Is it possible to cut €1 Bn from County Council costs

Silentcorner

itzme wrote: »

Agree on both counts it does remove it from this thread and it doesn't mean that it is not a waste of money.

However, you saying it's a waste doesn't mean it is either. I'm much happier having regular annual checks on a road using international standard metrics judging the condition of the road and it's surface and basing maintenance on this then on your view that the road is "perfectly fine" http://nra.ie/NetworkManagement/Maintenance/PavementMonitoringandMaintenance/

Annual checks I can handle, makes sense, but multi annual repairs seems excessive..., I travel roads the length and breath of the country and that road never struck me as in need of urgent maintenance, like you said, I could be wrong, and the argument doesn't belong in this thread.

Cookie_Monster

Boom__Boom wrote: »

There is massive massive potential for savings in the county council infrastructure.

My favourite story related to a county council was a friend of mine who got a summer job in the county council head offices while in university.

Started the job on a Monday morning at 9:30.
Was given a task to complete.
Finished the job before going for lunch.
Told the person who gave her the job that she was done....only to be told that there was nothing for her to do for the rest of the week as the task she had been allocated was supposed to have taken her the week.

Have a cousin who quit his job in the council offices after a year because he was bored out of his head with nothing to do.

I've heard that story about the councils, HSE, motor tax office and dept of welfare offices. There must be no one doing anything at all.

Victor

Rightwing wrote: »

http://www.corkcoco.ie/co/web/Cork%20County%20Council/Departments/Personnel/Council%20Staff
The total number of staff currently employed by Cork County Council is approximately 2,600.

Now how many of these councils do we have? Did someone say 34 ? Gulp.

Cork County Council is the second largest council in the state, with a population larger than Carlow, Leitrim, Longford, Monaghan, North Tipperary, Roscommon and Sligo put together.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

4 regional councils and two city councils are all that's needed. Removal of the endless duplication of positions, buildings and equipment would get you most of the way there.

So, if someone in Donegal needs to pay the council for something, should they go to the cash office in, say, Carlow?

Godge wrote: »

Table IX in the link. Local Authority numbers have been cut from 34,987 in 2008 to 29,980 in 2012, a cut of 14.3%. You are quite some distance out in your estimation of 40,000.

The validity of that comparison may be doubtful if the income those workers generated is also gone. I imagine many of them were on short contracts.

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

There is certainly scope to make savings on LA. Take the Fire services there are a load of Chief Fire officers and assistant Chief officers. ... Less councils should mean less admin/Hr staff. Less Co Councillers, less co managers less Chief Fire Officers and there assistant's.

Well, I suppose you'll have to check what work these officers do. I know a guy who moved from a council planning department to work as a fire officer recently. While work on inspecting new buildings is much reduced, existing buildings do still need periodic inspection and fire brigades still need to be run - I can't see the number of fires dropping materially (there will be certain changes) because of the recession.

belcampprisoner

fire grave diggers,the pot hole fillers etc

Cookie_Monster

Victor wrote: »

So, if someone in Donegal needs to pay the council for something, should they go to the cash office in, say, Carlow?

why would Donegal and Carlow be in the same one, base it on the provinces with some allowance for efficiency over current borders.

And they should really be paying online these days anyway.

View

To quote:

Concentrating on just the 34 city and county councils in Ireland, they have an average population of 128,149.4 and a geographical area of 2,052.8km2. By either measure Ireland could be said to have some of the largest local government units across Europe.

That is from an Oireachtas report on local government which highlights just how centralised our governmental system is (and that report was written before the latest plans to scrap much of our local governmental system).

More centralised government frequently does not equal more efficient government - think of the HSE for instance. It isn't a coincidence that well run states tend to be decentralised - frequently Federal states - such a system allows locals to take responsibility for their own government (and not sit there waiting for decisions to be made for them like we usually do) and, very importantly, it allows politicians to "learn their trade" on a small scale (rather than our system where we discover they are clueless when they finally get their hands on the levers of our highly centralised power system after years of just "sounding good" for most of their political careers).

Scofflaw

Rightwing wrote: »

And judging by the quality of your posts here, you'd do a damn good job.

