Social investment in Tumut, Australia

Indicator: Social investment

| Indicator description | Complete list of Indicators |

What the results tell us for Tumut

The Tumut Shire Council is spending between 5 and 8% of the value of the Shire's transport infrastructure each year of this reporting period. This is around the higher end of the range of expenditure in the Region and includes significant capital investment on upgrading or replacements. The Council has a major challenge presented by the declining condition of road infrastructure with some 83% of sealed roads and 50% of unsealed roads in the Shire needing to be upgraded or replaced in the next four years. Even this higher level of spending may not be sufficient to achieve this task and the value of the asset may be reduced if funds are not available.

The level of reinvestment in water infrastructure, at between 2 and 8%, is in the mid-range of expenditure across the Region, reflecting the generally satisfactory condition of the Shire's water supply system. An increase in the level of expenditure was reported for 1999–2000 to approximately $4m, including nearly $2.5m of capital investment in upgrading or replacement.

Community and cultural facilities received major injections of capital funding, amounting to about $15m in the reporting period and thus significantly increasing the value of these community assets.

Table 1. Expenditure on Social Infrastructure 1997–98 to 1999–2000
Type of infrastructure	Value of Assets ($), as at 30/6/99	Expenditure 1997–98 ($)	Expenditure 1998–99 ($)	Expenditure 1999–2000 ($)
Transport Infrastructure	64 773 000
Capital expenditure		3 449 000	1 734 000	3 300 000*
Maintenance and repairs		1 152 000	1 454 000	2 000 000*
Total expenditure		4 601 000	3 188 000	5 300 000
Annual expenditure as proportion of value at 30/6/99		7%	4.9%	8.2%
Water Infrastructure	49 243 000
Capital expenditure		266 000	168 000	2 333 939*
Maintenance and repairs		974 000	986 000	1 835 459*
Total expenditure		1 240 000	1 154 000	4 169 398
Annual expenditure as proportion of value at 30/6/99		2.5%	2.3%	8.5%
Community and cultural facilities	19 184 000
Capital expenditure		6 389 000	8 606 000	200 000
Maintenance and repairs		1 016 000	974 000	4 330 602
Total expenditure		7 405 000	9 580 000	4 530 602
Annual expenditure as proportion of value at 30/6/99		38.6%	50%	23.6%

About the data

Title	Council Budget
Custodian	Tumut Shire Council
Jurisdiction	NSW
Abstract	Amount spent on different infrastructure
Search Word(s)	budget - Infrastructure - costs
Geographic Extent Name(s)	Tumut Shire
OR
Geographic Extent Polygon(s)	n/a
Beginning date	unknown
Ending date	current
Progress	In progress
Maintenance and update frequency	yearly
Stored Data Format	Digital Microsoft Excel and Access
Available format types	Digital Microsoft Excel and Access
Access constraints:	only available through the Shire offices
Lineage:	n/a
Positional accuracy:	n/a
Attribute accuracy:	accurate
Logical consistency:	n/a
Completeness	n/a
Contact organisation:	Tumut Shire Council
Contact position:	Allan Tonkin
Mail address 1:	76 Capper Street
Mail address 1:
Suburb or Place or Locality	Tumut
State or Locality 2	NSW
Country:	Australia
Postcode:	2720
Telephone:	69470512
Facsimile:	69473999
E-mail address:	atonkin@tumut.nsw.gov.au
Metadata Date	03-Feb-00
Additional Metadata

Description: What does 'social investment' measure?

Which data are collected?

total expenditure (capital expenditure, maintenance and upgrades) on each type of infrastructure as a proportion of total asset value

Why do we report this indicator?

The investment made by communities in developing, maintaining and upgrading their basic infrastructure, such as water pipelines and roads, supports and enhances the social and economic environment of the Australian Capital Region. Although it is easier to invest more into these public assets when economies are healthy, the level of expenditure on infrastructure provides an indication of the response by a community to maintaining and upgrading the value and level of service from its infrastructure now and into the future.

Abnormal or substantial costs can arise as a result of deferred maintenance (e.g. low maintenance for several years) that arises as a result of short-term political and funding expediency, with the result that the cost of future maintenance and upgrading to more ecologically and cost-effective systems can be prohibitive.

Each of the following sectors should be considered in terms of the total asset value and amount of money spent on developing, maintaining/upgrading infrastructure:

communications
community and cultural facilities
education
energy
health
heritage
housing
transport
water.

Expenditure can include land rates and other subsidies at the local level (e.g. for heritage places) as well as grants, loans, tax incentives and funding for research and management. Heritage expenditure, particularly on privately owned heritage places, should include only expenses that are the extra expense of maintenance above that which would be normally required for any property. For example, the cost of painting a heritage listed house would not be included because that in a normal part of maintaining a property, whereas restoration costs would be included, because they arise as a direct result of the property being of heritage value.