1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. APPROACHES AND TOOLS IN IDENTIFYING PROGRAMS,

PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES 5-15

Assessment Matrix of Project Sustainability (AMPS). (with Table)

Capital Inventory and Condition Assessment Information
Development Investment Needs Assessment
Initial Project Screening (with Table)
Guide Questions for Screening PPAs and MFOs
Conflict-Compatibility-Complementarity Assessment (with Table)
Formalization Process
Random List of Projects (with Table)
Guiding Principles in Choosing Programs and Projects
Checklist of Project Justification Information (with Box)
Review Checklist for Project Proposals (with Box)
Decision Guidelines For Land Development Projects
LDIP/PDIP Project Proposal Form (with Form)
Equipment Request Form (with Form)
Project Brief (with 2 Forms)

CHAPTER 2. APPROACHES AND TOOLS IN ESTABLISHING INVESTMENT

PROGRAMMING POLICIES 16

Types of Investments
Types of Fiscal Regulatory Devices

CHAPTER 3. TOOLS IN DEVELOPING THE PRIORITIZATION APPROACH 16-17

Checklist of Possible Criteria

Criteria for Determining Level of Urgency (with Table)
Must or Want Criteria

CHAPTER 4. APPROACHES AND TOOLS IN RANKING PROGRAMS AND

PROJECTS 18-21

Analytic Hierarchy Process

Decision Analysis. (with 3 Tables)
Delphi Method
Goal Achievement Matrix
1
 Project Evaluation Criteria and Criteria Weights
Project Ranking Using Criteria Weights
Ranked List of Proposed Projects (with 3 Tables)

CHAPTER 5. APPROACHES AND TOOLS IN DETERMINING AND ANALYZING THE

INVESTMENT FINANCING CAPACITY 22-30

Financial Capacity Analysis

A. Historical Analyses of Revenues as Projection Base (with 2 Tables)
B. Historical Analyses of Expenditures and Debt as Projection Bases
(with 2 Tables)
C. Establishing Structural Relationships Between Financial and
Development Variables
D. Projecting Revenue Levels (with 2 Tables)
E. Projecting Expenditure Levels (with Table)
F. Alternative Growth Scenarios (with Figure)
G. New Investment Financial Capacity (with Table)
Financial Planning Model. (with Table)
Matching & Iteration of Projects
LGU Financing Approaches
LGU Financing Options (with unlabeled Figure)

CHAPTER 6. APPROACHES AND TOOLS IN DEVELOPING THE INVESTMENT

PROGRAM AND FINALIZING THE INVESTMENT SCHEDULE 30-33

Revenue Mobilization Considerations

A. Benchmarking Indicators (with Table)
B. Revenue Mobilization Tools
Conditions for Subsidy Provision
Scoring Method for Determining Subsidy (with Table)
Financing Strategies
Infrastructure Financing Options. (with Table)
Considerations in Selecting the Financing Instrument

CHAPTER 7. APPROACHES AND TOOLS IN ADOPTING THE INVESTMENT

PLAN 33-37

Summary Tables
A. Investment Program Project Summary (with Table)
B. Investment Budget Summary (with Table)
C. Revenue Summary (with Table)
2
 D. AIP Summary (with Form)
PED Guidelines

CHAPTER 8. APPROACHES AND TOOLS IN IDENTIFYING AREAS FOR

COMPLEMENTATION OF PPAs AND UPDATING THE INVESTMENT
PROGRAM 38

Sources of LDIP/PDIP Updates

TABLES
1.1 Assessment Matrix of Project Sustainability (AMPS)
1.2 Projects Included in the Random List,
Initial List and Preliminary List
1.3 Conflict-Compatibility-Complementarity Matrix
1.4 Random List of Projects
3.1 Criteria for Prioritizing Projects
4.1a Sample MUST Criteria Evaluation
4.1b Sample Scoring Using MUST Criteria
4.1c Sample Prioritization Criteria
4.2a Summary of Societal Sector Scores (Sample GAM Form)
4.2b Ranked List of Proposed Projects for Investment Programming

4.2c Sample Development Investment Project Summary Form

5.1a Time Series Record of Property Tax Revenue
5.1b Time Series Record of Revenue Other Than Property Tax
5.2a Time Series Record of LGU Operating Expenditures
5.2b Obligated Debt Service Expenditure
5.3a Projection of Property Tax Revenue
5.3b Projection of Total Revenue
5.4 Projection of LGU Operating Expenditure
5.5 Projection of New Investment Financing Potential
5.6 Simplified Financial Planning Model for LDIP/PDIP Capacity
Analysis
6.1 Benchmarking Indicators for Effective and
Efficient Revenue Administration
6.2 Scoring Method for Determining the Proportion of the Full Cost of
a Public Service that is Appropriately Recovered from Project
Beneficiaries or Users
6.3 Probable Infrastructure Financing Options
7.1 LDIP/PDIP Project Summary
7.2 LDIP/PDIP Investment Budget Summary
7.3 LDIP/PDIP Revenue Summary

FIGURES
3
5 Financial Growth Scenarios

BOXES
1.1 Checklist of Project Justification Information
1.2 Sample Project Proposal Review Checklist

FORMS
1.1 Sample LDIP/PDIP Project Proposal Form
1.2 Equipment Request Form
1.3a Sample Project Brief Format (1)
1.3b Sample Project Brief Format (2)
7.1 Annual Investment Program Summary Form

