MISSION TWO (2) REPORT
Report on the Visit to 8 Rural District Councils between Sunday 5th March and Monday 13th March 2006 on Own Revenue Collection Enhancement and Mentoring
Gordon Mwesigye
Consultant, World Bank
April 2006
Background
The enactment of the Local Government Act 2004 by the Government of Sierra Leone was meant to provide a legal framework against which good governance and sustained service delivery was to be made possible. To do this, the policy of decentralisation was embraced as the vehicle to achieve this objective. 14 new local councils were created by this Act. The last functioning local councils were last heard of in 1972. Since then Local Government matters were directly run from the centre. Urban councils however remained functioning albeit not on a democratic basis as the councils were handpicked by the central government. These many years of central government control, however meant that these urban councils had also lost the capacity to raise their own revenue and provide the mandated services.
By the time the Local Government Act 2004 was enacted, the old urban councils were not any better than the 14 created local councils. Neither of the two had any capacity to raise revenue for sustained service delivery.
The enactment of the Local Government Act however did not repeal the Chiefdom Administration Act. The institution of Chiefdom Councils remained and it is to the chiefdom councils that authority was granted by the new Local Government Act 2004 to collect revenue and share this revenue with the local councils. It is this very aspect of sharing and managing the collection that has given rise to numerous problems and challenges.
A team lead by this Consultant and including Adams Tommy and others from the IRCBP visited a total of 8 local councils. These were Kailahun, Pujehun, Bonthe, Moyamba, Tonkolili, Kambia, Port Loko and Western Area Rural District Council.
The Mission was a follow-up mission of the first one that had earlier on taken place in December 2006 and which had visited a total of 10 local councils including all the urban councils.
The two Missions (1&2) together covered 18 local councils with the exception of the Island. The revenue performance of these councils including their per capita income, with the exception of Kailahun District, Kenema District and Kenema Town Councils, that are yet to submit their returns, is attached. Also attached are pie charts showing the average contribution of each own revenue source of councils to total own revenue collection in the financial year 2005.
Purpose of the Mission
As was the case in Mission One (1), the purpose of Mission Two (2) was twofold.
a) To assist councils to identify properly own source revenues and develop appropriate own source revenue collection methods including consideration of contracting out revenue collection to chiefdoms and others
b) To assist local councils in the development of appropriate simple databases including property tax data base.
The above two main tasks objectives, it was hoped would, in turn enable the visited councils to be conscious of their predicament and position and be in position to start addressing the critical issues of revenue enhancement through the following:-
· Identification of own revenue sources
· Looking at the status and methods employed in revenue collection
· Discussing revenue sharing with chiefdoms and identifying problems involved
· Discussing ways and methods of how to improve on own source revenue collection.
Methodology of Approach
On each visit the team would meet the key stakeholders involved in the revenue enhancement drive. These included the Chair or Deputy Chair of the local council, the Chief Administrator or the Deputy Chief Administrator, the local council Treasurer, the CCFC, the Treasury Clerks, the representatives of the Paramount Chiefs and Councillors.
The discussion would then review the sources of revenue available, the status of revenue sharing, the availability of data and the constraints experienced.
General Observations and Recommendations
The general observations and recommendations contained in the report concern issues that were found to be both cross cutting and very critical to the extent that they need to be addressed urgently as they impact on the success or lack of it of the policy of decentralisation and its cherished objectives.
General Observations
1) In every District we went to except Western Area Rural District Council, the issue of Treasury clerks collecting revenue and not being paid kept cropping up except for Port Loko District council. In some instances accusing figures were pointed at these Treasury Clerks for being hand in glove with the CCFCs and Paramount Chiefs in ensuring that revenue that should have been destined for the District Council does not get there. In other instances however, like was the case in Pujehun, even Chiefdoms accused Treasury Clerks of not being answerable to the Chiefdoms.
2) There appears to be a problem in the reporting relationship of these Treasury Clerks. At the moment although Treasury Clerks are responsible for revenue collection, they do not report to the District Treasurer but rather to the CCFC who in turn reports to the Provincial Secretary and the Ministry of Local Government.
