349
1884
1421
2838
2,121
3,192
2614
2,590
478
2340
2011
899
1,110
3,152
4026
1288
664
2019
864
1106
411
575
1,254
1628
730
1,447
1142
903
342
1517
976
414
533
1,140
3301
489
3,101
2759
1650
1,227
1211
1304
2,407
1299
932
656
717
758
Shortage
852
1766
1338
1966
938
1309
167
1210
1391
1745
1472
1687
136
823
1035
485
577
2012
725
799
0
694
1460
718
571
494
546
0
Desks
Demand
Available
11188
35052
15150
8890
18407
8239
1818
956
22974
1,749
35,317
19347
18,962
5650
17137
1,316
21,695
14232
10,073
3915
14840
8438
12,345
30,052
8715
4646
9,709
14,885
10594
6930
32,153
29353
17,455
13,834
11,619
14477
8556
27,884
10999
9,445
8,130
9,461
8718
5769
Shortage
2298
16645
6911
0
862
0
0
5837
433
13622
5115
8889
1735
0
6125
3792
2636
15167
0
3664
0
4269
18354
8010
5704
2158
5759
2787
Teachers Houses
Demand
Availabl
e
839
175
1845
235
1235
281
1705
156
629
109
1124
116
809
124
1234
578
1,178
157
1,629
345
1312
332
1,174
159
319
83
1566
305
1113
271
553
88
697
182
1,369
367
2522
273
840
205
556
23
1,948
922
1536
243
929
288
703
300
580
182
793
199
Shortag
e
664
1610
954
1549
520
1008
685
656
1021
1284
980
1015
236
1261
842
465
515
1002
2249
635
533
1026
1293
641
403
398
594
0
294
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Primary School
LGAs
Tabora MC
Ulanga DC
Urambo DC
Class room
Demand
1113
1,131
831
48302
Available
579
676
467
29775
Shortage
534
455
364
18527
Pit Latrines
Demand
Available
2,165
1787
59092
860
658
29742
Shortage
0
1305
1129
29350
Desks
Demand
19796
19,674
12462
422855
Available
9177
12,079
8558
259965
Shortage
10619
7595
3904
162890
Teachers Houses
Demand
Availabl
e
1250
109
1,273
365
831
171
34091
7343
Shortag
e
1141
908
660
26748
295
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xlii): Financial performances for development projects
(i) LGCDG
Name of LGA
Funds
available
(TZS)
1
Babati DC
379,374,303
332,724,125
46,650,178
12%
2
Babati TC
82,895,000
78,918,400
3,976,600
5%
3
Bahi DC
622,471,047
590,496,891
31,974,156
5%
4
Bariadi DC
375,000,000
178,980,589
196,019,411
52%
5
Bariadi TC
1,032,911,637
551,862,653
481,048,984
47%
6
Biharamulo DC
511,753,070
480,812,735
30,940,335
6%
7
Bumbuli DC
741,630,000
224,859,360
516,770,640
70%
8
Bunda DC
642,439,000
599,242,450
43,196,550
7%
9
Busega DC
767,060,000
223,816,794
543,243,206
71%
10
Busokelo DC
745,739,285
713,604,132
32,135,153
4%
11
Chamwino DC
348,720,285
281,375,218
67,345,067
19%
12
Dodoma MC
1,221,727,471
1,141,643,280
80,084,192
7%
13
Gairo DC
382,902,029
349,902,029
33,000,000
9%
14
Handeni DC
792,415,223
584,774,091
207,641,132
26%
15
Iringa DC
624,398,722
569,049,309
55,349,413
9%
16
Kahama TC
1,019,082,533
356,253,000
662,829,533
65%
17
Kasulu DC
995,592,697
953,938,004
41,654,693
4%
18
Kibaha DC
340,133,267
282,762,589
57,370,678
17%
19
122,746,992
122,746,992
-
0%
20
Kibaha TC
Kigoma/Ujiji
MC
211,357,279
153,720,318
57,636,961
27%
21
Kilindi DC
253,937,100
196,993,139
56,943,961
22%
S/
N
Actual expenditure
(TZS)
%
Of
Unspent
amount
Unspent Amount
(TZS)
296
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/
N
Name of LGA
Funds
available
(TZS)
22
Kilombero DC
1,574,351,193
969,719,925
604,631,268
38%
23
Kilwa DC
1,424,014,833
565,632,200
858,382,633
60%
24
Kinondoni MC
66,749,889
38,089,000
28,660,889
43%
25
Kisarawe DC
1,628,328,126
1,458,938,624
169,389,502
10%
26
Kiteto DC
698,935,387
636,945,138
61,990,249
9%
27
Kongwa DC
616,736,179
483,859,679
132,876,500
22%
28
Korogwe DC
799,779,236
560,394,849
239,384,387
30%
29
Korogwe TC
107,692,394
104,360,552
3,331,842
3%
30
Kyela DC
311,560,101
246,081,431
65,478,670
21%
31
Longido DC
301,017,974
293,231,000
7,786,974
3%
32
Mafia DC
418,773,631
400,344,665
18,428,966
4%
33
Mbarali DC
898,738,015
855,302,515
43,435,500
5%
34
Mbeya DC
721,660,749
704,680,748
16,980,001
2%
35
Mbozi DC
483,548,000
475,806,181
7,741,819
2%
36
Mbulu DC
377,711,969
307,711,969
70,000,000
19%
37
Misenyi DC
1,030,043,664
798,032,441
232,011,223
23%
38
Mkinga DC
930,810,524
418,939,959
511,870,565
55%
39
Mkuranga DC
1,231,240,300
578,036,797
653,203,503
53%
40
Mlele DC
1,438,007,393
1,160,039,994
277,967,399
19%
41
Momba DC
164,265,000
105,259,228
59,005,772
36%
42
Monduli DC
367,428,368
299,772,666
67,655,702
18%
43
44
Morogoro DC
Moshi DC
487,396,963
1,035,129,643
373,034,712
114,362,251
23%
33%
Actual expenditure
(TZS)
%
Of
Unspent
amount
Unspent Amount
(TZS)
297
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/
N
Name of LGA
Funds
available
(TZS)
45
Moshi MC
46
%
Of
Unspent
amount
Actual expenditure
(TZS)
693,130,372
Unspent Amount
(TZS)
341,999,271
493,719,180
419,262,325
74,456,855
15%
Mpanda TC
892,565,423
678,237,694
214,327,729
24%
47
Msalala DC
1,264,357,000
810,744,154
453,612,846
36%
48
Mtwara MC
319,287,664
225,827,500
93,460,164
29%
49
Muheza DC
580,176,670
507,239,853
72,936,817
13%
50
Muleba DC
1,424,053,309
1,210,534,436
213,518,873
15%
51
Mwanga DC
310,386,285
291,442,990
18,943,295
6%
52
Ngara DC
1,031,208,891
893,983,920
137,224,971
13%
53
Ngorongoro DC
441,983,947
273,269,176
168,714,771
38%
54
Nsimbo DC
2,562,859,400
775,457,077
1,787,402,323
70%
55
Pangani DC
109,663,148
95,196,862
14,466,286
13%
56
Rombo DC
748,850,694
594,283,738
154,566,957
21%
57
Rorya DC
369,357,000
277,639,020
91,717,980
25%
58
Rufiji DC
780,804,524
728,968,904
51,835,620
7%
59
Rungwe DC
1,384,085,162
1,136,299,683
247,785,479
18%
60
Shinyanga DC
919,008,423
776,467,288
142,541,134
16%
61
Siha DC
1,089,492,441
973,339,254
116,153,187
11%
62
Simanjiro DC
1,028,834,228
923,401,884
105,432,344
10%
63
Tanga CC
344,079,000
327,568,036
16,510,964
5%
64
Tarime DC
2,426,913,029
1,283,363,659
1,143,549,370
47%
65
Ulanga DC
2,057,093,919
1,482,143,543
574,950,376
28%
66
Uvinza DC
741,875,119
638,884,386
102,990,733
14%
298
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/
N
Name of LGA
Total
Funds
available
(TZS)
50,648,860,9
26
Actual expenditure
(TZS)
36,819,376,125
Unspent Amount
(TZS)
%
Of
Unspent
amount
13,829,484,802
27%
299
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(ii) PHSPD
S/
N
Name of LGA
1
Bariadi DC
2
Dodoma MC
3
Hanang' DC
4
Handeni DC
5
Karatu DC
6
Kasulu DC
7
Kibaha TC
8
Kibondo DC
9
Kilindi DC
10
Kilwa DC
11
Kishapu DC
12
Kiteto DC
13
Kondoa DC
14
Korogwe DC
15
Korogwe TC
16
Kyela DC
17
Lushoto DC
18
Mafia DC
19
Mbarali DC
20
Mbeya CC
21
Mbeya DC
22
Mbogwe DC
Funds
available (TZS)
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
Unspent
Amount (TZS)
507,936,472
403,725,167
104,211,305
21%
296,561,733
83,921,459
212,640,274
72%
12,048,800
100%
12,048,800
-
% Of
Unspent
amount
112,600,000
103,000,000
9,600,000
9%
50,546,062
47,425,000