Why can't you get a welfare payment ?

Enough of this - 3 day ban. On return evidence that Rightwing hasn't learned anything will result in a permaban.

moderately,
Scofflaw

listermint

Subsidised Canteens. I mean look at SDCC for instance do they require a subsidised canteen ? Why not make the canteen a profit making enterprise ?

Or get rid of it altogether, there are plenty of facilities to eat at locally.

I mean this isnt a profit making enterprise like google or facebook. Why would you have such extravagances as a subsidised canteen?

snip snip snip

itzme

listermint wrote: »

Subsidised Canteens. I mean look at SDCC for instance do they require a subsidised canteen ? Why not make the canteen a profit making enterprise ?

Or get rid of it altogether, there are plenty of facilities to eat at locally.

I mean this isnt a profit making enterprise like google or facebook. Why would you have such extravagances as a subsidised canteen?

snip snip snip

Yeah, and when you think about it most people have chairs at home. Why should we furnish offices for these people? I mean they aren't making a profit and don't deserve to be treated in any way well by their employers. Did I mention they are getting free chairs!
Rabble rabble rabble... I mean snip snip sip

Gumbo

Godge wrote: »

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Analysis-of-Exchequer-Pay-and-Pensions-Bill-2007-20121.pdf


Table IX in the link. Local Authority numbers have been cut from 34,987 in 2008 to 29,980 in 2012, a cut of 14.3%. You are quite some distance out in your estimation of 40,000.

Now let us assume that the average salary is 40,000. The total salary bill is €1.2bn. If we fire them all there will still not be a net saving of € 1bn. The welfare payments alone would eat up 200m not to mention the income tax, PRSI, pension levy, USC etc. lost by the government.

By firing every council worker in the country you would be lucky to make €600m net savings.

Who was it that suggested €1 bn could be easily saved from the councils?

Just to confirm the figures :

The Local government Sector, which employs 28,344 employees nationwide, came to just under €1.25bn last year. (2012 figures)

touts

Don't know about 1 billion in savings but personally I would take some drastic action:

1. The counties and councils are largely based on divisions of land between Norman lords when it took days to travel around the country. We need to bring this up to the 20th century (never mind the 21st century). Abolish all councils and instead have a council based roughly on the provinces (Munster, Ulster, Connacht, Leinster, Dublin) but with some rebalancing to compensate for the different sizes.

2. Centralise all common activities such as purchasing, HR, finance, IT etc. into a national Council services body. Where possible staff are redeployed to the new body but surplus staff are made redundant.

3. Hand responsibility for all roads to an expanded NRA. All staff, equipment etc. currently employed in Road maintenance gritting etc. are transferred to the new NRA but will be expected to perform work outside their current county boundaries.

4. Transfer responsibility for the public sewage system to the new Water company. Introduce a metered charge for use of a public sewage system. This brings the pubic system in line with estates and one off houses not connected to the public system.

5. Set up Owner run management companies to maintain ALL council estates. Residents will run the management company and will have to pay fees as agreed among themselves to maintain the estate.

6. All services for archives, genealogy etc. to be transferred to the National Archives.

7. Services such as motor tax, planning applications, NPPR, Septic Tank Register, Electoral register etc. etc. to be transferred to a central national authority. Services will be done almost exclusively online with only one central drop in office per province.

8. All waste management services to be transferred to private contractors. That includes emptying of public bins, street cleaning and recycling. Contracts for these services to be negotiated and monitored centrally. Any household waste service still run by councils to be discontinued and people will have to seek a private contractor.

9. Public swimming pools/gyms to be privatised.

10. Maintenance of public parks, playgrounds & green spaces to be managed by a central national parks authority. Similarly any heritage sites maintained by the council to be transferred to the OPW.

11. All "council houses" and the services supporting them to be centralised. All applications etc. to be handled by a central national office. Any suitable NAMA estates to be transferred to the new Housing authority.

12. Local development plans to be centralised to the national development agency.

13. All county, city and town councils to be abolished. Elections to the provincial council to be held at the same time as elections to the European parliament. The makeup of these councils should be determined by the constituency commission but a general rule of thumb should be that each dail constituency can return the same number of councillors to their provincial council as TDs to the Dail.