3)
Recommendations
The recommendations on each local council however take into consideration the uniqueness of each local council and the circumstances obtaining on the ground at the time of the visit.
1) Treasury Clerks are an important human resource that should be harnessed and exploited to the fullest extent. We wish to recommend that a full census of all Treasury Clerks be undertaken by the Local Government Service Commission. Those that have clocked retirement age be given a terminal package and those that have not reached retirement are given letters of appointment on a trial period of two years renewable.
2) It is suggested that these Treasury Clerks together with their CCFC are put directly under the supervision of the District Treasurer who in turn should be responsible for recommending whether any Treasury Clerk should have his contract renewed after the two year trial period.
3) For the District Councils that can afford and appreciate the role and efforts played by these Treasury Clerks, such District Councils can take on these Treasury Clerks on contract basis on a piece work basis as some of them have already started doing.
4) Everywhere we went the problem of two parallel governments, that is, the District Council and the Chiefdom Council kept cropping up. Where as section 20(1) of the Local Government Act 2004 categorically states that “A Local Council shall be the highest political authority in the locality and shall have legislative and executive powers to be exercised in accordance with his Act”, First Schedule, Part 1 lists which these local councils are. It makes it clear that chiefdom councils are not Local Councils.
Despite this explicit definition of a local council and the prominence the law attaches to the Local Council vis-à-vis the Chiefdom Council, section 58 requires the locally raised revenue must be shared between the Local Council and the Chiefdom Council. Section 59(3) goes further to assign the responsibility of revenue collection to the chiefdom councils. As a result of the above, we found wherever we went uneasy relationship between the Local Councils and Chiefdom Councils. In many instances, Local Tax and other taxes collected such as market dues were not being shared with the local councils. To this extent, we would like to recommend as follows:-
a) There is need for the Ministry of Local Government in collaboration with the Ministry of Finance to institute a revenue sharing formula that is based on the obligations and functions of both the local council and chiefdom councils. The current sharing formula devised by the Ministry of Local Government leaves many local councils dissatisfied that as local councils expected to deliver on services they are being starved of money.
b) All revenue needs to be collected by the local councils and shared with the chiefdoms as per the sharing formula devised. This will truly make local councils the “Highest Political Authority in the Locality”.
c) The Ministry of Local Government needs to be once again taking a close look at the relationship between local councils and chiefdom councils and address areas that give rise to conflict. One of these areas is both Administrations laying claim to being responsible for development of their respective areas, which is really the same physical area. Issues of development need to be assigned to local councils and issues of dispensing justice and maintenance of law and order passed over to the chiefdom councils.
d) The MLG&CD appears to be fuelling this uneasy relationship between the Chiefdom Councils and the District Councils by issuing circulars on revenue collection without consulting either party or the Ministry of Finance. To this extent therefore, the MLG&CD would as much as possible desist from giving definitive directions but rather issue broad guidelines that leave local councils with room for manoeuvre. The Ministry too should create a climate where dialogue between the District Councils and Chiefdom Councils becomes the nom in their co-existence.
5) Wherever we went the issue of the effect of committed or own committed staff was apparent. In councils where the CA and the District Treasurer were committed, we found visible progress on all fronts. In councils where this was lacking, we found retardation. The two contrasting scenarios were presented by Moyamba District Council and Pujehun District Council. In Moyamba where it was clear the CA knew what he was doing. The District was making serious strides in revenue collection and also on spearheads of Development Projects. In Pujehun however where there was total lack of administrative leadership. The District Council was not collecting any revenue to talk about and the District Council was struck in counter accusations with the Chiefdom Councils. The position of the CA in the District is therefore very critical and crucial. The position effectively controls the entire beaucracy of the council. The LGSC needs to assist the councils to identify quality persons to fill this vital position in the District Structure. The appointment of competent individuals will to a large measure determine the success of the policy of decentralisation.
6) As was the case in Mission One (1), all councils visited lack basic data on their main sources of revenue. That is, Local Tax, Rates, Markets and Licenses. As a result, these local councils were not in position to make realistic budgets. Secondly this lack of basic data allowed the revenue collectors to collect and give these councils both District and Chiefdom Councils what they wanted to give them. Data collection on all revenue sources needs to be made mandatory and further disbursement of grants should be pegged against evidence of basic data on revenue sources being in place.
