The state sets a 2 per cent infrastructure backlog benchmark. One Hunter council in nine meets it

We reported on 25 August 2026 that seven of the eight financial sustainability ratios in the same workbook are marked Not Collected for 2024-25. The asset indicators are the other half of that file, and they were collected. They also come with something the raw dollars do not: an official pass mark.

Three benchmarks, in the regulator's own words

The Office of Local Government publishes a Performance Benchmarks sheet defining each indicator and the level it should reach. Three of them describe the state of a council's physical assets.

The infrastructure backlog ratio shows what proportion the infrastructure backlog is against the total value of a council's infrastructure, calculated as the Estimated cost to bring assets to a satisfactory condition divided by written down value (WDV) of infrastructure, buildings, other structures and depreciable land improvement assets. The benchmark is under 2 per cent.

The asset maintenance ratio Compares actual versus required annual asset maintenance, and the benchmark is above 100 per cent. The building and infrastructure renewal ratio compares Asset renewals (building and infrastructure) divided by depreciation, amortisation and impairment of buildings and infrastructure assets, and its benchmark is also above 100 per cent.

Across New South Wales in 2024-25, 44 of 127 councils met the backlog benchmark, 62 met the maintenance benchmark and 61 met the renewal benchmark. On each of the three, roughly half the state or worse is on the wrong side of the line the state itself drew. That is the context for everything below: a Hunter council missing these is in the majority, not an outlier.

The Hunter, against the three lines

Hunter councils against the OLG performance benchmarks, 2024-25

Backlog benchmark is under 2 per cent; maintenance and renewal benchmarks are above 100 per cent. Bold marks a figure on the wrong side of the line.

Two figures are worth stopping on, and they point in opposite directions.

Dungog reported spending $2.02 million on asset maintenance against a required figure of $6.69 million, a ratio of 30.2 per cent and the lowest in the Hunter by a wide margin. Required maintenance is the council's own estimate of what its assets need. Its backlog ratio of 9.6 per cent is the second highest in the region. Dungog has fewer than 10,000 residents and, on the same day's figures, the deepest operating deficit relative to revenue of any Hunter council. Those three numbers are consistent with each other.

Muswellbrook is the reverse. It reported spending $8.98 million against a required $3.22 million, a maintenance ratio of 278.9 per cent, the highest in the region, while still carrying a backlog ratio of 7.9 per cent. Spending well above your own maintenance estimate and still holding a large backlog is what catching up looks like partway through, or what a conservative required-maintenance estimate looks like. The published figures do not distinguish between those.

The Maitland number we are not reporting as a result

Maitland's building and infrastructure renewal ratio is published as minus 110.7 per cent. It is the only negative value in the column anywhere in New South Wales: 126 other councils report a positive figure.

We are not going to tell you what that means about Maitland, because we do not know and neither does the file. The ratio is asset renewals divided by depreciation, and a negative result implies negative renewals, which is not a thing a council does. It is far more likely to be a sign convention, a reclassification or a data entry in the return. The Office of Local Government says on its own data page that it does not separately audit the data while conducting extensive testing for validity and reasonableness.

Maitland's backlog ratio of 13.1 per cent, the highest in the Hunter and more than four times the state median of 3.11, sits in the same row. We report it because it is published, and we flag that its immediate neighbour in the same row is a number nobody can read, which is a reason to ask before concluding.

Two councils filed late

The same workbook records whether each council submitted audited financial statements on time. Across the state, 113 did and 15 did not. Two of the fifteen are in the Hunter: Dungog and Upper Hunter. That is a compliance fact rather than a judgement about either council's finances, and it is the sort of thing that has ordinary explanations, including an auditor's timetable.

What a benchmark miss is, and what it is not

A council on the wrong side of one of these lines is not failing its residents, and this is not a league table. The backlog ratio depends on how a council values its assets and how it assesses their condition, and those methods vary. Required maintenance is an estimate the council makes itself, which means a council with a rigorous estimate can look worse than one with a relaxed one. Roughly half the state misses each benchmark, which tells you as much about the benchmarks and the asset base as about any individual council.

What the numbers are good for is asking a specific question at a specific council rather than a general one. If you live in Dungog, the question is why actual maintenance is under a third of the council's own required figure and what the plan is to close it. If you live in Maitland, the question is what the renewal ratio should read and whether the backlog figure was calculated on the same basis as last year. Those are answerable questions, and the answers exist inside each council.

How we did this. Counts are ours, taken directly from the workbook: of 127 councils with a published value, 44 have a backlog ratio under 2 per cent, 62 have a maintenance ratio above 100 per cent and 61 have a renewal ratio above 100 per cent, and the state median backlog ratio is 3.11 per cent. Benchmark levels are the Office of Local Government's, not ours. Ratios are reproduced as published, rounded to one decimal place. We have not audited any council's returns, and OLG says it does not separately audit them either. Maitland is the only council in the state with a negative renewal ratio and we have deliberately not interpreted that figure. We have not sought comment from any council or from the Office of Local Government.

Spotted an error in this story? Ask for a correction. Corrections are published, dated and left visible.