4
CHAPTER 1. APPROACHES AND TOOLS IN IDENTIFYING PROGRAMS,
PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES

Assessment Matrix of Project Sustainability (AMPS). AMPS is an innovative tool

for determining qualitatively the perceived benefits (potential positive consequences, both
intended and unintended) and the perceived costs (potential negative consequences,
intended and unintended). The benefits and costs cannot be ascertained at this stage since
there are still no specific measures/indicators for analyzing a project's sustainability. A
participatory workshop is conducted where qualitative indicators of benefits and costs are
agreed upon and assigned with equivalent values or weights. The project/intervention is
deemed sustainable if the net effect shows that the benefits are greater than the costs. LGUs
however, may attach different values to a particular project depending on their development
visions. If the locality thinks that the program or project is important inspite of its non-
sustainability, they would need to identify other interventions that might mitigate the non-
sustainability of the program(s); however the sustainability of the mitigating intervention(s)
should also be examined.
Capital Inventory and Condition Assessment Information. A capital needs
assessment tool that shows the following: (a) capital inventory which is a comprehensive list
of all facilities and equipment and their age, condition, cost and repair or replacement
schedule; and the (b) condition of capital assets, which is affected by age, climate, soil
condition, use, construction methods and materials, and maintenance practices. Assessing
the condition of capital assets is critical when determining a course of action - whether it be
replacement, improvement, or disposal of the asset. Inventory information can be obtained
from engineering, architectural, insurance, and property records. Methods of assessing the
condition include visual inspection, engineering analysis, repair analysis, and complaint and
service interruption analysis. [PLPEM 3, Annex B, pp.89-90]
Development Investment Needs Assessment. The most important foundation of the
investment program is an assessment of future needs – the infrastructure, equipment and soft
capital projects necessary to sustain future growth and development. Key sources of
information on future capital needs include the following: (a) Development and Physical
Framework Plan-Related Studies; (b) Service Standards Information; and (c) Citizen Surveys.
[PLPEM3, Annex B pp. 90-91]

Initial Project Screening. A first level assessment that examines the project list for
the following: (a) Redundant projects - those that duplicate or overlap existing, new or
proposed projects. These can also include projects with identical or near-identical
descriptions, objectives, intended beneficiaries and location which should then be
consolidated and treated as one project; (b) Impractical or unrealistic projects - those that do
not conform to technical standards or feasibility indicators; (c) Undesirable projects - those
that pose negative side effects to the population or area or offend the values and cultural
beliefs of the people; and (d) Inefficient projects or projects more appropriately implemented
by other levels of government, agencies or organizations- projects that are costly to run at the

5
local level because they cannot take advantage of economies of scale, or whose modes of
implementation are inefficient. This may be included in Table 2.1.2 column 2

Table 1.1 Assessment Matrix of Project Sustainability (AMPS)

6
 Table 1.2 Projects Included in the Random List,
Initial List and Preliminary List

FORM 8.2 Projects included in the random list, initial list and preliminary list
(1) (2) (3)
Random List/ Included In Included In
Project File No. Initial List Preliminary List
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. List all identified projects in COLUMN 1.
2. List all projects passing the initial screening in COLUMN 2.
(Note: Projects excluded from list are those found to be:
a) repetitive or redundant,
b) obviously impractical or undesirable, and
c) projects that are already funded by other offices, agencies or organizations
3. Indicate in COLUMN 3 whether project is included in the preliminary list resulting from the use of the
Conflict-Compatibility-Complementarity Matrix (Forn 8.3)

Guide Questions for Screening PPAs and MFOs. As part of the application of the
Organizational Performance Indicator Framework (described in Appendix 4.1), following are
questions that may help in screening programs and projects (PPAs), as well as Major Final
Outputs (MFOs): [PLPEM 4 p.49]

 Is the output consistent with the government’s policy? Does it contribute to the
achievement of the government’s desired outcomes or policy objectives?
 Is there a duplication or conflict with another output?
 Are there alternative means of producing the output, either within the
government or in the private sector? Has the province identified any alternative
means?
 Are there outputs that are not clearly linked to the province’s overall mission?

Conflict-Compatibility-Complementarity Assessment. A second level screening of

projects that uses a matrix, which allows the identification of projects that complement, are
compatible, or are in conflict, with other projects.
7
 Table 1.3 Conflict-Compatibility-Complementarity Matrix
FORM 8.3 Conflict-Compatibility-Complementarity Matrix
Proposed
Proj. 1 Proj. 2 Proj. 3 Proj. 4 Proj. 5 Proj. 6 Proj…n
Projects
Proj. 1
Proj. 2
Proj. 3
Proj. 4
Proj. 5
Proj. 6
Proj….n
INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Indicate relationships among the proposed projects.

a) If relationship is one of conflict (where the expected benefits of the projects tend to nullify each
other or when the implementation of one obstructs the implementation of another), mark the
appropriate cell with an X.
b) If relationship is one of complementarity, mark the appropriate cell with an O.
c) If relationship is one of compatibility (or if it is neutral), leave the cell blank.

2. Projects which conflict with many or most of the other projects should be removed from the initial
ilist.

3. Projects which conflict with some but are compatible or complementary with others may be
reformulated to resolve the conflict(s).

Formalization Process. Under this process, the proposed PPAs in the development
plans along with additional projects consistent with plan objectives are screened for initial
prioritization. The process begins with a status review of previously approved development
projects to identify new PPAs for scheduling. The planning committee then requests the
department heads to officially confirm the project information and proposals, afterwhich a
technical review of the proposals shall be conducted by the planning development office with
inputs from the local finance committees and key technical specialists. [PLPEM 3, pp.37-38]

Random List of Projects. Table 1.4 compiles the list of projects or project ideas or
proposals in a project brief format which can serve as a record of all projects considered.
This tabular list could be used to keep track of subsequent project screenings.

Table 1.4 Random List of Projects

(Extracts from Project Briefs)

FORM 8.1 Random List of Projects

(extracts from Project Briefs)

8
 Project Brief Description Proponent Estimated Cost
Number

Guiding Principles in Choosing Programs and Projects. The following principles

should guide the choice of programs and projects: (a) Puts emphasis on asset-forming
expenditures; (b) Enhances the strategic nature of public investments; (c) Strengthens the
spatial basis of the investment program; (d) Limits projects to those "owned" by the LGU; (e)
Improves local fiscal management through adoption of bold non-conventional approaches to
fiscal management; and (f) Stresses participatory, consultative process.

Checklist of Project Justification Information. To justify a project request during the

formalization process, it is important to furnish accurate, objective and supportable
information. A checklist such as the one below would help provide information for possible
inclusion in project justifications. It covers both tangible and intangible benefits and identifies
potential sources of support and opposition.

Box 1.1 Checklist of Project Justification Information

1. Need or problem addressed by project

2. Extent to which the project meets the need or solve the problem
3. Number of people or area benefiting (province-wide, municipality, district, barangay,
neighborhood)
4. Specific benefits to be derived
5. Volume of work, services or clients to be served
6. Relationship with other projects
7. Savings produced
8. Revenues generated
9. Availability of outside funding

9
 10. Time restrictions on funding availability
11. Extent of economic development stimulated and jobs created
12. Positive and negative environmental consequences
13. Operating and maintenance cost implications
14. Cost recovery opportunities
15. Consistency with LGU plans and capital policies
16. Project planning and construction period
17. Level of public or stakeholder support or opposition
18. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection
19. Consequences of deferring the project

Review Checklist for Project Proposals. A checklist used during the technical
review of project proposals for completeness and accuracy.