7) In Tonkolili District, we found evidence of contracting out revenue collection from markets to private collectors. Where as this is a practise that needs to be encouraged and fostered, it should be preceded by the District Council gathering of vital information on these markets. This should take the form of establishing the tables and how much is realisable from these markets. Once that is established, these councils can go ahead and contract a private collector and determine what the private collectors should give to the council after his overheads and profit have been reflected and discussed. The contract drawn out should be handled by a professional lawyer so that the interests of the council are properly taken care off.
MEETING WITH KAILAHUN DISTRICT COUNCIL – MONDAY 6TH MARCH 2006
The meeting with Kailahun District Council took place at the District Council Hall and was attended by the Chairman of the District Council, the Representative of the Council of Chiefdom Councils, Treasury Clerks, the CCFC and the Deputy Chief Administrator. A total of 13 persons attended the meeting.
The objectives of the meeting where explained as follows:
1) To establish revenues assigned to Chiefdom Councils and those assigned to Kailahun District Council
2) To establish the extent of Revenue Sharing between Kailahun District Council and the Chiefdom Councils
3) The collection and sharing of the Local Tax
4) The collection and sharing of the Licences fees
5) The collection and sharing of the Market dues
6) The sharing of any other source of Revenues.
Findings
The meeting heard a detailed opening address by the District Chairman in which he explained that the conflicting circulars from the Ministry of Local Government giving Chiefdom Councils authority to collect virtually all revenues without the possibility of sharing with the District Council had made the financial situation in Kailahun District Council rather very difficult. The Chairman showed the meeting a circular from the Ministry of Local Government dated which had in effect replaced that of which had given percentage (%) sharing of various sources of income like Market Dues and Licensing. The Chairman indicated that under the existing circumstances, where the MLG&CD was violating section 56 and 58 of the Local Government Act, 2004, Kailahun District Council was contemplating taking the MLG&CD to Court.
Despite this grim picture painted at the beginning, the meeting nevertheless proceeded to discuss the objectives as set out at the beginning and the following observations were made: -
a) General
· The Ministry of Local Government has not given guidelines as to what constitutes
Revenue
· The Ministry of Local Government keeps on giving conflicting circulars some of
which are not copied to District Councils
· The sharing of market Revenue has not been honoured by the Chiefdom Councils
who continue to take all the money from Market Dues
· The District Revenue collectors have met resistance from the Chiefdom Councils
who do not want them to collect any revenue.
b) Local Tax
· Sharing of Local Tax has not proceeded smoothly because there appears to be a
problem of the Treasury Clerks not paying in the money they collect from the Public to the Bank. There appears to be no mechanism of addressing this serious problem in time.
· There appears to be no comprehensive list of all Local Tax Payers.
c) Markets
· There are two types of markets
- Weekly markets
- Daily markets
· Both types of markets charge Le200 per day per vendor
· All revenues from markets is currently going to the Chiefdom Councils and none
to the District Council
· Currently the Revenue from markets stand at Le800,000 per month although
this was disputed by the Chief Administrator who believes that the Revenue from markets should stand at Le3 million per month.
d) Trading Licences Fees
· Revenue from Trading Licences is going wholly to the Chiefdom Councils
· There is no record of the Licensable premises
· The Ministry of Agriculture continues to collect Licence Fees from Agriculture
produce and from Timber.
MEETING WITH BONTHE DISTRICT COUNCIL - WEDNESDAY 8TH MARCH 2006
The meeting with Bonthe District Council and Representatives of the 12 Chiefdoms was held at the District Council Hall on 8th March 2006. The Chairman, his deputy and 24 other persons attended the meeting.
The Chairman opened the meeting with a detailed exposition of the status of Revenue Collection and revenue Sharing between the District Council and Chiefdom Councils
Findings
· The District Council has asked all the Treasury Clerks to submit a list of all Local Tax payers in the District my March 15 2006.