OK that's just some stuff to begin with. Will it save a billion? I have no idea but it will save money and give a better more streamlined service with less layers of local officialdom.

listermint

itzme wrote: »

Yeah, and when you think about it most people have chairs at home. Why should we furnish offices for these people? I mean they aren't making a profit and don't deserve to be treated in any way well by their employers. Did I mention they are getting free chairs!
Rabble rabble rabble... I mean snip snip sip

Comparing Chairs to a subsidised canteen is hilarious.

The first thing to go when a private company gets into issues is luxury items. As subsidised canteen is a luxury item, or do you have issue with a public servant paying for the own lunch just the same as everyone else?

As i stated already the only places with these types of luxurys are the multinational companies that are raking in Billions of profits per year, what place does it have in a county council office pray tell ?

Godge

listermint wrote: »

Subsidised Canteens. I mean look at SDCC for instance do they require a subsidised canteen ? Why not make the canteen a profit making enterprise ?

Or get rid of it altogether, there are plenty of facilities to eat at locally.

I mean this isnt a profit making enterprise like google or facebook. Why would you have such extravagances as a subsidised canteen?

snip snip snip

I am not doubting you but do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that the canteen is subsidised rather than break-even.

I had a look at their website and some financial information but couldn't find anything to back this up.

View

touts wrote: »

Don't know about 1 billion in savings but personally I would take some drastic action:

1. The counties and councils are largely based on divisions of land between Norman lords when it took days to travel around the country. We need to bring this up to the 20th century (never mind the 21st century). Abolish all councils and instead have a council based roughly on the provinces (Munster, Ulster, Connacht, Leinster, Dublin) but with some rebalancing to compensate for the different sizes.

You are basically proposing to abolish local government.

As the report I linked to in my previous post states:

The average population in local authority areas across the (EU) countries listed is 5,530 inhabitants per area with an average size of 49km2.


The average municipal size in Ireland is 38,975 inhabitants and an average geographical area of 612 km.

We are already over centralised and, since that report, have already opted to abolish more local government bodies.

By way of contrast, Switzerland which has arguably the best local government in Europe, has 26 cantons and half-cantons and over 2,500 municipalities/communes to cover a population of almost 8 million and a land area approx 60% of that of the RoI.

Gumbo

listermint wrote: »

Subsidised Canteens. I mean look at SDCC for instance do they require a subsidised canteen ? Why not make the canteen a profit making enterprise ?

Or get rid of it altogether, there are plenty of facilities to eat at locally.

I mean this isnt a profit making enterprise like google or facebook. Why would you have such extravagances as a subsidised canteen?

snip snip snip

In DCC, there is a staff canteen, but it is in the basement and the basement is leased to an external private sector company. That company decides the prices and what menu to stock, aslong as there is an option for vegans etc

If the LAS get rid of this, then i dont think there is any saving to be had, i mean it will just mean an empty space, although it wont affect me, i bring my own breakie and lunch 99% of days....unleass of course we are told that the microwave must go due to cut backs

listermint

Godge wrote: »

I am not doubting you but do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that the canteen is subsidised rather than break-even.

I had a look at their website and some financial information but couldn't find anything to back this up.

kceire wrote: »

In DCC, there is a staff canteen, but it is in the basement and the basement is leased to an external private sector company. That company decides the prices and what menu to stock, aslong as there is an option for vegans etc

If the LAS get rid of this, then i dont think there is any saving to be had, i mean it will just mean an empty space, although it wont affect me, i bring my own breakie and lunch 99% of days....unleass of course we are told that the microwave must go due to cut backs

How confident are you that they do not get subsidees directly from SDCC to provide the service. As any jobs that have been advertised the past 3 years in SDCC explicitly say subsidised canteen in the list of items as part of package.

kippy

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

4 regional councils and two city councils are all that's needed. Removal of the endless duplication of positions, buildings and equipment would get you most of the way there.

Indeed.
This should be a long term aim.
As well as clearing up the county and city councils you would also ensure those elected officials associated with them would be cleared out as well.