3,121,062
6%
275,698,000
250,959,000
24,739,000
9%
71,146,170
46,465,033
24,681,137
35%
664,590,105
285,719,393
378,870,712
57%
101,887,670
73,483,115
28,404,555
28%
151,577,000
29,577,000
122,000,000
80%
164,017,372
123,831,558
40,185,814
25%
113,850,000
108,812,315
5,037,685
4%
138,724,393
79,805,624
58,918,769
42%
265,174,302
131,110,061
134,064,241
51%
35,730,000
25,865,700
9,864,300
28%
18,055,510
14,765,980
3,289,530
18%
227,343,120
139,522,731
87,820,389
39%
57,982,870
51,429,165
6,553,705
11%
124,998,861
102,455,737
22,543,124
18%
168,354,424
14,099,846
154,254,578
92%
185,633,900
110,239,660
75,394,240
41%
54,167,000
100%
54,167,000
-
300
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/
N
Name of LGA
23
Mkinga DC
24
Mkuranga DC
25
Moshi DC
26
Muleba DC
27
Mwanga DC
28
Mwanza CC
29
Ngara DC
30
Ngorongoro DC
31
Pangani DC
32
Ruangwa DC
33
Rungwe DC
34
Same DC
35
Shinyanga DC
36
Shinyanga MC
37
Sumbawanga
DC
38
Tanga CC
39
Ulanga DC
40
Uvinza DC
41
Funds
available (TZS)
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
Unspent
Amount (TZS)
118,102,792
70,011,377
48,091,415
41%
178,016,889
89,016,889
89,000,000
50%
178,941,814
170,921,750
8,020,064
4%
343,949,633
304,316,165
39,633,468
12%
46,194,413
36,404,308
9,790,105
21%
288,031,183
170,244,654
117,786,529
41%
291,061,889
202,061,978
88,999,911
31%
164,402,611
147,009,681
17,392,930
11%
63,474,300
60,465,666
3,008,634
5%
48,499,000
26,908,000
21,591,000
45%
166,753,900
147,560,000
19,193,900
12%
165,122,075
68,308,932
96,813,143
59%
258,094,165
123,947,129
134,147,036
52%
90,382,955
62,132,955
28,250,000
31%
70,301,795
63,301,795
7,000,000
10%
83,178,857
54,764,090
28,414,767
34%
209,296,092
146,348,592
62,947,500
30%
155,399,712
106,141,925
49,257,787
32%
59,229,445
95%
2,500,977,854
37%
Gairo DC
62,057,945
Total
6,779,885,784
2,828,500
4,278,907,930
% Of
Unspent
amount
301
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(iii) PEDP
S/
N
Name of
LGA
1
Chunya DC
2
Ileje DC
3
Kibaha TC
4
Kilindi DC
5
Kilwa DC
6
Korogwe DC
7
Korogwe TC
8
Lindi DC
9
Monduli DC
10
Tanga CC
Total
Funds
available
(TZS)
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
Unspent
Amount (TZS)
6,134,969
-
6,134,969
171,483,814
165,348,845
6,134,969
37,455,328
9,323,917
28,131,411
87,135,054
63,776,985
23,358,069
453,629,972
311,137,435
142,492,537
284,780,118
174,619,919
110,160,199
82,756,890
40,788,895
41,967,995
418,236,163
412,445,953
5,790,210
40,944,627
39,699,858
1,244,769
172,359,988
131,403,489
40,956,499
1,754,916,92
3
1,348,545,296
406,371,627
% Of
Unspen
t
amoun
t
100%
4%
75%
27%
31%
39%
51%
1%
3%
24%
23%
302
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(iv) SEDP
Funds
available
(TZS)
S/
N
Name of LGA
1
Babati TC
333,456,014
2
Bariadi TC
192,494,552
3
Bukoba DC
551,201,037
4
Busega DC
276,979,315
5
Busokelo DC
210,930,130
6
Chamwino
DC
439,731,087
7
Chunya DC
286,552,154
8
Hai DC
251,197,846
9
Iringa DC
307,036,376
10
Kahama TC
282,327,923
11
Kalambo DC
143,487,504
12
Kibaha DC
375,665,888
13
Kibaha TC
370,256,168
14
Kilindi DC
401,271,460
15
Kilwa DC
383,178,072
16
Kondoa DC
348,246,792
17
Korogwe DC
775,165,273
18
Korogwe TC
517,828,103
19
Kyerwa DC
224,729,842
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
Unspent
Amount (TZS)
311,662,170
21,793,844
129,045,744
63,448,808
346,602,630
204,598,407
183,540,857
93,438,458
81,421,081
129,509,049
369,357,764
70,373,323
262,748,405
23,803,749
200,280,718
50,917,128
301,060,986
5,975,390
190,393,957
91,933,967
135,020,000
8,467,504
268,657,636
107,008,252
296,989,174
73,266,994
367,236,046
34,035,414
83,105,700
300,072,372
132,821,006
215,425,786
431,483,449
343,681,824
307,887,904
209,940,199
% Of
Unspen
t
amoun
t
7%
33%
37%
34%
61%
16%
8%
20%
2%
33%
6%
28%
20%
8%
78%
62%
44%
41%
96%
303
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Funds
available
(TZS)
S/
N
Name of LGA
20
Lindi MC
511,415,921
21
Liwale DC
374,849,364
22
Makete DC
371,761,101
23
Mbulu DC
358,291,487
24
Misenyi DC
387,991,345
25
Mkinga DC
587,887,640
26
Mkuranga DC
353,551,291
27
Morogoro DC
370,872,199
28
Moshi DC
538,110,531
29
Muheza DC
414,884,436
30
Musoma DC
967,149,822
31
Pangani DC
526,160,643
32
Rombo DC
495,635,157
33
Same DC
538,310,693
34
Serengeti DC
467,489,767
35
Sumbawanga
DC
149,388,818
36
Tanga CC
37
Ulanga DC
Total
1,080,005,202
392,517,643
15,558,008,5
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
9,000,000
Unspent
Amount (TZS)
215,729,842
376,684,182
134,731,739
235,597,778
139,251,586
162,018,852
209,742,249
213,105,757
145,185,730
274,092,995
113,898,350
301,195,102
286,692,538
126,299,405
227,251,886
193,186,409
177,685,790
480,546,191
57,564,340
411,675,935
3,208,501
912,773,719
54,376,103
221,122,864
305,037,779
471,963,811
23,671,346
475,772,983
62,537,710
395,960,000
71,529,768
134,176,525
15,212,293
1,023,530,518
56,474,684
230,678,630
161,839,013
% Of
Unspen
t
amoun
t
26%
37%
56%
41%
29%
49%
64%
48%
11%
1%
6%
58%
5%
12%
15%
10%
5%
41%
29%
304
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/
N
Name of LGA
Funds
available
(TZS)
97
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
11,048,696,88
1
Unspent
Amount (TZS)
4,509,311,71
6
% Of
Unspen
t
amoun
t
305
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(v) ULGSP
S/
N
Name of
LGA
1
Babati TC
2
Bukoba MC
3
Korogwe
TC
4
Lindi MC
5
Moshi MC
6
Sumbawan
ga MC
Total
Funds
available
(TZS)
260,240,145
332,323,427
196,250,417
203,427,990
495,515,925
541,314,395
2,029,072,299
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
96,512,000
108,973,428
17,370,120
44,627,000
8,933,400
204,936,976
481,352,924
Unspent
Amount (TZS)
% Of
Unspen
t
amoun
t
63%
163,728,145
67%
223,349,999
91%
178,880,297
78%
158,800,990
98%
486,582,525
62%
336,377,419
1,547,719,37
5
76%
306
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(vi) PFM
S/
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Funds
available
(TZS)
Name of LGA
Handeni DC
27,142,500
Korogwe DC
16,912,575
Lushoto DC
12,644,875
Mbozi DC
21,122,328
Mkinga DC
15,416,475
Nachingwea
DC
18,015,960
7,415,457
6,190,000
21,010,755
6,530,000
-
19,558,000
Pangani DC
Total
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
15,205,031
128,001,783
14,792,401
73,954,573
% Of
Unspen
t
amoun
t
Unspent
Amount (TZS)
9,126,540
34%
9,497,118
56%
6,454,875
51%
111,573
1%
8,886,475
58%
19,558,000
100%
412,630
3%
54,047,210
42%
(vii) WYDF
S/
N
Name of LGA
1
Babati DC
2
Kilindi DC
3
Kiteto DC
4
Korogwe DC
5
Korogwe TC
6
Mkinga DC
7
Morogoro DC
8
Moshi DC
Funds
available
(TZS)
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
Unspent
Amount
(TZS)