· Sharing of revenue from the Local Tax on the 60/40% basis is going on well
· The District Council is collecting Licences Fees with full co-operation from the Treasury Clerks of the Chiefdom Councils
· Only One Chiefdom is paying markets revenue shares
· Jetty landing and Fishing Tax is being charged at Le5,000 per boat in the District and Le3,000 per boat in the Island
· Bonthe District Council has taken the initial step to sensitize the people before charging Property Tax
Recommendations
· Bonthe District Council has established good working relationship with all the Chiefdom Councils in the District and because of this, the District Council has been able to have revenue sharing possible. There is need for other Districts to visit Bonthe and pick up the good practices Bonthe District Council has pioneered
· The Process Bonthe District Council has undertaken before the collection of Property Tax is another good practice that other District Councils who want to collect Property Tax need to look at and copy if possible
· Property Tax should be fixed at such levels that it is possible for ordinary people to pay it and the valuation should be based on the simple Mass Valuation Principle so that the council does not spend more money on valuation than what it gets from the properties. The money realised from properties should be pegged on infrastructure development so that the payers can see what it is being used for as this will encourage more to pay.
MEETING WITH MOYAMBA DISTRICT COUNCIL – TUESDAY 9TH MARCH 2006
The meeting with Moyamba District Council was held at the Court Hall of one of the Chiefdoms and was attended by the representatives of the 14 Chiefdoms, the Treasury Clerks, the District Treasurer, the Chief Administrator and District Councillors. The Chief Administrator who represented his Chairman opened the meeting and gave a detailed exposition of the state of Revenue Collection and Revenue Sharing in the District.
Below are the findings:-
· Moyamba District Council appears to have established a very good working relationship with the majority of the 14 Chiefdom Councils. To this extent Local Tax precepts have been received by the District Council and we saw evidence of this.
· The Treasury Clerks still hold the records of Local Tax payers although they promised to avail the Treasurer and the CA records of all Tax Payers village by village in their respective Chiefdoms after the meeting.
· Trading Licence Revenues was being collected by the Treasury Clerks for a fee (5% of total collection) and dully remitted to the District Council. This is the only District Council of all the District Councils visited so far where we found Trading Licences Fees being remitted in full to the District Council.
· Revenue from markets was being partially shared and after the discussion the Treasury Clerks and the representatives of the Paramount Chiefs undertook to respect section 58 of the LGA and share the market revenues more equitably.
· The statistics of market tables/stalls and market vendors were not being kept and the Treasury Clerks under the supervision of the CCFC undertook to collect this information and pass it over to the District Treasurer.
· The District Council considered the issue of levying Property Tax and dropped it citing the depressed state of family incomes as a result of the civil strife.
· Moyamba District Council received substantial revenue from rental of the Bauxite and Rutile Mines that are located in the District.
Recommendations
Moyamba District Council appears to have avoided the friction and mutual suspicion that has characterised post decentralisation relationships between the District Councils and Chiefdom Councils. It is recommended that other District Councils visit Moyamba District Council and study how this District has been able to avoid these mutual frictions and suspicious that have retarded progress in other Districts.
MEETING WITH TONKOLILI DISTRICT COUNCIL – FRIDAY 10TH MARCH 2006
The meeting with the CA, the deputy CA, Treasury Clerks of the 11 Chiefdoms, the CCFC, and the Local Government Inspector was held in the CA’s office. A total of 21 persons attended. The CA opened the meeting with an explanation as to why we had called the meeting. This was to: -
· Establish what was the own source revenue for the District Councils
· What was the status of Revenue Sharing between the District Council and the Chiefdom Councils
· The status of Local Tax Sharing between the District Council and Chiefdom Council
· The Sharing of other revenue Sources
Findings
In the course of a frank and lively discussion, the following were established:-
1) That all the chiefdoms had paid in their precepts of Local Tax except one Chiefdom of Kalansogia
2) That the Paramount Chief of Kalansogia had used headmen to collect Local Tax instead of the Treasury Clerks and the Headmen had handed over the money to the Paramount Chief who up to the time of this meeting had not passed on the District Councils precepts
3) That there are no precise records of the Local Tax Payers village by village
4) That only 5 chiefdoms have markets
5) That the 5 chiefdoms with markets are not remitting the 20% of market revenue and the reason advanced was that the previous Chairman of the Council had embezzled market revenue and the case is still in Court.