Box 1.2 Sample Project Proposal Review Checklist

1. Have all the items in the project proposal form been completed?
2. Is the information complete and accurate?
3. Are all mathematical calculations accurate?
4. Is the project need identified and supported with appropriate data?
5. Are the cost estimates accurate and reasonable?
6. Have all the costs (including MOOE) been identified?
7. Are the cost projections accurate and realistic?
8. Is the cash flow projection for the proposed project sufficient to finance the project?
9. Are the financing recommendations accurate and feasible?

Decision Guidelines For Land Development Projects. This is a matrix of guidelines

to assess applications for land use development projects. Applicable criteria will vary from
zone to zone and from use-type to use-type, thus the need to exercise judgment on the part
of the zoning officers.1

LDIP/PDIP Project Proposal Form. Form used when submitting projects for
consideration during the formalization process (please refer to description above). A sample,
Form 1.1 is shown below.
Equipment Request Form. A separate form from the PDIP project proposal form, this
is used to gather information on major equipment acquisition proposals and submitted during
the formalization process (please refer to description above). A sample, Form 1.2 is shown
below.
Project Brief. This is a document of not more than one page containing details that
briefly describe the project, including the name and type of project (generally, “soft” or “hard”),
activity components, project proponent, project justification (derived from the development

1 Annex 11-1 of the CLUP Guidebook presents a detailed matrix of Decision Guidelines for Development Applications which links the
assessment/decision guidelines to the zones under the current Model Zoning Ordinance.
10
plans), intended beneficiaries (population sectors or geographical areas), estimated cost or
resource inputs (broken down by activity component), target outputs or success indicators,
and expected private sector response to this particular public investment. [RPS, p.143] Forms
1.3a and 1.3b show sample project brief formats. [CDP p.96 & CLUP Step 11 Annex p.180]

Form 1.1 Sample LDIP/PDIP Project Proposal Form

11
12
Form 1.2 Equipment Request Form

13
 Form 1.3a Sample Project Brief Format (1)

Name of Socialized Housing and Resettlement Program

Program:

Brief This program involves the development of 3 hectares of the 20-hectare site
Description: in Bonuan Boquig into housing units for the homeless and the less privileged.

Program Phase 1
Components: 1. Land Acquisition 6 months
2. Plan Preparation 12 months
 Survey
 Documentation
 Detailed Architectural Engineering
 Community Organization
 Social Preparation
3. Program Implementation 18 months

Proponents: City Government -Task Force on Housing, CMO, CEO, CPDO, NHA in
partnership with the Private Sector

Justification: The less privileged, particularly men and women living in danger zones such
as river easements, railroad tracks, near open dump sites, etc. shall have the
opportunity to safe and decent housing.

Intended Landless Dagupeño men and women, legitimate squatters, and government
Beneficiaries: employees

Estimated Cost: Phase 1

Land Acquisition (10 hectares) P 58 Million
Land Development /Plan Preparation 100 Million
Cost of Construction (1,000 units/ha) 600 Million

Program Term: Phase 1: 3 Years

Target Output/ 1. Increased number of families with housing

Success 2. Reduced number of squatters
Indicators:

Possible Risks: 1. Lack of funds

2. Opposition from affected stakeholders (i.e., landowners, squatters, etc.)
3. Lack of political will
Expected
Private Sector Their involvement is expected in program implementation
Response:

14
Form 1.3b Sample Project Brief Format (2)

15
CHAPTER 2. APPROACHES AND TOOLS IN ESTABLISHING INVESTMENT
PROGRAMMING POLICIES

Types of Investments. These are types of investments that can have an impact on
the direction and intensity of urban growth and towards the realization of the desired urban
form: investment types that (a) encourage growth - “anchor” facilities like a university, a
hospital, a public market; interchanges, bus terminals, transit stops; access roads; (b)
discourage development in the vicinity - waste disposal site, sewage treatment plant, prison
or mental hospital; and (c) limit growth in the urban fringe - land reservation or acquisition for
conservation; utility extension limits; low density institutional uses such as military camps,
university campuses, research/science parks; reservations for open space and outdoor
recreation areas. [RPS pp.32-33]

Types of Fiscal Regulatory Devices. These are types of regulatory devices which
the Sanggunian can use as a guide in coming up with measures to attract or regulate
investments and which can become part of the local law-making body's legislative agenda: (a)
Tools to capitalize on development - special assessments, full cost recovery through user
charges, idle lands tax, property reassessment and taxation; (b) Tools to penalize
development - environmental impact fees and penalties, land conversion taxes and charges;
and (c) Tools to facilitate investments - long-term debt for public infrastructure including non-
revenue generating facilities, short-term loans, build-operate-transfer schemes.

CHAPTER 3. TOOLS IN DEVELOPING THE PRIORITIZATION APPROACH

Checklist of Possible Criteria. It is crucial that consensus is reached among the

stakeholders on what criteria to employ in evaluating and prioritizing the strategies, programs
and projects. Possible criteria are as follows:

1. Financial Viability (Financial & Economic Returns)

2. Social and Political Acceptability
3. Relevance to Development Policies
4. Connectivity to National Policies
5. Implementation Capability
6. Number of Beneficiaries and Social Impact
7. Relevance to City Productivity
8. Environmental Implications
9. Feasibility of Inter-local Cooperation
10. Functionality (Utility and Use)

Criteria for Determining Level of Urgency. An alternative set of criteria for

prioritizing projects. [RPS p.176, CDP p.95].