% Of
Unspent
amount
52,829,005
49,090,000
3,739,005
7%
48,565,856
40,300,000
8,265,856
17%
4,945,000
-
4,945,000
100%
23,657,304
9,260,800
14,396,504
61%
74,120,282
60,300,500
13,819,782
19%
38,481,352
25,574,000
12,907,352
34%
6,050,891
2,000,000
4,050,891
67%
170,175,466
156,053,600
14,121,866
8%
307
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/
N
Funds
available
(TZS)
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
Unspent
Amount
(TZS)
18,050,000
-
18,050,000
100%
22,789,565
21,000,000
1,789,565
8%
202,005,636
124,105,325
77,900,311
39%
661,670,357
487,684,22
5
173,986,13
2
26%
Name of LGA
9
Nkasi DC
10
Sumbawanga
DC
11
Tanga CC
Total
% Of
Unspent
amount
(viii) EGPAF
S/
N
Name of LGA
1
Arusha CC
2
Monduli DC
3
Moshi DC
4
Mwanga DC
5
Ngorongoro DC
6
Ruangwa DC
7
Same DC
8
Siha DC
9
Meatu DC
Total
Funds
available (TZS)
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
Unspent
Amount
(TZS)
238,536,237
146,022,106
92,514,131
137,276,021
118,489,076
18,786,945
184,495,983
141,501,430
42,994,553
152,141,413
148,725,299
3,416,114
152,695,430
151,497,500
1,197,930
266,110,505
223,963,250
42,147,255
147,188,873
139,596,797
7,592,076
97,355,121
91,466,930
5,888,191
243,048,148
233,150,148
9,898,000
1,618,847,731
1,394,412,53
6
224,435,19
5
% Of
Unspen
t
amoun
t
39
14
23
2
1
16
5
6
4
14
308
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
(ix) CDCF
S/N
Name of LGA
1
Bahi DC
2
Bariadi DC
3
Bukoba DC
4
Bumbuli DC
5
Busokelo DC
6
Chamwino DC
7
Chato DC
8
Hai DC
9
Handeni DC
10
Ilala MC
11
Ileje DC
12
Kibaha TC
13
Kilindi DC
14
Kishapu DC
15
Kiteto DC
16
Longido DC
17
Lushoto DC
18
Mbarali DC
19
Mbeya CC
20
Mbozi DC
Funds
available (TZS)
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
Unspent
Amount (TZS)
82,899,114
72,581,114
10,318,000
387,675,094
312,367,770
75,307,324
140,883,270
23,456,500
117,426,770
47,992,591
42,487,000
5,505,591
34,466,470
-
34,466,470
117,450,030
82,524,000
34,926,030
97,520,246
80,900,000
16,620,246
81,193,173
76,975,407
4,217,766
66,469,716
64,798,716
1,671,000
135,861,716
99,525,000
36,336,716
75,726,922
37,319,800
38,407,122
54,064,874
22,178,600
31,886,274
86,551,830
67,063,250
19,488,580
70,827,675
14,444,746
56,382,929
52,503,282
45,251,641
7,251,641
46,814,508
16,774,508
30,040,000
98,341,249
94,102,000
4,239,249
89,835,596
66,316,016
23,519,580
74,627,410
9,000,000
65,627,410
% Of
Unspent
amount
12%
19%
83%
11%
100%
30%
17%
5%
3%
27%
51%
59%
23%
80%
14%
64%
4%
26%
88%
25%
309
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
Name of LGA
21
Mbulu DC
22
Mkinga DC
23
Mkuranga DC
24
Momba DC
25
Mpanda TC
26
Mpwapwa DC
27
Muheza DC
28
Muleba DC
29
Musoma DC
30
Mwanga DC
31
Ngorongoro DC
32
Nkasi DC
33
Rombo DC
34
Rufiji DC
35
Rungwe DC
36
Sengerema DC
37
Simanjiro DC
38
Sumbawanga
DC
39
Tabora DC
Funds
available (TZS)
127,032,299
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
95,881,550
Unspent
Amount (TZS)
31,150,749
61,466,054
56,643,140
4,822,914
37,986,516
34,800,000
3,186,516
105,656,443
44,814,000
60,842,443
46,396,698
18,096,000
28,300,698
30,632,860
28,000,000
2,632,860
155,766,234
105,833,259
49,932,975
56,660,170
48,337,500
8,322,670
140,343,318
34,148,200
106,195,118
70,207,918
53,166,800
17,041,118
35,142,700
29,096,000
6,046,700
62,898,200
18,602,000
44,296,200
74,917,023
51,893,726
23,023,297
118,818,644
45,939,500
72,879,144
157,906,006
142,857,286
15,048,720
95,102,544
90,080,544
5,022,000
130,865,135
93,002,801
37,862,334
62,952,384
58,500,000
4,452,384
75,726,536
72,946,563
2,779,973
135,127,310
38,069,310
97,058,000
% Of
Unspent
amount
8%
8%
58%
61%
9%
32%
15%
76%
24%
17%
70%
31%
61%
10%
5%
29%
7%
4%
72%
310
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
Name of LGA
40
Tanga CC
41
Ulanga DC
42
43
Funds
available (TZS)
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
Unspent
Amount (TZS)
60,098,808
41,525,000
18,573,808
101,493,725
76,510,296
24,983,429
39,314,707
15,100,000
24,214,707
76,569,510
43,530,020
33,039,490
3,900,786,508
2,565,439,56
3
1,335,346,94
5
34%
% Of
Unspen
t
amoun
t
Wang‟ing‟omb
e DC
Gairo DC
Total
% Of
Unspent
amount
31%
25%
62%
43%
(x) CHF
S/
N
Name of LGA
1
Arusha DC
2
Bariadi DC
3
Busokelo DC
4
Chamwino DC
5
Chunya DC
6
Dodoma MC
7
Ileje DC
8
Karagwe DC
9
Kilosa DC
Funds
available (TZS)
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
Unspent
Amount (TZS)
58,386,742
30,204,141
28,182,601
48%
71,437,187
6,869,000
64,568,187
90%
19,817,169
-
19,817,169
100%
184,679,051
151,263,710
33,415,341
18%
15,305,000
14,400,000
905,000
6%
151,135,230
50,535,175
100,600,055
67%
55,767,012
4,245,400
51,521,612
92%
232,614,464
150,024,650
82,589,814
36%
67,021,463
8,810,800
58,210,663
87%
311
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/
N
Name of LGA
10
Kiteto DC
11
Kongwa DC
12
Korogwe DC
13
Kyela DC
14
Lindi DC
15
Liwale DC
16
Mbeya CC
17
Mbinga DC
18
Mkinga DC
19
Mlele DC
20
Monduli DC
21
Mpanda DC
22
Mpanda TC
23
Muheza DC
24
Muleba DC
25
Pangani DC
26
Rufiji DC
27
Rungwe DC
28
Sikonge DC
% Of
Unspen
t
amoun
t
Funds
available (TZS)
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
Unspent
Amount (TZS)
34,140,878
26,613,250
7,527,628
22%
88,423,960
58,865,838
29,558,122
33%
41,397,800
35,223,510
6,174,290
15%
118,785,115
81,849,450
36,935,665
31%
110,942,109
38,279,769
72,662,340
65%
80,109,897
41,214,597
38,895,300
49%
96,630,000
29,124,500
67,505,500
70%
74,875,152
20,586,000
54,289,152
73%
87,733,061
39,830,611
47,902,450
55%
6,739,000
-
6,739,000
100%
50,964,375
38,537,625
12,426,750
24%
59,365,350
36,379,875
22,985,475
39%
8,361,527
2,040,000
6,321,527
76%
85,553,815
39,403,519
46,150,296
54%
109,393,510
63,307,188
46,086,322
42%
20,989,486
2,544,116
18,445,370
88%
117,670,280
93,056,810
24,613,470
21%
279,857,175
231,764,033
48,093,142
17%
103,558,536
16,207,691
87,350,845
84%
312
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/
N
Name of LGA
29
Simanjiro DC
30
Sumbawanga
DC
31
Tanga CC
32
Ukerewe DC
33
Ulanga DC
Total
% Of
Unspen
t
amoun
t
Funds
available (TZS)
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
Unspent
Amount (TZS)
24,372,962
2,950,000
21,422,962
88%
56,728,885
7,979,733
48,749,152
86%
603,237,734
551,939,674
51,298,061
9%
58,746,000
-
58,746,000
100%
98,571,337
62,775,811
35,795,526
36%
3,273,311,264
1,936,826,476
1,336,484,788
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
Unspent
Amount (TZS)
114,502,518
24,831,069
112,579,861
11,959,645
20,099,845
13,274,908
63,730,100
48,803,493
34,729,749
6,307,647
129,966,730
56,027,195
279,031,444
207,599,330
94,541,326
27,352,909
174,876,389
38,272,787
234,493,800