6) That all market had been contracted out to Private Managers to run
7) That neither the District Council nor the Chiefdom Councils had any knowledge of the optimum revenue these markets were capable of generating.
8) That the District Council and the Chiefdom Councils rely on the contractor to pay what he wants to pay.
9) That the Council decided not to use the Treasury Clerks and instead recruited 44 Revenue Collections of their own to collect Licence Fees. All the 44 revenue collectors have since disappeared the majority with Council money which is not ascertainable by the District Council.
10) That the Council after that horrific experience has once again recruited 4 Revenue Collectors and one Principle Collector and hope this time around they will not steal and run
11) The Council does not have a record of all the Licensable premises and will once again rely on the Revenue Collectors to bring in what they want to bring in
12) Property Tax is Le5,000 is being charged for ‘good’ houses in the Town of Marbuka and Le1,000 for ‘good’ houses in the Smaller Towns of Tonkolili District.
13) What is considered a ‘good’ house is not clearly defined and it is left to the revenue collectors to determine what is a ‘good house’ and what is not.
Recommendations
· The District Council and the Chiefdom Councils must hurriedly establish the tables and vendors in all their markets and establish what these markets are capable of generating in terms of revenue before contracting these markets to private persons to run.
· The hiring of a fresh lot of Revenue Collectors by the District Council is after what happened with the 44 does not reflect well on the Council. The new recruits are likely to commit the same mistake because they are simply told to go and collect revenue for many sources whose potential has not been ascertained.
· The practice of not hiring Treasury Clerks who seen to have delivered on Local Tax is questionable.
· The role of the Government Inspector who appeared to be driving the show is a worrying development. There are only two (2) Local Government Inspectors in the whole country. One is the Principal Government Inspector supervising the Government Inspector based in Tonkolili. One wonders why such a person is not based in the Ministry of Local Government in Freetown
MEETING WITH PUJEHUN DISTRICT COUNCIL – WEDNESDAY 8TH MARCH 2006
The meeting with the above District Council was held at the District Council Office and was attended by the Chairman, of the District Council, his Deputy and 26 other persons including two Paramount Chiefs representing the 12 Chiefdoms within the District.
The objectives of the meeting were explained as follows:-
1) To establish Revenues assigned to Chiefdom Councils and those assigned to Pujehun District Council
2) To establish the extent of revenue control in the Pujehun District Council and Chiefdom Councils
3) The collection and sharing of the Local Tax
4) Collection and sharing of the Licences Fees
5) Collection and sharing of Mining Fees
6) The sharing of any other sources of Revenue
Findings
The Chairman opened the meeting with a detailed account of how the revenue situation stood within the District. He cited the problems of chiefdoms not co-operating with the District Council and even renegading on some of the decisions reached earlier on revenue sharing and pointed out the following: -
· Women are not paying Local Tax in Pujehun and the reluctance to pay this tax is not clearly explainable.
· The 40/60% sharing formula has not been respected by all the Chiefdoms across the board. Some Chiefdom has decided to remit 10% only instead of 40% as originally advised by the Ministry of Local Government.
· That all collections from markets have been wholly retained by the Chiefdom Councils and nothing has been forthcoming to the District Council.
· The Revenue from markets was estimated at Le800,000 per month although this was disputed by the Deputy CA who believed the Revenue for markets stood at Le3 million per month.
· Records on market stalls/tables and market vendors are non in existence.
· Information sharing between Chiefdom Councils and the District Council appears to be very poor.
· The relationship between the Chiefdoms and the District Council is characterised by mutual suspicion and a climate of mistrust which makes revenue sharing very difficult.