16
 Table 3.1 Criteria for Prioritizing Projects

CATEGORY GENERAL CRITERIA

Urgent Projects that cannot be reasonably postponed

Projects that would remedy conditions dangerous to public
health, safety and welfare
Projects needed to maintain critically needed programs
Projects needed to meet emergency situations

Essential Projects required to complete or make usable a major public

improvement
Projects required to maintain minimum standards as part of on-
going program
Desirable self-liquidating projects
Projects for which external funding is available

Necessary Projects that should be carried out to meet clearly identified and
anticipated needs
Projects to replace obsolete or unsatisfactory facilities
Repair or maintenance projects to prolong life of existing
facilities

Desirable Projects needed for expansion of current programs

Projects designed to initiate new programs considered
appropriate for a progressive community

Acceptable Projects that can be postponed without detriment to present

operations if budget cuts are necessary

Deferrable Projects recommended for postponement or elimination from

immediate consideration in the current LDIP
Projects that are questionable in terms of over-all needs,
adequate planning, or proper timing

Must or Want Criteria. Each determined criterion must be classified either as a “must”
or a “want” criterion. The MUSTs set the minimum limits that have to be undertaken if the
Vision is to be achieved. Without them, the attainment of the Vision is out to question. On the
other hand, WANTs do not set absolute limits but express relative desirability. They will
enhance or enrich the situation but even without them the Vision can become a reality. The
separation of MUSTs and WANTs enables decision-makers to identify priorities faster and
more efficiently, since the MUST criteria screen out the alternatives.

17
CHAPTER 4. APPROACHES AND TOOLS IN RANKING PROGRAMS AND
PROJECTS

Analytic Hierarchy Process. AHP allows decision-makers to model a complex

problem in a hierarchical structure showing the relationships of the goal, objectives (criteria),
and alternatives. By reducing complex decisions to a series of pairwise comparisons, then
synthesizing the results, AHP helps decision-makers arrive at the best decision while
providing a clear rationale for the decision. It enables decision-makers to derive ratio scale
priorities or weights as opposed to arbitrarily assigning them, thereby allowing decision-
makers to incorporate both objective and subjective considerations in the decision process.
Use of this tool for prioritization is advisable only if there are less than 10 projects and 5
criteria as the volume of matrix calculations increases exponentially with the number of
criteria and projects.2

Decision Analysis. This tool is used to decide which among the identified programs
should be undertaken first, by following these steps: (i) generate criteria to evaluate and
prioritize strategies, programs and projects; (ii) determine, through consensus, if the criterion
is a MUST or WANT criterion and assign weights to each depending on their level of
importance; and (iii) evaluate the programs and projects based on MUSTs and WANTs criteria
separately. To do this systematically, each alternative must be measured individually against
the MUST criteria on a GO or NO GO basis. If an alternative fails to perform according to a
MUST objective, it must be automatically discarded, as shown in the sample below.

Table 4.1a Sample MUST Criteria Evaluation

Strategy: Upgrade existing/construct new facilities

Name of Projects MUST 1 MUST 2 DECISION

Social and Political Relevance to
Acceptability Development Policies
Improvement of airport / X NO GO
facilities
Construction of access / / GO
roads

Moreover, (iv) each project that satisfies the MUST criteria will be evaluated further
against the WANT criteria individually using a numerical scoring scale, say 1 to 10, with the
best alternative receiving the top score. The other alternatives are then scored relative to this
top score. To get an overall judgment of the relative worth of each program/project, one must
multiply the score of each alternative by the weight one has assigned to each objective. The
weighted scores are added up to the aggregate score. The total figures give the relative

2 Steps and sample matrix computations for this tool for project ranking are detailed in Annex A.1. of PLPEM Volume 3 For large numbers
of projects and criteria, an expensive AHP software such as Expert Choice would be needed.
18
position of each of the program and project options on those items of performance considered
in the WANT criteria. In the sample below, “construction of access roads” is the resulting top
priority project. [CDS pp. 5-5 to 5-7]

Table 4.1b Sample Scoring Using MUST Criteria

Note: M Must criteria

#-

Table 4.1c Sample Prioritization Criteria

19
 Delphi Method. Four key features are necessary in defining a procedure as “Delphi”:
Anonymity; Iteration; Controlled Feedback; and Statistical Aggregation of Group Response.
The Delphi Method is based on a structured process for collecting knowledge from a group of
experts through a series of questionnaires (preserves anonymity) interspersed with controlled
opinion feedback, where group members are informed of the opinions of their anonymous
colleagues. The iteration of the questionnaire is done over a number of rounds with
individuals given the opportunity to change their opinions and judgments without fear of losing
face. Feedback is presented as a simple statistical summary of the group response, usually
comprising a mean or median value. The technique, while largely used for forecasting
purposes, may be used to solicit the opinions of policymakers regarding the weights to be
given the evaluation criteria (i.e., the objectives). [PLPEM 3, Annex A.2].

Goal Achievement Matrix. The same tool used in identifying preferred spatial
strategies can be used in ranking projects. Following the same steps (see Appendix 1.4), the
'strategies' are replaced by 'projects or programs' to be rated. A sample is shown in Table
4.2a below. [RPS p.176; CDP pp.98-102]

Project Evaluation Criteria and Criteria Weights. Weights are assigned to each
development objective (Wo), reflecting their relative importance to the overall development of
the LGU. Weights may be derived through collective discussion, judgment and consensus.
The sum of these objective weights should always be equal to one. Specific criteria against
which the attainment of each objective can be assessed are then defined and likewise
assigned weights (Wc) reflecting the importance of each criterion to each of the development
objectives. The sum of the criteria weights within each objective should always be the value of
one. The total weight (W) for each criterion is the product of Wo and Wc. The sum of all the
total criteria weight should always be equal to the value of one.

Project Ranking Using Criteria Weights. After the formalization process and using
the project evaluation criteria, the projects are ranked following these steps: (a) each project
is rated 1 to 10 based on how effectively it satisfies each criterion (to a great extent: 7-10
points; to a somewhat great extent: 4-6 points; to a little extent: 1-3 points); (b) each project's
raw score for each criterion is multiplied to the weight for that criterion to arrive at the net
score of the project for each criterion. The net scores are totaled and become the basis for
ranking projects, with the highest-scoring project ranked first.

Ranked List of Proposed Projects. Before the list of proposed projects could be
matched with the estimate of available funds, a ranked list of proposed projects with cost
estimates and other information are compiled in any of the three tabular formats below.

20
 Table 4.2a Summary of Societal Sector Scores (Sample GAM Form)

SECTORS
PROPOSED A B C D E F TOTAL RANK
PROJECTS SCORE
Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
Project 4
Project 5
Project n
INSTRUCTIONS:
10. List all sector scores for each project.
11. Sum the scores for each project and list the total score in the column provided.
12. List the rank of each project based on the total scores in the last column.
Interpretation: The resulting ranking represents the collective evaluation of the project proposals by the LDC.