There should be at the very least shared services in IT, HR and Finance across all the councils, centralised at the very least.

Victor

touts wrote: »

1. The counties and councils are largely based on divisions of land between Norman lords when it took days to travel around the country. We need to bring this up to the 20th century (never mind the 21st century).

Actually, local government in Ireland is much more a creature of the 19th century (as modified over the last 125 years) than the 11th. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_%28Ireland%29_Act_1898#Administrative_counties

Abolish all councils and instead have a council based roughly on the provinces (Munster, Ulster, Connacht, Leinster, Dublin) but with some rebalancing to compensate for the different sizes.

You mean abolish counties to go back to an even older system of provinces?

2. Centralise all common activities such as purchasing, HR, finance, IT etc. into a national Council services body. Where possible staff are redeployed to the new body but surplus staff are made redundant.

I take it then that you haven't heard of the Local Government Management Services Board or the Local Government Computer Services Board or the Office of the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commission? Or that the NTMA handle insurance claims?

3. Hand responsibility for all roads to an expanded NRA. All staff, equipment etc. currently employed in Road maintenance gritting etc. are transferred to the new NRA but will be expected to perform work outside their current county boundaries.

The NRA doesn't have such an ability. it is a policy, standards, research and funding organisation. It doesn't know how to fill a pothole or sweep a street. A centralised agency doesn't have enough local knowledge to do this.

4. Transfer responsibility for the public sewage system to the new Water company.

I get the impression this is happening anyway.

Introduce a metered charge for use of a public sewage system.

Impractical and probably unnecessary - meter the water going in, not out. Yes, some people will use rain water to flush toilets, etc., but that a benefit to the system, not a hindrance.

This brings the pubic system in line with estates and one off houses not connected to the public system.

Metered sewage? Eh, no.

5. Set up Owner run management companies to maintain ALL council estates. Residents will run the management company and will have to pay fees as agreed among themselves to maintain the estate.

Many such residents don't have the skills or inclination to do this.

7. Services such as motor tax, planning applications, NPPR, Septic Tank Register, Electoral register etc. etc. to be transferred to a central national authority. Services will be done almost exclusively online with only one central drop in office per province.

Impractical for some purposes, e.g. certain categories of motor tax are obliged to be paid in person. NPPR and Septic Tank Register are already heavily centralised via the Local Government Computer Services Board

8. All waste management services to be transferred to private contractors. That includes emptying of public bins, street cleaning and recycling. Contracts for these services to be negotiated and monitored centrally.

The extra monitoring would probably make this more expensive. A centralised agency doesn't have enough local knowledge to do this.

10. Maintenance of public parks, playgrounds & green spaces to be managed by a central national parks authority. Similarly any heritage sites maintained by the council to be transferred to the OPW.

Organisation would become too big. A centralised agency doesn't have enough local knowledge to do this.

11. All "council houses" and the services supporting them to be centralised.

A centralised agency doesn't have enough local knowledge to do this. The property portfolio would become to big to manage effectively and would result in loss of service and an increase in cost.

12. Local development plans to be centralised to the national development agency.

A centralised agency doesn't have enough local knowledge to do this. It would lend itself to corruption, have a huge lack of focus and have a democratic deficit.

13. All county, city and town councils to be abolished. Elections to the provincial council to be held at the same time as elections to the European parliament. The makeup of these councils should be determined by the constituency commission but a general rule of thumb should be that each dail constituency can return the same number of councillors to their provincial council as TDs to the Dail.

touts wrote: »

I have no idea

:cool:

kippy

Victor wrote: »

Actually, local government in Ireland is much more a creature of the 19th century (as modified over the last 125 years) than the 11th. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_%28Ireland%29_Act_1898#Administrative_counties

You mean abolish counties to go back to an even older system of provinces?

I take it then that you haven't heard of the Local Government Management Services Board or the Local Government Computer Services Board or the Office of the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commission? Or that the NTMA handle insurance claims?

The NRA doesn't have such an ability. it is a policy, standards, research and funding organisation. It doesn't know how to fill a pothole or sweep a street. A centralised agency doesn't have enough local knowledge to do this.

