CLARENCE Valley Council's financial position has improved from "weak" to "neutral" in the eyes the state government regulators.

But that has not stopped the council from seeking to delaying its latest Fit for the Future submission.

At Tuesday's council meeting the general manager presented reports on the council's financial state. These included:

A report showing a snapshot of its $69million asset management backlog

The latest TCorp assessment of the council's finances

A report recommending the council delay its next Fit for the Future submission until after September's council election.

The council discussed delaying its Fit for the Future proposal with the Office of Local Government beyond the July 29 deadline.

It has been told there are three other councils seeking to make delayed sub- missions and if successful, it would be asked to re-submit with those councils.

A key issue in the council report was a submission before the July 29 deadline, which would include an application for a special rate variation, and would impose a financial position on the new council it did not agree with.

The council voted unanimously to seek to delay its submission.

On the TCorp front, the council has learned its financial sustainability rating has been upgraded from weak, to neutral.

TCorp analysed the council's annual financial statements from 2010 to 2015 and the 2016-17 Long Term Financial Plan.

The TCorp report noted that although the council's sustainability rating has not changed, "there is a noticeable improvement in the FSR score band, which indicates that council is on the right path to an improved position."

The OLG said the improvement in the council's finances were

a direct result of reviews

of expenditure, but noted

it was essential the

council found additional revenue to achieve sustainability.

In its conclusions TCorp was encouraged by the improved performance in 2013/14 and 2014/15.

It said council should continue with its asset rationalisations and cost reduction strategies to fund future capital expenditure.

It said the Scenario 3 in the LTFP (which includes a 5.44% SRV over seven years) will not reduce the infrastructure backlog because it will not produce enough funds for maintenance and renewals.