Table 4.2b Ranked List of Proposed Projects for Investment Programming

Cost Estimate
Rank Proposed Project/File No. Location/Sector
Individual Cumulative
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
INSTRUCTIONS:
List all projects included in the preliminary list according to their ranks derived in the GAM Approach,
including their locations or sectors and cost estimates.

Table 4.2c Sample Development Investment Project Summary Form

21
CHAPTER 5. APPROACHES AND TOOLS IN DETERMINING AND ANALYZING THE
INVESTMENT FINANCING CAPACITY

Financial Capacity Analysis. A tool that enables the LGU to determine its funding
capability for proposed projects. It takes into account historical and projected trends of
revenues, expenditures and indebtedness. This analysis can be complex or simple,
depending upon the needs of the LGU.

A. Historical Analyses of Revenues as Projection Base. A local development

investment program needs a stable source of financial resources that depend on revenue
sources which are assured of being collected every year. Thus, what is relevant for
investment planning purposes are projections of recurring revenue sources, as against non-
recurring ones. The impact of one-time procedural and system changes should also be
segregated from the analyses as these are not expected to continue into the future. The
analyses should also distinguish between changes in the tax base versus changes in the tax
rates. Following are the relevant revenue items: Real Property Taxes (RPT), Business Fees
and Licenses, Other Taxes, Services and Operations Income, Internal Revenue Allotment, All
Others3.

Table 5.1a Time Series Record of Property Tax Revenue

(1) (5)
(2) (3)
Assessed (4) Total Revenue
Tax Rate Tax Levy
Valuation From Property
Coll.
Year Taxation
As %
(b) (b)
(a) (a) (b) (c) (a) of (b)
(a)
% % Levy
Amount General SEF Total Amount %
Change Change Amount
Change

INSTRUCTIONS: For each year:

1. Enter Assessed Valuation in Column (1a) and the Property Tax Revenue Collected in Column (5a).
2. Enter the tax rates in Columns (2a) and (2b) and enter the total in Column (2c).

3 This includes Official Development Assistance (ODA) facilities. Annex H Table H.1 of PLPEM Volume 3 presents the form, thrust, and
terms of ODA lines available as of June 2005, while Table H.2 enumerates and describes the thrust, time, duration and amount of ODA
lines available to LGUs. These matrices contain information on what might be expected in tapping ODA sources.
22
 3. Multiply the assessed Valuation (1a) by the Total Tax Rate Column (2c).
4. Compute the Tax Collections as % of Levy, Column (4), by dividing the Total Property Tax Revenue
Column (5a) by the Tax Levy Column (3a).
5. Compute the % change over the preceding year and enter the results in the appropriate columns.
6. The exercise will require 3 to 5 years of historical data to be used as the basis for a 3-year projection.

Table 5.1b Time Series Record of Revenue Other Than Property Tax

(3)
(1) (2) (4)
(5) (6) (7)
Y Svc. &
Bus. Fees Other Total Local
e Opns. IRA All Others Grand Total
& Licenses Taxes Revenue
a Income
r (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b)
Amt % ch Amt % ch Amt % ch Amt % ch Amt % ch Amt % ch Amt % ch

INSTRUCTIONS: For each year

1. Enter the amount of revenue from each source in the appropriate column.
Note:
• Operating & Service Income covers public markets, slaughterhouses and other LGU economic
enterprises.
• IRA refers to the internal revenue allotment of the LGU.
• All others include Other grants, and inter-government and inter-fund transfers.
2. Compute the % Change over the preceding year and enter the results in the appropriate columns.
3. The exercise will require 3 to 5 years of historical data to be used as the basis for a 3-year projection.

B. Historical Analyses of Expenditures and Debt as Projection Bases. LGU

expenditure patterns must be analyzed with the period of analyses matching the number of
years used in the revenue analyses. “Abnormal” years, such as election years with
abnormally high expenditure levels, should also be taken out of the projection exercise.
Historical analyses should be done on the following operating expenditure items: General
Public Services, Social Services , Economic Services and All Others. The amount of debt
service payments for existing and other anticipated LGU obligations must be also established,
and compared with relevant (if any) statutory debt service ceilings4.
4 For historical analyses and projections, the PLPEM suggests the use of Mandatory Expenditures which include personal services,
maintenance and other operating expenditures (MOOE), committed capital outlays outside the investment program, obligated existing
23
 Table 5.2a Time Series Record of LGU Operating Expenditures

(1) (3)
(2) (4) (5)
Gen. Public Economic
Social Services All Others Grand Total
Services Services
Yea
r (a) (a) (a) (a) (a)
(b) (b) (b) (b) (b)
Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount
% Ch % Ch % Ch % Ch % Ch

INSTRUCTIONS: For each year

(1) Enter the amount of operating expenditure in the appropriate column. Note that debt and capital
expenditures are excluded. Column headings should reflect the major operating expenditure categories in the
LGU. Note:
• General public services include LGU administration, peace and order, etc.
• Social services include education, health, welfare, etc.
(2) Compute the % change over the preceding year and enter the results in the appropriate columns.
(3) The exercise will require 3 to 5 years of historical data to be used as the basis for a 3-year projection.

Table 5.2b Obligated Debt Service Expenditure

(1) (2) (3=2+1)
Year
Principal Interest Total

INSTRUCTIONS:
This exhibit presents existing debt service requirements and, therefore, involves no projections. Simply
compile the total debt service requirements for local general obligation debt for each of the 3-year projection
period for all LGU obligations from existing accounting records and enter these amounts in the appropriate
columns.

debt service, and the 5 percent calamity funds.

24
 C. Establishing Structural Relationships Between Financial and Development
Variables. The qualitative and quantitative response of each revenue source and
expenditure item to demographic and economic changes must be established for each major
revenue source and expenditure item to come up with a comprehensive analysis of the LGU’s
fiscal patterns. Among the key factors that must be considered are (1) the overall national
and regional economic picture including development trends; (2) demographic shifts; and (3)
changes in the local market, particularly in the local labor market. The analyses can take the
form of per capita shares. After factoring in the effects of anticipated developments within the
LGU, the adjusted per capita figures can then be applied to available demographic and
economic forecasts to come up with the required revenue and expenditure projections.