I get the impression this is happening anyway.

Impractical and probably unnecessary - meter the water going in, not out. Yes, some people will use rain water to flush toilets, etc., but that a benefit to the system, not a hindrance.

Metered sewage? Eh, no.

Many such residents don't have the skills or inclination to do this.

Impractical for some purposes, e.g. certain categories of motor tax are obliged to be paid in person. NPPR and Septic Tank Register are already heavily centralised via the Local Government Computer Services Board

The extra monitoring would probably make this more expensive. A centralised agency doesn't have enough local knowledge to do this.

Organisation would become too big. A centralised agency doesn't have enough local knowledge to do this.

A centralised agency doesn't have enough local knowledge to do this. The property portfolio would become to big to manage effectively and would result in loss of service and an increase in cost.

A centralised agency doesn't have enough local knowledge to do this. It would lend itself to corruption, have a huge lack of focus and have a democratic deficit.

13. All county, city and town councils to be abolished. Elections to the provincial council to be held at the same time as elections to the European parliament. The makeup of these councils should be determined by the constituency commission but a general rule of thumb should be that each dail constituency can return the same number of councillors to their provincial council as TDs to the Dail.

:cool:

Victor,
As a matter of interest do you see any merit in centralising at the very least some features?

Gumbo

listermint wrote: »

How confident are you that they do not get subsidees directly from SDCC to provide the service. As any jobs that have been advertised the past 3 years in SDCC explicitly say subsidised canteen in the list of items as part of package.

There should of been an embargo on external employment since 2009, where were these jobs advertised?

Victor

kippy wrote: »

Victor,
As a matter of interest do you see any merit in centralising at the very least some features?

I do, the problem with many of the above suggestions are glib, unthinking and don't consider the implications of their suggestions.

Can €1 billion be saved? No, not possible. Can savings be made? Yes, I thinks so.

Certain purchasing should be centralised. A council buying one fire engine per year (or every couple of years) won't get good value for money - a central agency (LGMSB?) buying 50 over an X year contract will.

I think quite a few councils are grossly undersized, e.g. Leitrim could be merged with Sligo, also Longford-Westmeath and Laois-Offaly.

I wouldn't so much as abolish town councils as merge them with the relevant area committees in the county councils, such that they would represent an mixed urban-rural geographic area, not a contrived urban-rural split. On the flip side, Cork County Council (400,000+ population) and Dublin City Council (500,000+) might be too big.

I would consider creating fire brigades across several counties in some cases. Northern Ireland has only one fire authority (possibly an extension of The Troubles). www.nifrs.org

Where there is a statutory position, e.g. county manager, chief fire officer, chief planner, etc., I would look at the size of the organisation and consider whether their time is taken up by managing their organisation or by carrying out their function. As it stands, in most places, the positions of county sheriff, country registrar and elections returning officer are held by the same person. Might there be a case for having a single chief fire officer in charge of administration / policy / management for a group of counties, with the other existing chief fire officers assigned to other duties - fire certificate applications, inspections, training and fire fighting.

I would consider a single Franchise Office (electoral register), possibly merged with the DSP's PSC and SAFE programmes. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/irish_social_welfare_system/public_services_card.html

antoobrien

Silentcorner wrote: »

Its only €30 million per local authority...

Galway city council's budgeted expenditure for 2013 is €79.8m - you're suggesting saving 40% of that? :eek:

Taxi!

Silentcorner

antoobrien wrote: »

Galway city council's budgeted expenditure for 2013 is €79.8m - you're suggesting saving 40% of that? :eek:

Taxi!

???????????

Have you been reading the thread....I was simply putting it in perspective (albeit a flawed one) I wasn't suggesting cutting €30 million from say Leitrim, and €30million from Dublin, I never even suggested €1bn worth of saving could be achieved...please point out where I did...

Why would you single that out in a thread full of other equally flawed suggestions? (one of them is my own)

Who is the taxi for? What are you talking about?

touts

Victor wrote: »

Actually, local government in Ireland is much more a creature of the 19th century (as modified over the last 125 years) than the 11th. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_%28Ireland%29_Act_1898#Administrative_counties

You mean abolish counties to go back to an even older system of provinces?