26,434,607
(xi) NMSF
S/
N
Funds available
(TZS)
Name of LGA
1
Arusha DC
139,333,587
2
Babati DC
124,539,506
3
Babati TC
33,374,753
4
Bumbuli DC
112,533,593
5
Busokelo DC
41,037,396
6
Chamwino
DC
185,993,925
7
Geita DC
486,630,774
8
Hanang' DC
121,894,235
9
Handeni DC
213,149,176
10
Ilala MC
260,928,407
% Of
Unspent
amount
18%
10%
40%
43%
15%
30%
43%
22%
18%
10%
313
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/
N
Funds available
(TZS)
Name of LGA
11
Ileje DC
73,398,259
12
Ilemela MC
94,634,623
13
Itilima DC
108,021,081
14
Kibaha TC
80,465,561
15
Kilosa DC
130,888,894
16
Kilwa DC
131,012,320
17
Kiteto DC
79,779,767
18
Kongwa DC
133,239,327
19
Korogwe TC
47,329,691
20
Kyela DC
141,954,712
21
Lindi DC
126,154,105
22
Lushoto DC
228,270,260
23
Mbulu DC
138,180,812
24
Meatu DC
153,545,988
25
Mkinga DC
60,565,612
26
Mkuranga DC
27
Monduli DC
65,556,821
28
Moshi MC
58,748,354
29
Muheza DC
82,550,717
30
Muleba DC
179,362,476
173,682,197
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
Unspent
Amount (TZS)
40,578,700
32,819,559
42,404,005
52,230,619
65,319,960
42,701,121
62,006,391
18,459,170
56,489,300
74,399,594
37,148,814
93,863,506
70,439,767
9,340,000
96,041,600
37,197,727
44,918,721
2,410,970
119,669,502
22,285,210
118,359,651
7,794,454
192,988,817
35,281,443
129,252,117
8,928,696
123,331,000
30,214,988
56,105,655
4,459,957
149,918,435
23,763,762
58,825,046
6,731,775
36,161,910
22,586,444
80,208,620
2,342,097
121,165,369
58,197,107
% Of
Unspent
amount
45%
55%
40%
23%
57%
72%
12%
28%
5%
16%
6%
15%
6%
20%
7%
14%
10%
38%
3%
32%
314
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/
N
Funds available
(TZS)
Name of LGA
31
Mwanga DC
65,809,771
32
Ngorongoro
DC
88,713,299
33
Pangani DC
47,638,434
34
Ruangwa DC
84,159,360
35
Rufiji DC
36
Serengeti DC
37
Tanga CC
137,630,646
38
Uvinza DC
130,484,949
201,110,967
97,221,940
Total
4,859,526,294
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
Unspent
Amount (TZS)
53,018,183
12,791,588
74,597,440
14,115,859
45,457,735
2,180,699
75,039,327
9,120,033
158,658,700
42,452,267
76,786,292
20,435,648
117,317,220
20,313,426
25,669,800
104,815,149
3,586,429,83
8
1,273,096,456
% Of
Unspent
amount
19%
16%
5%
11%
21%
21%
15%
80%
26%
(xii) TSCP
S/
N
Name of
LGA
1
Arusha CC
2
Dodoma MC
3
Tanga CC
Total
Funds available
(TZS)
Actual
expenditure
(TZS)
Unspent Amount
(TZS)
2,142,559,685
1,747,301,783
395,257,902
2,285,500,809
1,997,061,306
288,439,503
7,057,043,989
5,754,185,746
1,302,858,243
11,485,104,482
9,498,548,83
4
1,986,555,648
315
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
% Of
Unspent
amount
18%
13%
18%
17%
Annexure (xliii): Financial
development projects
S/N
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISTRICT
Arusha DC
Babati DC
Babati TC
Bagamoyo DC
Bahi DC
Bariadi DC
Bariadi TC
Biharamulo DC
Buhigwe DC
Bukoba DC
Bukoba MC
Bukombe DC
Bumbuli DC
Bunda DC
Busega DC
Busokeli DC
Chamwino DC
Chato DC
Chemba
Chunya DC
Dar es Salaam CC
Dodoma MC
Gairo DC
Geita DC
Geita TC
Hai DC
Hanang‟ DC
Handeni DC
Igunga DC
Ikungi DC
Ilala MC
Ileje DC
Ilemela MC
Iramba DC
Iringa DC
Iringa MC
Kahama TC
Kakonko DC
Kalambo DC
Kaliua DC
Karagwe DC
Karatu DC
Kasulu DC
Kibaha DC
Kibaha TC
Kibondo DC
Kigoma DC
FUNDS
AVAILABLE
(TZS)
6,117,753,761
3,573,943,000
3,038,692,453
6,024,290,738
3,477,360,079
6,220,989,595
3,239,423,878
6,244,977,396
550,753,514
4,031,824,454
3,120,605,049
656,400,000
1,592,075,294
3,720,425,000
1,771,820,591
1,735,489,437
5,565,480,005
5,304,685,711
1,109,402,518
3,249,638,970
3,079,869,543
9,124,652,271
1,031,207,000
6,401,677,120
3,449,752,787
4,176,321,026
4,518,772,000
6,458,779,730
3,300,818,944
1,075,570,000
9,388,734,398
3,993,417,585
2,912,222,878
5,785,387,000
7,061,967,576
5,449,780,347
6,276,060,633
1,719,320,000
1,942,467,000
1,984,057,016
6,039,141,659
3,802,168,698
5,504,662,585
2,655,615,625
5,457,189,756
7,549,772,680
3,946,271,000
performance
CAPITAL
EXPENDITURE
(TZS)
5,097,626,687
3,430,558,000
2,575,943,040
4,248,259,470
2,577,170,397
4,130,335,092
1,741,176,062
5,952,855,129
424,546,774
3,828,953,376
2,981,762,002
605,000,000
496,657,949
3,346,203,000
969,479,481
1,735,489,437
4,110,615,465
4,364,723,239
521,197,316
3,249,638,970
2,852,035,426
5,217,595,796
371,467,000
6,072,744,821
2,452,401,744
3,252,972,799
3,423,281,000
2,396,650,599
2,359,303,228
454,481,000
7,077,110,169
3,993,417,585
993,454,707
5,019,087,000
5,561,756,350
4,327,541,547
5,307,407,751
843,048,000
1,002,330,000
1,249,690,696
6,014,521,212
3,725,957,903
4,011,633,753
2,502,458,031
3,781,050,727
5,096,517,200
3,745,527,000
for
capital
CLOSING
BALANCE (TZS)
1,020,127,074
143,385,000
462,749,413
1,776,031,268
900,189,682
2,090,654,503
1,498,247,816
292,122,267
126,206,740
202,871,078
138,843,047
51,400,000
1,095,417,346
374,222,000
802,341,110
1,454,864,540
939,962,472
588,205,202
227,834,116
3,907,056,475
659,740,000
328,932,299
997,351,043
923,348,227
1,095,491,000
4,062,129,131
941,515,716
621,089,000
2,311,624,229
1,918,768,171
766,300,000
1,500,211,226
1,122,238,800
968,652,882
876,272,000
940,137,000
734,366,320
24,620,446
76,210,795
1,493,028,832
153,157,594
1,676,139,029
2,453,255,480
200,744,000
316
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
o
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
DISTRICT
Kigoma/Ujiji MC
Kilolo DC
Kilombero DC
Kilosa DC
Kilwa DC
Kinondoni MC
Kisarawe DC
Kishapu DC
Kiteto DC
Kondoa DC
Kongwa DC
Korogwe DC
Korogwe TC
Kwimba DC
Kyela DC
Kyerwa DC
Lindi MC
Lindi DC
Liwale DC
Longido DC
Ludewa DC
Lushoto DC
Mafia DC
Magu DC
Makambako TC
Makete DC
Manyoni DC
Masasi DC
Masasi TC
Maswa DC
Mbarali DC
Mbeya DC
Mbinga DC
Mbogwe DC
Mbozi DC
Mbulu DC
Meru DC
Missenyi DC
Misungwi DC
Mkalama DC
Mkinga DC
Mkuranga DC
Mlele DC
Momba DC
Monduli DC
Morogoro DC
Morogoro MC
Moshi DC
Moshi MC
Mpanda DC
FUNDS
AVAILABLE
(TZS)
8,609,115,305
3,748,227,822
8,286,329,258
8,119,193,535
1,449,734,994
22,468,980,996
4,359,931,664
4,382,914,163
3,790,011,503
4,067,830,513
3,018,644,768
4,511,347,105
2,825,097,816
5,444,918,530
5,450,343,953
1,563,237,163
23,920,000
5,409,557,000
3,006,445,000
5,763,121,550
4,183,836,948
3,883,083,777
3,148,657,380
5,762,853,224
1,235,811,533
4,059,541,261
2,022,104,025
4,096,507,859
1,434,701,246
3,773,490,617
5,118,188,863
5,859,062,785
5,743,960,834
343,266,030
2,199,696,305
4,164,090,580
4,569,759,359
5,100,249,337
4,500,166,944
451,124,000
4,988,609,733
3,256,415,857
907,097
2,586,037,846
8,959,535,000
4,512,364,780
5,486,212,947
4,301,105,448
4,200,238,576
6,484,188,739
CAPITAL
EXPENDITURE
(TZS)
7,929,690,018
3,158,397,061
4,377,210,810
3,942,387,303