· The Treasury Clerks were accused of not being accountable to the Chiefdom Councils and of not remitting neither to the Chiefdom councils nor to the District council the monies they collect from the Tax Payers
· Fishing that would be a major source of revenue for the council, is not properly tapped because the District Council lacks the capacity to apprehend big International Trawlers which fish in the Coastal Waters of the District
· The Ministry of Local Government should not have agreed on the percentage sharing without consulting the District Councils and the Chiefdom Councils as this has created a real problem and has generated ill feeling between the District Council and the Chiefdom Council
Recommendations
1) Pujehun District Council needs to urgently seat together with the Chiefdom Councils and agree on the percentage sharing with the District Council. Once the agreement has been reached all the parties need to respect the positions agreed upon.
2) The Fisheries Department needs to help Pujehun District Council to enable it to collect revenue from big trawlers that fish in the Coastal Waters of the District
3) The Ministry of Local Government needs to harmonise the conflicting circulars it has sent to the Chiefdom Councils concerning revenue sharing
4) The Ministry of Local Government needs to get into the habit and practice of involving Local Governments before issuing circulars.
5) Information sharing between Pujehun District Council and the 12 Chiefdom Councils needs to be improved upon. At the moment there exist serious mistrusts of each other on both sides.
6) The status of Treasury Clerks and to whom they report needs to be urgently addressed because it appears that some money is being lost through them as a result of lack of being accountable to anyone.
MEETING WITH KAMBIA DISTRICT COUNCIL – SATURDAY 11TH MARCH 2006
The meeting with the Kambia District Council took place on Saturday March 11th at the District office. The meeting was attended by the Chairman of the District Council, Mr. Dumbuya the Chief Administrator and hid Deputy.
We found these key officials in unsettled mind as there was a real likelihood of Board clashes breaking out on the Common Boarder of Sierra Leone and Guinea. Sierra Leone shares a common boarder with Guinea in Kambia District. As a matter of fact, when we had just started our meeting a Sierra Leone soldier rode in to tell the Chairman that a contingent of Guinea Soldiers had chased them from their post and there was a clear likelihood of a violent clash. The clash was about Sierra Leones desire to map out mineral exploitation on the Common Boarder. This matter was widely reported in the local press.
It was not possible to meet the Treasurer, the Treasury Clerks from the Chiefdoms or the CCFC as had been the case in other Districts as there appears to have been a breakdown in communication. Nevertheless we went ahead and held a meeting with the three top officials of the district.
The Chairman gave a brief background of the revenue collection. The CA had just been transferred to the new post barely two weeks earlier although it was evident he was already on top of things.
Observations
Local Tax
The collection and sharing out of the local tax appears to have been smoothly handled and the District is receiving its 40 percent
Like else where the collection of local tax for 2005 was hampered by the late delivery of local tax receipts.
Market Dues
There are only two markets in Kambia. One small and another one very big. The big market virtually controls about half of the palm oil that gets sold in Freetown and a good quantity transported to neighbouring Guinea. We were told that it has been agreed with those who run this market to pay to the District Council Le1 million per month. The District does not have statistics of what tables there are in this market. Le1 million may therefore be inappropriate. There is need to establish the real potential of what this big market is capable of generating.
Agricultural Produce
It was only in Kambia where an effort was being made by the District Council to tax Agricultural Produce. The District Council had devised a scheme of lending money to farmers who at the time of the harvest would give part of the harvest (in money terms) to the District Council in addition to paying back the loan. The District Council was expecting to make Le10 million from this source in FY 2006.
MEETING WITH PORT LOKO DISTRICT COUNCIL – MONDAY 13TH MARCH 2006
The meeting with Port Loko District Council and representatives of the 11 Chiefdoms was held in the District Council Chairman’s Office on Monday 13th March 2006. The Chairman, the CA and his Deputy, District Treasurer and 11 Chiefdom Treasury Clerks together with the CCFC attended the meeting.
