Local Government New Zealand, is spending considerable ratepayer money on a campaign promoting local income taxes, regional fuel taxes and regional GST-style regimes to increase the tax burden of local councils. LGNZ today launched a review document on various options for new taxes. You can download the paper here.

This diagram illiterates well the growth of local government (source):

New Zealand’s average rates bill has doubled in the last 20 years, tracking at twice the rate of inflation.

Instead of focusing on the quality of councils' spending decisions, LGNZ appear to be using ratepayer money on studies and propaganda promoting new taxes. We have long been concerned that LGNZ too often represents the interests of councils, rather than those paying the councils' bills! Nowhere in the discussion paper for example, do we see a disciplined analysis of why local government spending is out of control.

We've also been alerted to emails where LGNZ spin doctors are sending  draft opinion pieces to local mayors so that they can 'leverage local media' and promote these new taxes. 

"Trust us we're politicians"

In the LGNZ press release, the lobby group's President, Laurence Yule, says that:

“The goal is not to increase the overall tax burden for New Zealand, but rather to determine whether a different mix of funding options for local government might deliver better outcomes for the country.”

Mr Yule is telling the public that the goal isn’t to increase the overall tax burden while at the same time releasing a report that isn't on ways to save money, but on ways to tax more.

Former North Shore City Councillor, North Shore City Council David Thornton writes:

LGNZ Review is about more money for more spending

Few ratepayers object to the principal that all citizens should contribute to the cost of running their communities, and that those contributions should be within the ratepayers’ ability to pay.

The Local Government New Zealand funding review revisits many of the issues raised in the Independent Rates Review of 2007 and repeats some of the same conclusions reached then.

The difference between the two reports is that the 2007 review was looking for alternatives to rates, while this new report is aimed at raising new funds in addition to rates.

In other words LGNZ, on behalf of all councils, wants to spend more, and needs more money to feed those expansive ambitions.

We agree. The Taxpayers' Union isn't against new taxes per say. Our view is that new taxes should replace old ones (i.e. an equal decrease to compensate). In the case of local government though, LGNZ's efforts are so the local government spending binge can continue...

Poll: Should councils be given new powers to impose local GST, fuel and income taxes?

Vote by clicking here. 

In the last year there has been a lot of discussion regarding efforts by Auckland Council to fund its yawning funding gap, a gap that mostly relates to its transportation (roading) budgets. New tolls for existing motorways are a possibility, as well as distorying the Auckland Energy Consumer Trust so that Auckland Council (instead of the intendand benificiares) get the annual payout.

Feedback included one commentator who “shouted” (in bold caps) … “Hang On! lets not try to fill any funding gap before we first address Auckland Council’s wasteful and unaffordable expenditures which are so clearly out of control!” … the Elephant!

Fair point … so here, to start this particular ball rolling, are some simple financial facts concerned with Auckland’s expenditures.

The 2012- 2022 long term plan forecast Council group expenditures to increase by 24% over the next five years, although this year’s 2014 actual result is slightly less (by 3%) than that forecast.

Recent publicity surrounds the funding deficit issues referred to already, that is, the search for increased income and other sources to meet budgeted funding totals. But there is something important missing from this picture. Nowhere in the debate surrounding the financial management of Auckland Council is there to be found any call for or actions to address the funding shortfall by making budget savings derived from expenditure reductions.

How different this is from individual budget holders of our family’s expenditures or of firms in the private sector. Any private sector firm faced with a similar funding dilemma to that of the Council would not hesitate in wielding the axe to its expenditures. They would act promptly to lower their overheads, then most likely to reduce payroll, while all the while seeking more efficient and economical ways to produce their goods and services. So why is our Council somehow exempt from employing these sensible strategies?

It appears that the Council’s coercive powers give them an assured (taxation) basis for their revenues and that effectively removes any incentive or compulsion for their making cost savings.   

This is the reason Councils usually just run “cost plus” budgets year after year. A small number, usually those reacting to pressures of their ratepayers, from time to time trim their costs. Currently though New Zealand Councils by and large show little interest in making cost savings as tables of recent year’s inexorable rates increases attest.

An analysis of alternative solutions, designed to modify Auckland Council budget strategies fall into two broad areas.

The first is to look at the Auckland Council culture and practices that have allowed this situation to develop.