1,449,734,994
18,313,285,170
3,231,828,234
3,651,486,725
1,742,685,844
3,369,787,704
2,504,486,301
1,756,625,717
2,141,401,972
5,157,115,176
2,686,374,275
1,099,365,512
23,920,000
3,700,007,000
1,301,611,000
3,121,038,960
2,407,391,580
2,871,708,550
2,423,004,420
5,015,236,539
651,468,104
2,385,069,531
2,022,104,025
3,761,605,441
512,652,316
3,273,789,502
4,621,773,186
4,952,810,356
4,823,376,999
343,266,030
1,899,649,516
2,310,113,580
3,778,487,461
5,100,249,337
2,654,811,038
301,189,000
3,657,834,458
2,120,070,957
880,357
964,709,811
7,886,910,000
2,236,542,915
3,585,193,826
3,392,034,663
2,322,358,268
4,859,406,354
CLOSING
BALANCE (TZS)
679,425,287
589,830,761
3,909,118,448
4,176,806,232
4,155,695,826
1,128,103,430
731,427,438
2,047,325,659
698,042,809
514,158,467
2,754,721,388
683,695,845
287,803,354
2,763,969,678
463,871,651
1,709,550,000
1,704,834,000
2,642,082,590
1,776,445,368
1,011,375,227
725,652,960
747,616,685
584,343,429
1,674,471,730
334,902,418
922,048,930
499,701,115
496,415,677
906,252,429
920,583,835
300,046,789
1,853,977,000
791,271,898
1,845,355,906
149,935,000
1,330,775,275
1,136,344,900
26,740
1,621,328,035
1,072,625,000
2,275,821,865
1,901,019,121
909,070,785
1,877,880,308
1,624,782,384
317
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
o
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
DISTRICT
Mpanda TC
Mpwapwa DC
Msalala DC
Mtwara DC
Mtwara MC
Mufindi DC
Muheza DC
Muleba DC
Musoma DC
Musoma MC
Mvomero DC
Mwanga DC
Mwanza CC
Nachingwea DC
Namtumbo DC
Nanyumbu DC
Newala DC
Ngara DC
Ngorongoro DC
Njombe DC
Njombe TC
Nkasi DC
Nsimbo DC
Nyang'hwale DC
Nyasa DC
Nzega DC
Pangani DC
Rombo DC
Rorya DC
Ruangwa DC
Rufiji DC
Rungwe DC
Same DC
Sengerema DC
Serengeti DC
Shinyanga DC
Shinyanga MC
Siha DC
Sikonge DC
Simanjiro DC
Singida DC
Singida MC
Songea DC
Songea MC
Sumbawanga DC
Sumbawanga MC
Tabora DC
Tabora MC
Tandahimba DC
Tanga CC
FUNDS
AVAILABLE
(TZS)
6,377,514,119
3,555,225,968
2,989,312,185
5,617,032,000
13,303,467,000
6,685,546,713
3,141,710,677
7,976,078,462
2,951,197,758
1,951,394,861
6,212,932,497
4,425,819,484
8,460,513,748
4,097,316,512
7,352,167,077
3,763,577,523
5,655,902,447
4,834,189,668
4,432,169,071
3,971,208,675
8,610,715,613
5,309,533,000
1,797,170,650
5,816,539,109
649,861,708
6,354,075,965
2,479,928,042
3,234,631,875
7,255,365,497
3,797,588,000
3,682,118,000
3,883,694,561
4,477,287,514
6,248,118,000
5,109,723,000
3,295,846,284
4,095,118,670
3,754,037,964
5,098,731,656
3,996,129,151
4,275,152,460
3,681,409,175
7,544,144,932
3,315,911,472
4,921,010,989
5,120,460,689
2,154,023,778
4,258,130,250
3,785,216,851
14,571,296,007
CAPITAL
EXPENDITURE
(TZS)
4,277,377,591
2,570,647,911
2,112,706,390
4,903,113,000
9,780,701,000
4,174,871,625
2,326,983,064
6,525,352,932
2,294,902,555
846,643,359
3,882,881,939
3,603,223,323
7,465,885,774
2,598,830,075
4,644,979,793
3,670,240,250
4,117,036,411
4,095,290,363
3,256,702,518
2,542,578,256
5,431,166,870
3,873,814,000
528,232,677
4,492,144,226
378,134,945
4,439,906,834
1,714,688,560
2,199,822,274
5,217,209,085
3,321,762,000
2,931,148,000
3,883,694,561
2,790,785,116
5,904,162,000
4,174,079,000
2,871,875,520
3,839,947,487
2,629,640,081
4,196,462,341
3,410,908,243
3,335,517,544
3,197,822,122
5,621,705,616
1,880,211,526
2,760,995,547
3,675,244,106
2,154,023,778
2,175,465,701
3,297,978,219
12,647,021,208
CLOSING
BALANCE (TZS)
2,100,136,528
984,578,057
876,605,795
713,919,000
3,522,766,000
2,510,675,088
814,727,613
1,450,725,530
656,295,203
1,104,751,502
2,330,050,558
822,596,161
994,627,974
1,498,486,437
2,707,187,284
93,337,273
1,538,866,036
738,899,305
1,175,466,553
1,428,630,420
3,179,548,743
1,435,719,000
1,268,937,973
1,324,394,883
271,726,763
1,914,169,131
765,239,482
1,034,809,601
2,038,156,412
475,826,000
750,970,000
1,686,502,398
343,956,000
935,644,000
423,970,764
255,171,183
1,124,397,883
902,269,315
585,220,908
939,634,916
483,587,053
1,922,439,316
1,435,699,947
2,160,015,442
1,445,216,583
2,082,664,549
487,238,632
1,924,274,799
318
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
o
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
DISTRICT
Tarime DC
Tarime TC
Temeke MC
Tunduru DC
Ukerewe DC
Ulanga DC
Urambo DC
Ushetu DC
Uvinza DC
Wang‟ing‟ombe
DC
TOTAL
FUNDS
AVAILABLE
(TZS)
5,674,951,067
293,609,630
10,297,975,694
8,568,105,023
4,948,986,629
7,350,443,325
5,157,598,673
5,677,298,332
2,061,080,000
1,236,129,614
CAPITAL
EXPENDITURE
(TZS)
2,833,985,801
293,609,630
7,086,790,953
3,934,275,892
4,160,857,583
4,926,100,556
3,297,793,372
3,224,912,158
1,714,809,000
729,361,977
718,749,785,16
1
532,156,786,063
CLOSING
BALANCE (TZS)
2,840,965,266
3,211,184,741
4,633,829,131
788,129,046
2,424,342,769
1,859,805,302
2,452,386,174
346,271,000
506,767,637
186,592,999,09
9
319
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xliv): Under release of funds for implementation of
development project/programmes
LGAs
S/ N
Amount
budgeted (TZS)
Total
released (TZS)
% of Under
release
% of
under
released
Source
of
Funds
129,220,000
100%
PHSDP
160,300,000
100%
NMSF
Lushoto DC
129,220,000
Rungwe DC
160,300,000
3
Lushoto DC
121,987,000
118,800,942
3,186,058
3%
NMSF
4
Makete DC
1,936,984,727
33,171,329
1,903,813,398
98%
PEDP
5
LUSHOTO DC
555,596,000
124,447,180
431,148,820
78%
6
Makete DC
449,496,479
184,623,878
264,872,601
59%
SEDP
7
Nachingwea DC
64,298,000
19,558,000
44,740,000
70%
PFM
1
2
-
PEDP
8
Arusha CC
1,289,827,800
186,361,000
1,103,466,800
86%
LGCDG
9
Bahi DC
1,432,752,798
242,347,000
1,190,405,798
83%
LGCDG
10
Biharamulo DC
1,380,294,300
303,495,000
1,076,799,300
78%
LGCDG
11
Busokelo DC
1,945,264,500
696,275,000
1,248,989,500
64%
LGCDG
12
Chemba DC
1,406,415,417
469,258,690
937,156,727
67%
LGCDG
13
Chunya DC
1,171,511,000
401,199,000
770,312,000
66%
LGCDG
14
Ikungi DC
1,655,482,096
289,057,591
1,366,424,505
83%
LGCDG
15
Ilemela MC
1,258,153,170
338,016,897
920,136,273
73%
LGCDG
16
Kondoa DC
1,771,521,367
417,682,310
1,353,839,057
76%
LGCDG
17
Korogwe TC
283,472,100
47,446,000
236,026,100
83%
LGCDG
18
Makete DC
1,063,871,320
474,050,400
589,820,920
55%
LGCDG
19
Misenyi DC
958,348,300
557,044,000
401,304,300
42%
LGCDG
20
Mpanda DC
987,289,000
96,313,000
890,976,000
90%
LGCDG
21
Rufiji DC
1,895,114,000
567,063,000
1,328,051,000
70%
LGCDG
22
Rungwe DC
1,860,251,700
601,689,000
1,258,562,700
68%
LGCDG
23
Singida DC
1,819,589,701
608,672,000
1,210,917,701
67%
LGCDG
24
Tanga CC
1,487,271,000
251,568,000
1,235,703,000
83%
LGCDG
25
Tarime DC
2,500,535,400
695,874,000
1,804,661,400
72%
LGCDG
26
Total
29,584,847,175
7,724,013,217
21,860,833,957
74%
320