D. Projecting Revenue Levels. Future recurring revenue levels can be projected

based on a careful assessment of all the probable factors that affect each revenue source.
RPT collection, because of its large contribution to LGU revenue sources and because real
properties will be the main beneficiary of LGU investments in terms of increased values,
should be projected separately. (See Table 5.3a below) Other revenue items can be
projected using either the historical growth rates (with or without adjustments) or using
computed elasticities and assumed per capita income growth rates. (See Table 5.3b). The
IRA projections should already consider the increases provided for in the 1991 LGC.

Table 5.3a Projection of Property Tax Revenue

(2) (5)
(1)
Tentatively Projected Tax (3) Projected Total
Projected (4)
Rate Projected Total Revenue From
Assessed Collection
Year Tax Levy Property
Valuation as
Taxation
(a) (b) (c) Percent
(a)
(a) of Levy
General SEF Total Amount (a)
Amount
Amount

INSTRUCTIONS: For each year:

1. Enter the projected Assessed Valuation in Column (1) and the estimated Collection as % of Levy in
Column (4).
2. Enter the tentatively projected tax rates in Columns (2a) and (2b) and enter the total in Column (2c).
3. Multiply the projected Assessed Valuation (1a) by the Total Tax Rate Column (2c) to obtain the total
Tax Levy, Column (3).
4. Multiply Column (3) by the Collection as % of Levy, Column (4) and enter the result into the Total

25
 Property Tax Revenue, Column (5).
In developing this revenue base for preliminary testing, different assumptions may be used regarding the
projected tax rate. For example, a) the current tax rate can be used for the entire projection period; or b)
some change in the tax rate can be assumed over the projection period depending on the adopted LDIP
financing package.

Table 5.3b Projection of Total Revenue

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Year Projected Bus. Fees Other Svc. & All Projected Total
RPT & Licenses Taxes Opns. IRA Others Revenues

INSTRUCTIONS: For each year:

Use the projection methods discussed in the text.
 Get the RPT projection from Table __a.
 Enter the sums of Columns 1 to 4 to get Column 5.

E. Projecting Expenditure Levels. Future normal recurring expenses can be

projected using either (1) the historical 3 to 5 year average annual expenditure increase or (2)
the historical average expenditure per unit of output in the case of LGU business enterprises.
(See Table 5.4) In using either of the two techniques, judgment as to the effects of political
and organizational developments within the local government on the future growth of various
departments should be factored into the projections.

Table 5.4 Projection of LGU Operating Expenditure

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Year
Gen. Pub. Svcs. Soc. Services Econ. Services All Others Grand Total

INSTRUCTIONS: For each year:

Use the projection methods discussed in the text.
1. Enter the projected expenditures in the appropriate columns.
2. Enter the sums of Columns 1 to 4 in Column 5 to get the total Operating Expenditures.

26
 F. Alternative Growth Scenarios. There are four alternative future growth rate
scenarios that LGUs may choose from in coming up with the required financial projections.

Figure 5.1 Financial Growth Scenarios

GROWTH SCENARIOS • Assumes that the present level of financial variable will continue to
the foreseeable future.
• Uses a constant absolute amount based on a recent year or on the
NO CHANGE average over a certain number of years.
• May be used if the historical trend analysis indicates little or no
change, and if there is no reason to expect change in this pattern.
• May also be used to provide a conservative estimate on an uncertain
revenue source such as grants and aids.
CHANGE BY
CONSTANT • Assumes yearly changes based on constant amounts.
AMOUNTS

• Assumes yearly changes at a constant amounts based on the

CHANGE AT historical annual average percentage change estimate.
CONSTANT RATE • Percentage change estimate is multiplied by the current year value to
derive the amount that should be added to the current year value to
arrive at the next year’s value.
CORRELATION WITH
DEMOGRAPHIC OR
ECONOMIC • Assumes a constant relationship between the financial variable and a
VARIABLE demographic or economic variable.

G. New Investment Financial Capacity. After the future revenue inflows and
corresponding expenditure outflows are established, the new investment financing capacity of
an LGU is determined based on the computational procedure outlined in Table 2.5.8:

Table 5.5 Projection of New Investment Financing Potential

Item Year
No. Item 1 2 3 4 5
1 Projected Revenue
2 Less: Projected Operating Expenditures5
3 Sub-Total (1-2)

5 Please refer to preceding footnote for an alternative indicator/presentation of relevant indicator.

27
 4 Less: Obligated Debt Service
5 New Investment Potential (3-4)
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Item No. 1 is to be taken from Table __b.
2. Item No. 2 is to be taken from Table __.
3. Item No. 4 is to be taken from Table __b.

Financial Planning Model. A more detailed financial analysis can be conducted using
the simplified financial planning model for LDIP/PDIP capacity analysis. Key features of the
model are as follows:

1. The model separates the LGU budget into four parts: a. Operating (Current) Revenues;
b. Operating (Current) Expenditures; c. Capital Revenues; and d. Capital Expenditures.
The difference between operating revenues and expenditures is the operating balance.
The difference between capital revenues and expenditures is the capital investment
balance (also called the capital deficit or surplus).

2. The operating and investment balances together give the resource deficit or surplus.
Any resource deficit after borrowings will mean that either some of the proposed
projects will have to be “cut” or “deferred” or the revenue projections “revisited” to
come up with other potential sources.

Table 5.6 Simplified Financial Planning Model for LDIP/PDIP Capacity Analysis

ITEM Formula Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6

1. Total current revenues
1.1. o.w. current revenues
1.2. Current revenues from IRA
2. Total current expenditures
3. Operating balance
4. Debt service
5. Net operating balance
6. Total capital revenues
6.1. Own capital revenues (sales or
lease
of assets)
6.2. Capital revenues from central
government funds (20%
development

28
 funds, congressional funds,
other
grants) and all other grants
7. Capital investment
expenditures
8. Capital investment fund deficit
or surplus
9. Other revenues
10. Other expenditures
11. OVERALL DEFICIT OR
SURPLUS
12. Borrowing
13. Residual balance from previous
year
14. CLOSING BALANCE

Matching & Iteration of Projects. The projected total funds available for investment
are matched with the total funds required to implement the projects in the final list. If the two
values match, then the investment program is put in final form. If, on the other hand, the
funding requirements exceed the available funds, the LDC or the Sanggunian shall adopt any
or a combination of the following options:[RPS p.34-short enumeration of steps]

a. Cut down the final list further, starting from the bottom of the ranked list until the
cumulative total cost matches with the available funds. This entails re-examining
the project list to consider scaling down, phasing or deferring projects.

b. Retain the project list and program the augmentation of the projected funds by:
(i) intensifying collection of revenue sources where the current collection efficiency
is low; and/or (ii) tightening the belt on non-essential expenditures; and (iii)
enacting new revenue measures such as utilizing the special levies on private
property, e.g. idle lands tax, special benefit assessment, and the like, or taxing new
subjects and activities within the prescribed powers of the LGU.

c. Contracting for loans and other forms of indebtedness as authorized in the Local
Government Code.