The Chairman opened the meeting with a detailed exposition of the status of revenue collection and the constraints involved
Findings
· No precepts have been received in respect of the 2005 Local Tax collection
· The receipt books were received late in the year and this contributed to the poor collection
· The original discussion between the chiefdom councils and the district council head settled at a sharing arrangement of 50/50. This was however later changed by the MLG&CD to be 60/40 in favour of the chiefdom councils
· Neither the council nor the chiefdom councils have a record of all the local taxpayers
· The revenue collected from markets is being taken wholly by the chiefdom councils and nothing has yet being paid to the district council although the meeting was informed by the CCFC that the 20 percent of market dues collection was going to be paid to the district council
· Only a fraction of revenue from licenses is being collected. The Council budgeted for Le58 million and only collected Le10 million. The reason given for this is that collection was politicised
· There are agencies of government that still collect revenue that should have been a preserved for local councils
· The classification miscellaneous appears to create conflict between the district councils and the chiefdom councils as the undefined sources of revenue which fall under miscellaneous are many and both the district council and the chiefdom councils put claim to these sources as their sources
· Port Loko District Council feels Lungi Airport which is located in the district should contribute to the development of the district
Recommendations
1) Port Loko like other districts covered, needs to have the vital statistics on its sources of revenue. For example the list of local taxpayers should be compiled and updated annually. The market statistics too should be compiled showing the number of tables per market and these too should be updated annually. Statistics too on licenses need to be compiled and updated annually.
2) The Revenue Sharing Formula devised by the MLG&CD does not appear to neither please the District Council nor the Chiefdom Councils
3) The sharing of revenue should be left with the respective district councils and chiefdom councils to determine how the sharing should be undertaken
4) As much as possible, the MLG&CD should define in totality what items fall under miscellaneous and identify who should collect from which source.
5) Recruitment of revenue collectors by the district councils needs further consideration. The possibility of utilising the service of Treasury Clerks (for a fee) should be explored. At the moment revenue collectors are being brought in by councillors
6) Port Loko District Council needs to engage the Ministry of Transport and Communication and the NRA and negotiate with them the need to partake on some of the revenue generated by the Airport.
MEETIMG WITH WESTERN AREA RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL (WARDC) – MONDAY 13TH MARCH 2006
The meeting with the Western Area Rural District Council (WARDC) took place at Waterloo on 13th March 2006 and was attended by the Deputy Chairman of the district council, the CA and his Deputy, the District Treasurer and the newly elected Village Headmen and Revenue Collectors.
The Deputy Chairman opened the meeting with reading a memorandum which had being prepared giving the position of the District Council regarding the status of revenue collection and the constraints encountered.
Findings
· Receipts of local tax collection for 2005 were received in the month of August 2005. By the time the council was through with sensitising the people, the year was ending and as a result only Le128,500 Leones was collected for 2005
· Revenue from markets is being kept low by not stepping up efforts to collect it. The instance sited by the Deputy CA of how they had in the drive to establish how much markets are capable of generating, they had been able to collect Le185,000 per day instead of Le60,000 per day they had been collecting showed how lucrative markets can be as a source of revenue. It also showed that the District Council is not collecting this money by choice!
· License collection is another area where because of lack of statistics and failure to step up vigilance in collection, only a fraction is being collected
· Rates collection applied is on a flat rate of Le5,000 per property regardless of whether it is commercial or residential. Again because of lack of vigilance in collection, very little is being realised from this source
· Sand dues were identified as a major source of revenue but again here very little revenue is being realised (Le4,000 per trip). The reason for this low collection appears to be too many interested parties sharing on this revenue including councillors.
Recommendations
1) WARDC, which is semi-urban could be easily the richest district in the country if only it took up revenue collection seriously and discourage councillors from involving themselves in revenue collection efforts
2) WARDC needs to establish the exact number of local taxpayers, market tables, the properties in the district to pay rates and establish a proper procedure of taxing sand dues
3) Councillors need to be discouraged from getting involved in revenue collection as evidence shows their interests are at variance with those of the District Council
4) The circulars on revenue collection issued by the MLG&CD appears to have made it very difficult for District Councils to come to an understanding with the Chiefdom Councils in the way revenue is to be shared
5) The circulars issued by MLG&CD appear not to have been exhaustive in their identification of all revenue sources from local taxes. Because of this, many revenue sources were clamped under miscellaneous and were not assigned to any party. This has caused confusion as to who is responsible for collecting from these sources clamped as miscellaneous. Is it the District Council or the Chiefdom Councils?
Gordon Mwesigye
Consultant, World Bank
April 2006