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xlv): Non implementation of planned projects
TZS.6,182,097,810
S/N
Name of LGA
Projects Amount (TZS)
Source of Funds
1 Kilosa DC
21,424,000
CDCF
2 Mafia DC
5,479,500
CDCF
3 Moshi MC
34,917,925
CDCF
4 Gairo DC
23,640,000
CDCF
5 Arusha DC
12,495,074
LGDG
6 Babati DC
9,373,451
LGDG
7 Babati TC
241,950,100
LGDG
8 Bariadi TC
250,000,000
LGDG
9 Chato DC
110,216,360
LGDG
5,381,694
LGDG
207,641,132
LGDG
12 Ilala MC
3,207,118
LGDG
13 Ileje DC
7,000,000
LGDG
14 Ilemela MC
20,000,000
LGDG
15 Iramba DC
4,000,000
LGDG
16 Iringa DC
725,923,000
LGDG
17 Karatu DC
15,000,000
LGDG
18 Kilolo DC
3,000,000
LGDG
19 Kilosa DC
282,588,167
LGDG
20 Korogwe DC
21,662,486
LGDG
21 Kyerwa DC
125,000,000
LGDG
125,000,000
LGDG
659,894,950
LGDG
24 Moshi DC
40,660,000
LGDG
25 Moshi MC
27,000,000
LGDG
26 Mtwara MC
22,180,000
LGDG
27 Mufindi DC
48,848,070
LGDG
28 Njombe DC
44,000,000
LGDG
750,888,878
LGDG
10 Hai DC
11 Handeni DC
Makambako
22 TC
23 Masasi DC
Nyang' hwale
29 DC
321
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
Name of LGA
Projects Amount (TZS)
Source of Funds
30 Pangani DC
14,000,000
LGDG
31 Rombo DC
3,000,000
LGDG
32 Simanjiro DC
40,000,000
LGDG
33 Singida MC
88,356,839
LGDG
34 Arusha CC
95,186,400
PHSDP
35 Muheza DC
12,000,000
PHSDP
7,000,000
PHSDP
36 Mvomero DC
37 Bagamoyo DC
156,003,332
SEDP
38 Hai DC
50,000,000
SEDP
39 Hanang' DC
40,486,050
SEDP
619,083,632
SEDP
70,000,000
SEDP
175,821,600
SEDP
43 Masasi TC
57,000,000
SEDP
44 Mbulu DC
176,801,610
SEDP
45 Morogoro MC
50,000,000
SEDP
46 Mpanda TC
50,000,000
SEDP
47 Mtwara MC
500,000,000
SEDP
48 Nsimbo DC
85,000,000
PEDP
49 Ilala MC
25,527,272
NMSF
50 Kibaha TC
18,459,170
NMSF
40 Iringa DC
41 Korogwe DC
42 Lindi DC
51 TOTAL
6,182,097,810
322
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xlvi): Delay in completion of planned projects
TZS.14,942,868,731
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Name of LGA
Arusha DC
Meru DC
Babati DC
Bagamoyo DC
Bunda DC
Chunya DC
Geita TC
Hanang' DC
Handeni DC
Iramba DC
Iringa DC
Kalambo DC
Karatu DC
Kibaha TC
Kilindi DC
Kilolo DC
Kilombero DC
Kisarawe DC
Kishapu DC
Kiteto DC
Korogwe DC
Kwimba DC
Kyerwa DC
Lindi DC
Lindi MC
Mafia DC
Makete DC
Mbeya DC
Mbozi DC
Meru DC
Misenyi DC
Mkinga DC
Monduli DC
Morogoro DC
Moshi DC
Moshi MC
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
Musoma DC
Mvomero DC
Mwanga DC
Nachingwea DC
Ngorongoro DC
Nsimbo DC
Project Amount (TZS)
10,000,000
14,000,000
295,255,600
167,563,300
223,500,000
663,232,352
424,482,955
174,972,150
499,467,000
78,262,000
3,750,000
668,620,500
168,858,645
2,981,000
143,000,000
149,295,000
84,493,700
247,385,250
138,025,839
191,963,864
86,099,775
82,000,000
20,000,000
146,480,000
48,486,000
63,105,000
110,436,550
592,856,163
80,500,000
851,005,117
73,842,500
122,655,200
49,431,873
32,692,640
105,446,700
220,436,000
718,181,809
256,154,850
187,950,000
135,585,917
51,900,000
241,377,250
274,997,481
108,000,000
Source of Funds
CDCF
CDCF
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
323
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
Name of LGA
Rombo DC
Ruangwa DC
Rungwe DC
Sengerema DC
Serengeti DC
Simanjiro DC
Tanga CC
Tarime DC
Chunya DC
Kilosa DC
Kishapu DC
Kiteto DC
Ludewa DC
Lushoto DC
Mafia DC
Manyoni DC
Mbulu DC
Moshi DC
Muleba DC
Mvomero DC
Mwanza CC
Ngorongoro DC
Shinyanga DC
Sumbawanga DC
Gairo DC
Handeni DC
Arusha DC
Babati TC
Busokelo DC
Chunya DC
Kalambo DC
Kilindi DC
Lindi MC
Mbinga DC
Misenyi DC
Mkinga DC
Moshi MC
Njombe DC
Pangani DC
Rombo DC
Rungwe DC
Sumbawanga DC
Tanga CC
Total
Project Amount (TZS)
243,646,346
331,573,600
342,400,000
143,707,000
99,153,038
75,000,000
146,300,000
82,784,500
50,000,000
54,896,420
140,943,100
88,516,300
41,791,890
35,329,175
3,500,000
168,948,400
35,241,480
99,146,400
22,971,075
31,000,000
28,631,700
84,812,500
70,121,055
64,200,500
41,700,000
150,000,000
30,000,000
196,252,100
307,493,300
310,334,216
200,396,400
8,000,000
204,434,607
194,385,450
242,319,948
225,000,000
160,400,000
22,000,000
90,639,500
12,000,000
300,746,090
253,422,663
500,000,000
14,942,868,731
Source of Funds
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
LGDG
PHSDP
PHSDP
PHSDP
PHSDP
PHSDP
PHSDP
PHSDP
PHSDP
PHSDP
PHSDP
PHSDP
PHSDP
PHSDP
PHSDP
PHSDP
PHSDP
PHSDP
PEDP
SEDP
SEDP
SEDP
SEDP
SEDP
SEDP
SEDP
SEDP
SEDP
SEDP
SEDP
SEDP
SEDP
SEDP
SEDP
SEDP
SEDP
324
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xlvii): 10% of the Council’s own source revenue not
contributed to Women and Youth Revolving Fund
TZS.38,741,094,214
S/N
Name of LGA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Arusha CC
Arusha DC
Babati DC
Babati TC
Bagamoyo DC
Bahi DC
Bariadi DC
Bariadi TC
Bukoba DC
Bukoba MC
Bukombe DC
Bumbuli DC
Busega DC
Busokelo DC
Chamwino DC
Chato DC
Chemba DC
Chunya DC
Dodoma MC
Geita TC
Hanang' DC
Handeni DC
Ikungi DC
Ilala MC
Iramba DC
Iringa DC
Iringa MC
Kahama TC
Kalambo DC
Karagwe DC
Karatu DC
Kasulu DC
Kilindi DC
Kilolo DC
Kilosa DC
Kilwa DC
Kinondoni MC
10% Council’s Revenue to Women and
Youth Revolving Fund not contributed
(TZS)
655,059,400
257,543,976
112,210,213
94,683,404
135,142,926
87,704,910
400,800,562
74,313,214
131,675,655
71,496,533
324,259,936
9,298,827
56,438,846
83,036,670
355,676,873
59,694,393
35,633,385
1,156,032,933
1,287,466,755
161,021,660
117,239,052
18,592,872
34,773,800
2,606,037,408
120,641,000
298,541,816
1,218,460,118
321,936,294
74,280,900
90,231,700
154,760,545
115,060,969
63,258,124
527,112,694
165,036,360
228,846,252
7,254,259,804
325
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
Name of LGA
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
Kishapu DC
Kiteto DC
Kondoa DC
Kongwa DC
Korogwe DC
Korogwe TC
Kwimba DC
Kyela DC
Kyerwa DC
Lindi DC
Lindi MC
Longido DC
Ludewa DC
Lushoto DC
Mafia DC
Magu DC
Makambako TC
Makete DC
Manyoni DC
Masasi TC
Maswa DC
Mbeya CC
Mbeya DC
Mbogwe DC
Mbozi DC
Mbulu DC
Meatu DC
Meru DC
Misenyi DC
Mkinga DC
Momba DC
Monduli DC
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
Mpwapwa DC
Msalala DC
Mtwara DC
Mtwara MC
Mufindi DC
Muheza DC
Muleba DC
Musoma DC
(TZS)
586,303,575
319,780,770
316,354,301
306,902,188
21,933,994
17,486,438
422,731,822
880,945,202
103,914,354
86,627,600
94,473,646
65,055,200
277,078,778
358,615,716
37,329,427
113,536,272
92,507,374
51,637,478
113,707,464
228,385,926
136,778,477
2,906,864,897
553,261,171
19,115,460
129,362,113
254,267,384
207,151,149
88,045,685
103,275,980
129,394,021
110,724,446
67,187,800
868,944,058
158,166,771
193,003,674
136,935,445
8,579,600
219,268,300
1,209,737,366
239,745,181
138,332,409
241,538,508
326
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