LGU Financing Approaches. After the ranked list of projects is approved by the Local
Development Council, it can choose among three financing approaches with which to fund
these projects: Option 1: Conservative Approach. Under this approach, only projects that
can be funded from regular sources will be implemented; Option 2: Developmental Approach.
Here, the short list of projects is taken as final and irreducible. The LGU will then tap all
sources possible to raise the needed funds to implement the project package; and Option 3:
29
Pragmatic Approach. This is a combination of the two options above. In general, the
approach entails being conservative during the initial years and eventually becoming
developmental as the status of local finances improve. The procedural steps therefore can
freely shift from the conservative to the developmental approach as the situation demands.

LGU Financing Options. Following are the financing options available to LGUs using
the development and pragmatic approaches in the implementation of their investment
programs:

LGU FINANCING OPTIONS

Internal Official
Local Revenues Borrowing/ Credit
Revenue Development Private Financing
through Taxes Financing
Allotment Assistance (ODA)
and User Fees
(IRA)

Multilaterals Bond
MDF Bilateral BOT Flotation Public Private
Direct Loans

CHAPTER 6. APPROACHES AND TOOLS IN DEVELOPING THE INVESTMENT

PROGRAM AND FINALIZING THE INVESTMENT SCHEDULE

Revenue Mobilization Considerations

A. Benchmarking Indicators. To improve both the effectiveness and the efficiency of

operations of existing revenue administration, benchmarking vis-à-vis comparable LGUs
within the region or country must be considered. The table below shows the relevant
indicators:

Table 6.1 Benchmarking Indicators for Effective and

Efficient Revenue Administration

Indicators of Effectiveness
1. Collection Efficiency for Real Property and Franchise Taxes:
• Total Revenue Collected/ Annual Revenue Collection Target;
• Total Revenue Collected/Potentially Collectible;

30
 • Amount of Additional Taxes Collected/ Additional Taxes Assessed; and
• Amount of Tax Arrears Recovered/ Total Amount of Tax Arrears at the
Beginning of a Year
2. Capacity utilization rates of LGU-operated utilities and enterprises like
commercial
centers, convention facilities, water supply, sports centers, etc.
3. Annual growth rate in per capita revenues relative to the inflation rate.
• Per Capita Total Revenues; and
• Per Capita Local Revenues.
4. Annual growth rate in unit fees and charges relative to the inflation rate.
5. Average rental or use fees for LGU-owned facilities/Average commercial
rental or use
6. rates of comparable facilities in the vicinity.
Indicators of Efficiency
1. Number of Taxpayers/ Number of Employees;
2. Administrative Costs/ Total Revenue Collected for Taxes; and
3. Total Cost of Operations and Maintenance/Total Revenue for So-Called
Economic Enterprises

B. Revenue Mobilization Tools. The 1991 LGC provides LGUs with resource
mobilization tools that can be grouped into five distinct classes of potential revenue sources6:

a)Land-Based tools: Basic Real Property Tax, Special Education Fund, Land
Transfer Tax, Idle Land Tax, Public Land Use Tax, Land Sale of Foreclosed Real
Properties, Land Investment, Land Reclassification, Land Development Permit
Fee, and Tax on Sand, Gravel and other Quarry Resources;

b)Community Activity-Based tools: Business Tax, Community Tax, Franchise Tax,

Tax on Business of Printing and Publication, Professional Tax, Amusement Tax,
Annual Fixed Tax on Delivery of Trucks or Vans, Fees and Charges, Fess for
Selling and Licensing of Weights and Measures, Fishery Rentals, Fees and
Charges, Service Fess and Charges;

c) Infrastructure-Based tools: Special Levy, Toll Fees or Charges, and Public Utility
Charges;

d)Debt-Based tools: Debt Financing and Financial Investment; and

e)Revenue Sharing-Based tools: Share in Mining, Fishery and Forestry Taxes;

Share in Gross Taxes of Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations; and
Congressional Funds

Conditions for Subsidy Provision. For social services, partial cost pricing is justified

6 Each of these taxes is described in Annex G of PLPEM Volume 3, A Local Revenue Tool Kit for Philippine LGUs.
31
when any of the following conditions exist: (i) Some of the benefits from the service accrue to
the whole community; (ii) The LGU wants to stimulate demand for the service; (iii)
Enforcement of the charge at full cost would result in widespread evasion; and (iv) The
service is used primarily by low-income households.

Scoring Method for Determining Subsidy. A scoring method will be helpful in setting
the proportion of the full cost of a public service that is appropriately recovered from project
beneficiaries or users. (a) Each service should be evaluated according to the seven
questions found in Table 6.2 below. The score per question is either the full weight, which is
assigned when the answer to the question is “Yes”, or, zero, when the answer is “No”. (b)
The sum of all scores is taken. The total score indicates the percentage of the full cost of the
service that should be borne by service charges to be paid by beneficiaries or users. A total
score of 100 indicates that there should be full-cost recovery from beneficiaries; a total score
of less than 100 indicates that a certain amount of LGU subsidy is appropriate for the project.
The proportion of the appropriate subsidy is equal to 100 less the total score. Each LGU may
change the weights or even some of the questions based on the preferences and values of its
constituents. The total of the weights must, however, always be 100.