The second addresses a range of specific tactics that can make inroads (savings) to meet balanced budget objectives..

So how did this expensive, unaffordable approach to Auckland Council financial management arise? There is no need to itemise these reasons as recent publicity has already done so. One glaring example of a lack of cost control however is the Council payroll. With over 1,100 (roughly 15% by number) of all Council employees drawing over $100,000 salary per annum this of itself is sufficient evidence of poor cost management for most ratepayers when their average incomes are in the mid-sixties.

In the interests of brevity we now merely list some of the missteps that have lead to the creation of our under-performing, expensive monster of a Super Council: 

• The election of a Mayor and Council (majority) who have shown little interest in the creation of a high performing cost-effective unit of local government. Recent events may have forced them to address some funding alternatives but any cost savings ideas remain missing in action
• Failure to do (as the Royal Commission recommended) and put in place a governance and management structure where performance and cost control would have the highest priority. The appointment of the suggested performance audit function was quietly shelved – some might say to be replaced it seems by an army of Mayoral feel good PR spin merchants?
• Appointments in key financial positions of persons with no interest or track records in seeking to achieve affordable, high performance service delivery
• Layered staffing structures with high payroll and head counts consequently building up large departmental overhead structures.
• The absence of useful benchmarked expenditure-setting controls or performance improvement processes.
• A failure to determine (including the use of independent public opinion surveys) the level of service ratepayers are prepared to trade off against cost savings.
• A disinterested hands off external audit role. This is obvious from recent annual audit management clearance letters to the Council. These reflect an ineffectual extremal audit presence out of its depth, often beholden to Council management and totally disinterested in improved Council performance.

The result of these circumstances are well understood by Auckland ratepayers - just look at their rates bills and see the nearly daily headlines of the latest examples of Council waste and extravagance. Lack of control of Council expenditures has lead to unaffordable rates and their projected high percentage annual increases.

Only a total turnaround of leadership and of Council culture plus effective cost savings tactics can address these issues. Electors, as ratepayers seeking better value for their money have their opportunity next year to (albeit somewhat indirectly) set affordable cost-effective budgets by electing a Council with these as their principal agenda.   

Larry Mitchell is a local government financial analysist.  The views are his own and do not necessary reflect those of the Taxpayers’ Union. Larry can be contacted vai [email protected].  

On Sunday we suggested that New Zealanders should be given the ability to recall their representatives after the latest of a series of scandals involving Auckland Mayor Len Brown was revealed. The NZ Herald picked up our suggestion:

'Secret room' spending shows need for recall elections

A lobby group says revelations Auckland Council spent $30,000 on "secret rooms" for Len Brown show New Zealand needs recall elections to dismiss politicians before their terms expire.

The Council spent the money building a private bathroom and dressing room hidden behind a bookcase in the Auckland mayor's new office, the Herald on Sunday reported.

The Taxpayers' Union today said the Government should give local communities the ability to petition for recall elections.

"Councillors have already censured Len Brown for misusing funds but clearly the line in the sand is being ignored," said Jordan Williams, Taxpayers' Union executive director.

"A recall option would enable ratepayers to petition for a vote to fire a shameless [politician] who lacks any respect for those who pay the bills." Read more.

Voter recall options are gaining popularity overseas and it's time New Zealand had the conversation. Though often associated with the United States, where they have a long history and are used at both the state and local leve, recall mechanisms also exist in British Columbia, several Swiss cantons, the Philippines and Venezuela.

Recently the UK Government introduced the Recall of MPs Bill to the House of Commons on 11 September 2014, after pledging to the public to go so upon election in 2010. Many UK MPs, led by backbencher Zac Goldsmith, think the Government’s proposed threshold of recall only after a committee of MPs has found the representative to have been engaged in “serious wrongdoing” is too high.

Based on the swamp of emails we've been getting, many Auckland's think the threshold to censure a Mayor seems to be pretty high too!

We think that it's time the Government gave ratepayers a voice between elections. A recall option would enable ratepayers to petition for a vote to fire a shameless politicians who lacks any respect for those who pay the bills. New Zealanders need a mechanism to replace elected representatives if they fail to perform or bring their office into serious disrepute.

As Zac Goldsmith recently said:

“What is at stake is a matter of principle – do we trust out voters to hold us to account or not?”