Name of LGA
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
Total
Nachingwea DC
Namtumbo DC
Ngara DC
Ngorongoro DC
Njombe DC
Njombe TC
Nkasi DC
Nyang'hwale DC
Nyasa DC
Pangani DC
Rombo DC
Ruangwa DC
Rungwe DC
Serengeti DC
Shinyanga DC
Shinyanga MC
Sumbawanga MC
Tandahimba DC
Tanga CC
Tarime DC
Tarime TC
Ulanga DC
Ushetu DC
Uvinza DC
Wang’ing’ombe DC
38,741,094,214
(TZS)
153,502,200
345,558,752
266,038,516
70,627,639
33,547,894
133,441,635
94,923,400
26,272,400
37,784,897
64,509,064
67,208,362
172,356,500
1,458,946,916
199,442,500
214,611,425
490,051,230
550,877,538
162,141,937
316,610,047
578,356,894
30,516,753
238,227,395
1,406,692,018
54,606,844
993,259
327
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexure (xlviii): Loans issued to Women and Youth groups not
recovered TZS 1,426,955,884
S/N
14
15
16
17
18
19
Name of LGA
Arusha CC
Babati DC
Hanang' DC
Handeni DC
Kalambo DC
Karatu DC
Kiteto DC
Korogwe TC
Kwimba DC
Kyela DC
Kyerwa DC
Lindi MC
Longido DC
Makambako
TC
Maswa DC
Mbozi DC
Meru DC
Mkinga DC
Momba DC
20
21
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Loan not
recovered
(TZS)
420,487,148
51,859,000
16,807,590
10,793,000
26,204,950
46,100,830
5,505,000
46,629,500
10,187,500
14,844,000
16,065,000
5,415,000
15,303,500
9,637,000
14,303,000
59,614,850
18,023,366
1,346,516
3,624,012
20,940,000
8,679,000
S/N
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Name of LGA
Mtwara MC
Muheza DC
Muleba DC
Musoma MC
Mvomero DC
Mwanga DC
Newala DC
Ngorongoro DC
Njombe DC
Nkasi DC
Nsimbo DC
Rorya DC
Rungwe DC
35
36
37
38
39
40
Same DC
Sikonge DC
Simanjiro DC
Sumbawanga DC
Tabora MC
Tanga CC
Loan not
recovered
(TZS)
5,832,295
77,745,000
28,269,500
31,394,449
9,685,500
7,395,000
53,537,730
105,640,543
11,840,300
18,637,000
6,150,800
16,445,000
18,975,600
11,887,670
11,309,600
3,979,000
26,960,000
4,465,000
154,436,135
1,426,955,884
Total
328
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexture (xlix): Medicine and medical supplies balance at MSD
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Name of the Council
Arusha CC
Arusha DC
Babati DC
Babati TC
Bagamoyo DC
Bahi DC
Bariadi DC
Bariadi TC
Biharamulo DC
Buhigwe DC
Bukoba DC
Bukoba MC
Bukombe DC
Bumbuli DC
Bunda DC
Busega DC
Busokeli DC
Butiama DC
Chamwino DC
Chato DC
Chemba
Chunya DC
Dar es Salaam CC
Dodoma MC
Gairo DC
Geita DC
Geita TC
Hai DC
Hanang‟ DC
Handeni DC
Igunga DC
Ikungi DC
Ilala MC
Ileje DC
Ilemela MC
Iramba DC
Iringa DC
Iringa MC
Itilima DC
Kahama TC
Kakonko DC
Kalambo DC
Kaliua DC
Karagwe DC
2013-2014
18,520,000
129,620,350
(123,772,506)
(135,626,012)
147,475,363
228,433,108
206,099,906
67,616,737
-
2012-2013
147,986,000
251,244,948
19,325,977
698,335,701
93,033,666
110,591,397
251,043,399
312,687,436
309,433,000
521,722,918
-
46,952,991
209,878,640
(12,094,333)
52,718,949
9,065,197
45,615,405
241,673,879
90,492,993
309,115,007
206,390,019
74,604,000
852,760,000
198,019,156
105,953,810
71,109,310
39,086,399
28,500,000
(42,929,000)
128,352,406
595,416
21,071
45,334,000
22,611,319
73,132,000
(235,660,379)
(6,215,106)
268,376,000
(221,666,015)
-
32,006,000
-
(10,257,142)
234,242,000
432,867,000
104,238,293
-
329
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
68
69
67
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
Name of the Council
Karatu DC
Kasulu DC
Kibaha DC
Kibaha TC
Kibondo DC
Kigoma DC
Kigoma/Ujiji MC
Kilindi DC
Kilolo DC
Kilombero DC
Kilosa DC
Kilwa DC
Kinondoni MC
Kisarawe DC
Kishapu DC
Kiteto DC
Kondoa DC
Kongwa DC
Korogwe DC
Korogwe TC
Kwimba DC
Kyela DC
Kyerwa DC
Lindi MC
Lindi DC
Liwale DC
Longido DC
Ludewa DC
Lushoto DC
Mafia DC
Magu DC
Makambako TC
Makete DC
Manyoni DC
Masasi DC
Masasi TC
Maswa DC
Mbarali DC
Mbeya CC
Mbeya DC
Mbinga DC
Mbogwe DC
Mbozi DC
Mbulu DC
Meatu DC
Meru DC
2013-2014
-
2012-2013
29,913,442
-
92,320,313
106,797,000
89,056,000
11,480,592
225,601,994
136,885,283
404,186,039
740,647,286
84,702,602
293,153,000
104,358,000
109,602,619
187,096,007
177,618,567
267,301,678
(952,663,963)
457,233,569
95,693,940
244,628,636
135,643,769
110,682,843
3,489,007
272,303,619
104,803,953
26,890,291
-
38,372,404
278,853,470
(9,913,471)
(48,133,000)
81,483,726
(81,707,000)
81,490,000
86,488,805
214,201,523
11,479,000
41,231,626
6,024,372
(8,372,598)
52,554,078
191,582,224
132,252,000
128,463,000
199,093,086
96,137,000
110,240,645
391,866,986
33,522,000
21,872,407
118,301,919
720,605,591
92,968,287
324,476,188
151,454,339
202,032,469
225,848,465
279,088,209
330
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
Name of the Council
Missenyi DC
Misungwi DC
Mkalama DC
Mkinga DC
Mkuranga DC
Mlele DC
Momba DC
Monduli DC
Morogoro DC
Morogoro MC
Moshi DC
Moshi MC
Mpanda DC
Mpanda TC
Mpwapwa DC
Msalala DC
Mtwara DC
Mtwara MC
Mufindi DC
Muheza DC
Muleba DC
Musoma DC
Musoma MC
Mvomero DC
Mwanga DC
Mwanza CC
Nachingwea DC
Namtumbo DC
Nanyumbu DC
Newala DC
Ngara DC
Ngorongoro DC
Njombe DC
Njombe TC
Nkasi DC
Nsimbo DC
Nyang'hwale DC
Nyasa DC
Nzega DC
Pangani DC
Rombo DC
Rorya DC
Ruangwa DC
Rufiji DC
Rungwe DC
Same DC
2013-2014
209,267,309
17,555,000
9,145,586
66,087,778
33,483,000
52,690,921
206,549,426
1,386,000
31,961,880
181,307,460
144,060,020
493,720,483
154,481,712
116,373,268
248,152,734
31,321,000
147,353,947
187,740,021
(111,478,682)
126,556,000
136,953,105
70,985,977
178,552,992
183,104,808
228,557,808
33,004,000
184,707,000
239,001,931
78,451,100
2012-2013
-
9,145,586
9,228,000
100,900,102
169,881,725
144,708,099
3,036,027
(19,469,982)
29,307,000
174,370,788
233,629,561
(79,201,762)
89,663,945
19,253,814
146,061,207
172,187,984
13,443,000
374,233,000
201,302,945
153,233,691
331
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S/N
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
Name of the Council
Sengerema DC
Serengeti DC
Shinyanga DC
Shinyanga MC
Siha DC
Sikonge DC
Simanjiro DC
Singida DC
Singida MC
Songea DC
Songea MC
Sumbawanga DC
Sumbawanga MC
Tabora DC
Tabora MC
Tandahimba DC
Tanga CC
Tarime DC
Tarime TC
Temeke MC
Tunduru DC
Ukerewe DC
Ulanga DC
Urambo DC
Ushetu DC
Uvinza DC
Wang‟ing‟ombe DC
Total
2013-2014
2012-2013
84,544,343
23,406,229
209,417,485
139,631,000
114,270,387
204,819,809
(132,678,345)
(216,517,719)
109,735,701
110,583,915
163,145,542
(13,086,777)
156,297,257
473,535,000
(189,102,947)
54,582,488
(58,353,124)
263,751,660
29,796,733
194,624,539
(12,063,642)
15,522,081
(10,244,049)
154,195,193
23,615,783
107,428,000
12,039,486,807
10,051,646,851
92,384,293
-
332
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Annexture (l): Uneconomical packing and delivery cost charged by MSD
A: IRINGA DISTRICT COUNCIL