Table 6.2 Scoring Method for Determining the Proportion of the Full Cost of a Public
Service that is Appropriately Recovered from Project Beneficiaries or Users

Question Weight
1. Does use of the service generate minimal spill-over effects on other members of the 25
community?
2. Is it possible to identify a specific beneficiary for this service? 20
3. Is the imposition of a beneficiary charge for this service statutorily and 15
administratively feasible?
4. Would the imposition of beneficiary charges for the service evoke negligible political 15
opposition?
5. Would beneficiary charges for this service not affect access by the low-income 15
groups?
6. Would the imposition of beneficiary charges for the service lead to substantial 5
revenues to the LGU?
7. Would benefit-based funding of this service result in enhanced efficiency? 5
Proportion (Percent) of Cost to Be Recovered through User Fees and Charges 100

Financing Strategies. The appropriate financing strategy is identified for the project
depending on whether this is “hard” or “soft”. Two basic financing strategies are open to
LGUs: (a) The “pay-as-you-use” strategy, which finances improvements from future earnings.
LGUs may finance these improvements from loans with a maturity that equals the life span of
the facilities. If the maturity of the loan is shorter, the province can roll over the loan costs, and

32
the investment project is paid back by user fees and taxes 7; and (b) The “pay-as-you-go”
strategy, where an LGU finances improvement expenditures from current and previous
operating surpluses. This is the traditional and best known way of financing LGU
infrastructure projects in the Philippines, with the excess of LGU revenues over LGU
expenses in the current year used to finance infrastructure outlays for the next (and even
subsequent) year(s).

Infrastructure Financing Options. Shown in the table are probable infrastructure

financing options for LGUs.

Table 6.3 Probable Infrastructure Financing Options

Over the Next 3 Years Next 6 Years Over 6 Years

Regular Tax Sources
(Property and Business Taxes)
Conveyance of Development
Rights
Debt Instruments including
Bonds
Tax Incentives and
Government Guarantees
User Fees and Charges
Concessions Adding National Revenue
Sharing
Special Assessments Other Special Taxes and
Charges (e.g.,congestion
charges, higher vehicle
ownership fees)
Development Impact Fees
Land Readjustment

Considerations in Selecting the Financing Instrument. Depending on the financing

strategy chosen, the appropriate financing instrument is selected based on the following
considerations: (a) legality (e.g., not being able to issue general obligation bonds to finance
LGU operations as well as non-income generating projects); (b) characteristics of the sources
(i.e, internal or external to the LGU, currency denomination); (c) adequacy of the funds with
respect to project capital and MOOE requirements; (d) impact on the LGU, including
budgetary impact (e.g., necessary belt-tightening measures including the deferment or even
cancellation of other projects); and (e) political and administrative feasibility (e.g., raising of
fee and tax rates to service debt requirements, ability to prepare elaborate project
documentation requirements).

7 Annex F of PLPEM Volume 3 summarizes the considerations and modes of accessing the credit market.
33
CHAPTER 7. APPROACHES AND TOOLS IN ADOPTING THE INVESTMENT PLAN

Summary Tables. The final financing plan and investment schedule are packaged
into a draft LDIP/PDIP and thereafter legally adopted by the local Sanggunian. The message
from the LCE would be accompanied by summary tables such as shown below [PLPEM 3
pp.61-63]:

A. Investment Program Project Summary. Matrix showing the relevant information

for each project such as the project title, annual estimated costs, priority order,
implementation period and recommended methods of financing.

B. Investment Budget Summary. Provides total investment expenditures by year.

C. Revenue Summary. A listing of revenue sources for each year.

D. AIP Summary. A form that presents the segregated summary AIP based on the
appropriate current year slice of the investment program for consideration in the annual
budget.

PED Guidelines. Some PDIP investment projects, especially those that will require
external financing, will have to be subjected to more rigorous financial and economic benefit
cost analyses. These analyses will be part of the pre-feasibility and feasibility studies
required in project packaging. The guidelines for these types of analyses are covered in the
PED Guidelines found in Volume 5 of the PLPEM.

34
Table 7.1 LDIP/PDIP Project Summary

35
Table 7.2 PDIP/LDIP Investment Budget Summary

Table 7.3 LDIP/PDIP Revenue Summary

36
 Form 7.1 Annual Investment Program Summary Form
AnnexA
SummaryForm

CY ______ Annual Investment Program (AIP)

By Program/Project/Activity by Sector
As of _______________________
Province/City/Municipality/Barangay:________________________

SCHEDULEOF IMPLEMENTATION AM OUNT (in thousand pesos)

IMPLEM ENTING EXPECTED FUNDING Personal Maintenance
AIP REFERENCE PROGRAM /PROJ ECT/ACTIVITY STARTING COMLETION
OFFICE/DEPARTMENT OUTPUTS SOURCE Services and Other Capital Outlay TOTAL
CODE (1) DESCRIPTION (2) DATE DATE
(3) (6) (7) (PS) Operating (CO) (10) (11)
(4) (5) Expenses
(8)
(MOOE)
General Public Services
(10)

Economic Services
(80)

Social Services
(30)

Prepared By: Attested by:

Planning Officer/PLDC Budget Officer Local Chief Executive

Date: Date: _____________ Date: _______________

37
CHAPTER 8. APPROACHES AND TOOLS IN IDENTIFYING AREAS FOR
COMPLEMENTATION OF PPAs AND UPDATING THE INVESTMENT
PROGRAM

Sources of LDIP/PDIP Updates. The following list enumerates possible sources of

programs and projects that may serve as inputs to investment program updates:

a) AIP projects left out of the current year capital budget during the budget
hearings because of reduced budget allocation;
b) Projects included in the current year capital budget that were not implemented
during the year because of revenue shortfalls or unforeseen delays;
c) Occurrence of emergencies such as calamities, unforeseen circumstances, and
unanticipated revenue shortfalls;
d) Projects included in latter years’ PDIP implemented in the current year;
e) Projects which have already been subjected to the PDIP evaluation process but
were left out of the current six-year PDIP because of lack of funds; and
f) New projects or changes in existing PDIP projects arising from
adjustments/changes in the PDPFP.

38
Sources

City Development Strategies (CDS) Toolkit

CLUP Guidebook

Guide for the Preparation of Comprehensive Development Plans (CDP)

Harmonization of Local Planning, Investment Programming, Revenue Administration,

Budgeting and Expenditure Management, Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC) No. 001, Series
of 2007 (JMC)

Joint Course on Local Development Strategy and Capital Investment Programming &
Budgeting (LDS-CIP)

Rationalized Local Planning System of the Philippines

Physical Development & Physical Framework Plan (PDPFP), Volume 3. Guidelines on

Investment Programming & Revenue Generation

39