It’s time to have the recall conversation.

That’s right – the Auckland Council’s CEO has a secretary that is advertising for a secretary.

We have all heard about stories of politicians looking to empire build courtesy of the taxpayers’ pocket, but this really takes the cake.

No wonder Auckland Council now has more bureaucrats on living off ratepayers than all of the councils it replaced combined.

So what will this new position entail?

“Your day will involve providing administrative support as and where required, this includes anything from managing correspondence, records management to diary management. This role is vital to ensuring that items are actioned, recorded and accurate.”

If that’s the role of the secretary’s secretary, what’s left for the secretary to do?

At a time when the Council needs to find savings of $860 per ratepayer, empire building in Council offices should not be tolerated.

With nearly 6,000 bureaucrats on the pay-roll, 811 of which are earning over $100,000 a year, Len Brown and his CEO ought to be out trimming the fat rather than increasing the burden on ratepayers even further. 

Auckland Ratepayers “Wake Up” at last

Bernard Orsman's analysis last week of Auckland Council's financial trouble got right to the heart of the matter. The section headed "Hey Big Spender you’re in a deep financial hole" accurately nails the central issue facing Auckland’s overtaxed ratepayers. With a new 2015-2025 long term plan gearing up, Auckland Council's control of its expenditure long based on borrow and spend, at long last  will now be put under the microscope.

The best place to start with the analysis is the new purposes of local government post the 2012 changes to the Local Government  Act. Section 10 (requiring "cost- effective infrastructure expenditure")  and section 11 (which lists the "core" activities) suggests that the Council is now staying well outside the typical activities we associate with councils.

Of course, Auckland  Council has been quick to run to Wellington for funding of its plans, but I think Central Government should withhold any consideration of tolls, regional sales taxes (or other alternatives) until Auckland Council can produce solid evidence of its adoption of a principled "cost effective" "core" services-based budget. At present it is anything but.

In his regular blog this week, Joel Cayford, Reflections on Auckland Planning makes some telling and useful points with his advice directed straight at Auckland Councillors. These include the suggestion that in place of existing assumptions - that ratepayers should foot the bill for the city’s growth-infrastructure, affordability to ratepayers must become the central issue:

“Under the Council's present policy settings, ratepayers can't afford the Auckland Plan, and it's not equitable to require ratepayers to subsidise Auckland's economic growth. It's not that urban growth is a bad thing ... it becomes a bad thing, an unaffordable thing for existing ratepayers ... that does not justify overloading existing Auckland ratepayers with growth infrastructure costs”

Other worthwhile suggestions he makes for Auckland Councillors to consider ... “while they are at it’ are all matters that echo sentiments  true of many other New Zealand Councils. These include:

• Ratepayers, not just self selecting focus groups should (“novel thought”) be asked “whether they would prefer cuts in their local services (parks, libraries, waste management, plantings, gardens, community services), or whether they would prefer you to spend less of their rates on growth infrastructure projects - then I think you'd get a clear answer. Local council and community services are highly valued in a liveable city”.
• Watercare, (the Council controlled water company), itself, a huge burden of cost on ratepayers additional to Council rates, is accountable both to Councillors and ratepayers. Joel ruminates that “Watercare,  possibly knows something that the rest of us don't know, maybe the reason is that it has been ratcheting up its connection fees (thereby) giving strong warnings that water and wastewater rates are on their way up” ... and “ Councillors should not assume that Auckland Council would raise a ratepayer funded loan for Watercare’s plans.
•  He points out where the accountability buck stops:
   “Don't think you can escape responsibility for Watercare charge increases by keeping rate increases down a bit. Watercare is your responsibility too. You govern it. No-one else does”.
• In the context of consultative process relating to budgetary assumptions Joel insists that ratepayers are a living breathing part of the decision loop:
  “I think you would be assisted in your task if you asked officers for typical household scenarios with different policy settings. You should be provided with information at the individual ratepayer level of all the consequences of your plans, policies and assumptions. This would tally up rates AND Watercare charges AND any other Council charges - so you can see the total funding impact of your potential decisions on typical Auckland ratepayers across the region”. Hear Hear to that!