S/N
Name of Health
Facility
Invoice
No
Invoice
date
Invoice
line Total
Delivery and
Packing
charge
(1)
(2)
% of Invoice
line Total
(3)=(2)/(1)*1
00
Distance
in Km
from HQ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
A:Hospital supplies and medical equipment delivered in quarter one
Ilalasimba Disp
82904
12-09-13
540,600
166,000
Kisanga Disp
82869
12-09-13
540,000
166,000
Nyakavangala Disp
82057
09-09-13
603,120
166,000
Chamdindi Disp
81976
09-09-13
607,240
166,000
Ikengeza Disp
81991
09-09-13
636,640
166,000
Kising'a Disp
82053
09-09-13
755,220
166,000
Igula Disp
81990
09-09-13
649,700
166,000
Mkulula Disp
82055
09-09-13
625,920
166,000
Ismani Lwanga Disp
81984
09-09-13
677,320
166,000
Migoli Disp
82054
09-09-13
808,000
166,000
Nyamahana Disp
82902
12-09-13
794,400
166,000
Makifu Disp
82901
12-09-13
565,000
166,000
Tungamalenga Disp
82867
12-09-13
708,440
166,000
Mlowa Disp
82865
12-09-13
716,900
166,000
Luganga Disp
82863
12-09-13
473,000
166,000
Mfyome Disp
82864
12-09-13
534,400
166,000
Iguluba Disp
81983
09-09-13
827,700
166,000
Ngano Disp
81988
09-09-13
587,020
166,000
Mkungungu Disp
81987
09-09-13
615,900
166,000
Ilolo Mpya Disp
82903
12-09-13
790,400
166,000
31
31
28
27
26
22
26
27
25
21
21
29
23
23
35
31
20
28
27
21
48
105
85
65
50
24
54
80
42
100
48
110
101
55
48
26
63
43
32
58
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
B:Hospital supplies and medical equipment delivered in quarter two
Makombe Disp
96171
20-11-13
473,320
166,000
Magulilwa Disp
96191
20-11-13
593,600
166,000
Lumuli Disp
96166
20-11-13
361,810
166,000
Ulete Disp
96181
20-11-13
799,700
166,000
Udumka Disp
96180
20-11-13
304,440
166,000
Ifunda Disp
96158
20-11-13
645,000
166,000
Ihemi Disp
96185
20-11-13
589,610
166,000
Ng'eza Disp
96176
20-11-13
425,040
166,000
Magunga Disp
96192
20-11-13
528,810
166,000
Mgama Disp
96193
20-11-13
888,900
166,000
Mibikimitali Disp
96174
20-11-13
576,510
166,000
Weru Disp
96195
20-11-13
699,700
166,000
Mkulula Disp
95680
16-11-13
689,810
166,000
Igula Disp
95674
16-11-13
324,300
166,000
Igangidung'u Disp
96201
20-11-13
550,800
166,000
Wasa Govt Disp
96194
20-11-13
397,810
166,000
Ilandutwa Disp
96186
20-11-13
628,450
166,000
35
28
46
21
55
26
28
39
31
19
29
24
24
51
30
42
26
92
32
66
50
76
40
32
24
64
40
58
30
80
54
80
80
53
333
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Invoice
line Total
S/N
38
39
40
Name of Health
Facility
Lupembelwasega Disp
Nyakavangala Disp
Kibena Disp
Invoice
No
96167
95681
96162
Total
Invoice
date
20-11-13
16-11-13
20-11-13
(1)
366,710
610,710
459,320
23,971,27
0
Delivery and
Packing
charge
(2)
166,000
166,000
166,000
6,640,000
% of Invoice
line Total
(3)=(2)/(1)*1
00
45
27
36
28
334
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
Distance
in Km
from HQ
43
85
56
Annexure (li): Land conflicts in LGAs
S.N
1.
Name of Region,
Council/Municipality
Dodoma, Manyara and
Morogoro
Dodoma
2.
Kinondoni Municipality
3.
Ilala MC
Type of Land Conflict and reason
The Conflict involves Districts‟ demarcations between Kondoa
and Kiteto, Kondoa and Babati, Kondoa and Simanjiro,
Kongwa and Kiteto as well as Chemba and Kiteto. These
conflicts involve farmers and pastoralist on one side while on
other hand they involve either of the groups invading national
reserves.
Invasion land conflicts between villages and Tarangire
National park and Mkungunero and Swagaswaga Reserves
where farmers and pastoralists conduct their activities in the
legally reserved areas.
Demarcation land conflict between two villages (Citego in
Kongwa DC and Izava in Chamwino DC) on where does the
Wali hamlets fall.
Other conflicts resulting from lack of knowledge on the land
use. For instance, for quite a long period Itaswi Village in
Kondoa DC farmers have been engaged in pastrolism
activities.
There are 12 land cases in court involving disputes on land
ownership and land invasion.
Other identified causes of land conflicts for Kinondoni
Municipality are:
Invasion of the plots with clear boundaries and lawful
ownerships due to high demand for the same.
Un-developed plots for quite a long time attracting unfaithful
mongers.
Multiple allocations emanating from dishonest land officers
facilitated by poor record keeping.
Demand of land ownership by individuals other than
indigenous of the land which is already surveyed and
allocated to prospective developers or applicants.
51 land cases filed against Ilala MC were in different stages.
Reasons which gave rise to these cases are as shown below:
Double allocation of land/Plots in surveyed areas.
Demolishing of existing building in disputed plots.
Changing ownership of land without consent of the previous
owner.
Ownership dispute between Ilala MC and supposedly owners
of the disputed pieces of land.
Survey of land without involvement of the Ward and Mitaa
Executive Officers (MEOs) in the process.
Delay in compensation of land as alternative to cash
compensation to legitimate beneficiaries.
Claims for compensation on:
Illegal demolish of existing buildings
Piece of land taken by Ilala Municipal to allow development
335
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014
S.N
4
Name of Region,
Council/Municipality
Temeke MC
Type of Land Conflict and reason
projects such as roads, schools etc.
Invasion by:
Self-proclaimed owners of the land
- Citizen who were compensated to allow expansion
(Example is the area around Julius K. Nyerere Airport)
Temeke MC had 11 land disputes which were caused by the
following:
Delay in paying compensation was the concern of the people
together with dissatisfaction of compensation granted for
lands taken by Government for public use.
Double allocation of land/Plots in surveyed areas.
Invading plots which seem to remain idle/undeveloped for a
long period and so claiming ownership.
Political directives or from Government on the need to
acquire land while compensation cannot be effected
immediately.
Disagreements between the public and Government on plans
requiring acquisition of land for public interests.
Boundary conflicts between Temeke MC and Mkuranga DC.
336
____________________________________
AGR/LG/2013/2014

THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE

Transcription

Similar documents

ARUSHA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

AGM Report

Untitled - Caja Rural Granada

Presentation by the CGS unit of the OSSAP on the NDGs

Gombe State SSHDP 05.01.2011

AGE DEFY BALANCING ADDITIVES

game console cd/mp3/Game Cube® laptop/soundcard

SDN-PANDA: Software-Defined Network Platform for ANomaly

A Magical A - PlayStation

Winter 2012 - Alpha Gamma Rho