Joel concludes by taking a swing at the vexed Housing Affordability conundrum, not merely an Auckland issue. He presents it in this way:

My biggest policy concern with the growth pathway Auckland is headed down is the assumption that existing ratepayers will subsidise costs of growth infrastructure needed to accommodate new ratepayers ..., then the true costs of new accommodation will not be paid by those buying into that part of Auckland's property market. This inbuilt subsidy is already causing property market failure. The craziness of Auckland's property market is partly driven by Auckland Council growth policies.

Let’s hope that this time, Auckland Councillors do two things:

First: They must be persuaded of the importance of achieving what was hoped when the former Auckland councils were amalgamated in the first place. It was supposed to be driven by excellent performance management and reporting, high standards of accountability and value for money and

Secondly: They should take up the enlightened constructive suggestions of Joel and other commentators - in the interests of their long-suffering ratepayers.

We've received confidential minutes and a briefing via the tip-line relating to CentrePort’s problematic BNZ building which suggests the building will not be fully reoccupied until the end of October.

What should be one of Wellington’s most modern and safest buildings looks to be still plagued with problems eleven months after the Seddon earthquake.

We understand that CentrePort is having to fork out more ratepayer money on seismic restraints on the risers and that there are now new problems with windows popping out in Pier 3.

If ever you needed an argument as to why ratepayers should not be underwriting property development, the BNZ fiasco is it.

Greater Wellington needs to abandon its policy of secrecy and explain how much these problems at the BNZ building are costing ratepayers. Latest estimates are in the tens of millions.

In May the Taxpayers’ Union revealed that the Greater Wellington Regional Council guarantees CentrePort’s debt, including borrowings related to property development.

MN_Minutes_PCG Meeting

The Taxpayers’ Union has today published a new report by Jono Brown that suggest ways local councils can save money and reduce the rates burden on New Zealanders. Rate Saver Report: 101 Ways to Save Money in Local Government is a guide for local authorities on how they can cut waste, save money, reduce bureaucracy and ultimately lower rates. The report adopts many suggestions made by the country’s mayors, and is based on similar reports published in the United Kingdom.

Click here to read the full 101 ways

Too often we hear unimaginative councillors insisting that they have no choice but to increase the rates burden. Before they even consider increasing rates they should consider all of the suggestions in this report.  In future, any council claiming that raising rates is the only option had better be able to prove that they have implemented or at least considered implementing every single idea we are putting before them today. If not, they won’t be able to look their residents in the eye and insist that they have exhausted the possibilities for saving money.

Ray Wallace, Mayor of Lower Hutt, says in a foreword to the report:

"I urge local government people to take these suggestions as a challenge. If you do not like them, come up with some better ones."

Tim Shadbolt, Mayor of Invercargill City, says in a foreword to the report:

"Having been a mayor for 28 years and finally achieving a rate increase of less than 1%, I’ve learnt to face many challenges and this publication is certainly challenging. Some of the ideas are obviously worthy of discussion and others are clearly designed to provoke discussion."

Highlights of how councils can save money:

• Pay back council debt (#1)
• Incentivise innovation (#2)
• Stop providing free lunch and booze for councillors (#3)
• Don’t fund or join chambers of commerce (#4)
• Publish all accounts payable transactions (#5)

Other notable suggestions include:

• Scrap political advisors (#10)
• Get rid of professional sports subsidies disguised as ‘economic development’ (#17)
• Cancel annual subscription to Local Government New Zealand (#24)
• Stop producing glossy brochures (#33)
• Lease art the council can’t sell (#99)

The Taxpayers’ Union would like to thank the many Mayors across the country who responded to the Union's invitation to submit ideas and examples of their council saving ratepayers’ money.

The Taxpayers’ Union is slamming the property management skill at Greater Wellington Regional Council which has lost 95% of the purchase price of the building it used to occupy.

Information released to the Taxpayers’ Union under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act show that ‘Pringle House’ in Wakefield Street, also known as the 'Regional Council Centre', was purchased in 1987 for $22 million. In 2014 dollars, that is equivalent to $45.2 million. According to a recent independent valuation, the property is worth only $2.3 million. The documents reveal that ratepayers have taken a loss of more than 95% of the purchase price.

This shows why councils should be extra careful about managing property. At the time when Greater Wellington is taking a 95% loss on its own building, the port it owns is pushing ahead with the Harbour Quay property development, which Wellington ratepayers underwrite.

Last month the Taxpayers’ Union revealed that Greater Wellington had not bothered to enquire into the extent of damage and potential loss resulting from the Cook Strait Earthquakes (click here for DominionPost coverage).

These new revelations do not give us confidence that Greater Wellington are good stewards of ratepayer money. The Council should leave the funding of property development to the private sector and put a stop to risking public money.

Notes:

• Pringle House, the former offices of Greater Wellington Regional Council, were purchased for $45.2 million (inflation adjusted) in 1987.
• The building is now worth $2.3 million and is earthquake prone.
• Consultants have estimated that it will cost $32 million to bring the building up to acceptable standards.
• The costs to physically relocate the Council offices after the Cook Strait quakes last year were nearly $90,000 (not including staff time).
• Despite sitting empty, the building is costing ratepayers $17,000 per month.
• The Council has considerable property risks as debt guarantor of Centre Port’s ‘Harbour Quay’ property developments. 

 Letter from GWRC to NZTU 23 May 2014

 Attachment 1 to OIA 2014 065 - Telfer Young Market Valuation

Attachment 2 to OIA 2014 065 - Spencer Holmes Final Report on the RCC Building

Attachment 3 to OIA 2014 065 - Dunning Thornton Seismic Status Peer Review Report

The Taxpayers’ Union, in collaboration with Fairfax Media, this morning launched "Ratepayers’ Report” hosted by Stuff.co.nz. 

Ratepayers’ Report builds on the work of local government expert and financial analyst, Larry Mitchell and his work in previous years comparing New Zealand’s 67 territorial authorities. The data was pulled together by the Taxpayers' Union and supplied to Fairfax Media. Fairfax has had the data checked independently and supplied it to councils for viewing before its publication.

For the first time, New Zealanders now have an interactive online tool to compare their local council to those of the rest of the country. Go to Ratepayersreport.co.nz to compare your local council including average rates, debt per ratepayer and even CEO salaries.

Ratepayers’ Report compares, for the first time, average residential rates.  The figure has been calculated using a methodology developed within the local government sector to compare average residential rates.  Only Kaipara District Council was unwilling to provide the Taxpayers’ Union with the average residential rates information.

Some highlights: 

• New Zealand’s highest average residential rates are in the Western Bay of Plenty District, $3,274
• The Mackenzie District has the lowest average residential rates, nearly two thirds less at $1,104
• The average council liabilities are $4,386 per ratepayer
• Auckland Council’s liabilities are now $15,858 per ratepayer (and increasing!)
• Dunedin is not far behind. For every Dunedin ratepayer, the Council owes $15,093

The Taxpayers’ Union has been provided a copy of a leaked report Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) commissioned. The report was prepared in response to work by the Taxpayers’ Union to improve transparency in local government. Earlier today Ratepayers’ Report – interactive local government league tables – launched at ratepayersreport.co.nz.

We've also been leaked confidential briefing papers for council CEOs. These appear to have been prepared by LGNZ's spin doctors as an aide for councils to avoid any criticism resulting from questions relating to Ratepayers' Report and other efforts by the Taxpayers' Union.

We approached LGNZ earlier in the year and sought its help to ensure New Zealanders got a fair picture of how their local council is doing. Instead, LGNZ went into defence mode and hired an accountancy firm to discredit the expert analyst we were using. They were not interested in ensuring ratepayers got an accurate picture, rather creating reasons why we shouldn’t be providing the public with the information.

Despite promising that the report would be made available to the Taxpayers’ Union, we’ve only seen it today because it was leaked to us. The report suggests that LGNZ is more interested in toeing the party line, rather than identifying the councils which are under-performing.

The report, by Grant Thornton, appears to have little basis for what they deem as ‘acceptable’ for the financial measures they apply to councils. They've not provided a league table, or a scoring system and even the data points on the graphs do not reference the councils they relate to.

It appears they’ve put in the data then picked the spot that shows that everyone is doing well.

The report makes soft criticisms of Kaipara District and Waitomo District Councils - but then defends them. It makes assertions that all under-performing councils are dealing with their issues. To us it demonstrates that LGNZ is a lobby group to protect local councils rather than a champion of best practise.

Grant Thornton Report_Local Government a Financial Snapshot