Yes. There are inventions called the Car and the road and the telephone that make 19th or 11th century geography outdated.

Victor wrote: »

I take it then that you haven't heard of the Local Government Management Services Board or the Local Government Computer Services Board or the Office of the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commission? Or that the NTMA handle insurance claims?

Then I suggest we merge those quangos into one.

Victor wrote: »

The NRA doesn't have such an ability. it is a policy, standards, research and funding organisation. It doesn't know how to fill a pothole or sweep a street. A centralised agency doesn't have enough local knowledge to do this.

By transferring the expertise they would learn fast.

Victor wrote: »

Impractical and probably unnecessary - meter the water going in, not out. Yes, some people will use rain water to flush toilets, etc., but that a benefit to the system, not a hindrance.

Metered sewage? Eh, no.

It's the polluter pays principle. And many private estates already have to pay management fees to cover a common non-public waste management system. Rural householders are already being forced to pay a septic tank tax. And they both pay for the water into the house as well as the waste out. This just brings urban households into line with those charges.

Victor wrote: »

Many such residents don't have the skills or inclination to do this.

Tens of thousands in new estates have learned to do it without too much difficulty or assistance from the local authority.

Victor wrote: »

Impractical for some purposes, e.g. certain categories of motor tax are obliged to be paid in person. NPPR and Septic Tank Register are already heavily centralised via the Local Government Computer Services Board

So just change the rules to allow them be paid online. The government made the rules they can change them.

Victor wrote: »

The extra monitoring would probably make this more expensive. A centralised agency doesn't have enough local knowledge to do this.

A handful of people in an office in Dublin monitoring compliance to contractural obligations would cost more than thousands of local authority workers cleaning and sweeping. Just how much do you think office workers get paid?

Victor wrote: »

Organisation would become too big.

It would still be a lot lot smaller than the current army of local authority workers doing it.

Victor wrote: »

A centralised agency doesn't have enough local knowledge to do this.

Only because no one has tried. They would learn.

Victor wrote: »

A centralised agency doesn't have enough local knowledge to do this.

See previous point.

Victor wrote: »

The property portfolio would become to big to manage effectively and would result in loss of service and an increase in cost.

No. Efficiencies of scale would result and produce significant savings. This is not going to be one amature landlord managing a "portfolio" it would be an efficent agency managing state assets.

Victor wrote: »

A centralised agency doesn't have enough local knowledge to do this.

Again see the previous points.

Victor wrote: »

It would lend itself to corruption, have a huge lack of focus and have a
democratic deficit.

Seriously? Have you heard of the planning tribunals? Corruption thy name be Councillor.

creedp

touts wrote: »

4. Transfer responsibility for the public sewage system to the new Water company. Introduce a metered charge for use of a public sewage system. This brings the pubic system in line with estates and one off houses not connected to the public system.

Some imminently sensible ideas there which could/should be considered by the powers that be. However, I think the one above is taking the p1ss a bit. You are going to charge people to put water in their cisterns and then charge them again for flushing it? If a charge is to come in for sewage I think it would be better to have some kind of a flat charge - otherwise there would be juys on here boasting about the volume of their discharge!!

Lumbo

listermint wrote: »

Subsidised Canteens. I mean look at SDCC for instance do they require a subsidised canteen ? Why not make the canteen a profit making enterprise ?

Or get rid of it altogether, there are plenty of facilities to eat at locally.

I mean this isnt a profit making enterprise like google or facebook. Why would you have such extravagances as a subsidised canteen?

snip snip snip

Extravagances. LOL.

touts

View wrote: »

You are basically proposing to abolish local government.

As the report I linked to in my previous post states:



We are already over centralised and, since that report, have already opted to abolish more local government bodies.

By way of contrast, Switzerland which has arguably the best local government in Europe, has 26 cantons and half-cantons and over 2,500 municipalities/communes to cover a population of almost 8 million and a land area approx 60% of that of the RoI.

And if the Swiss were bust like we are they would have to change that medieval local government structure also.

That report makes some interesting points but then you have to remember it is written by civil servants and local politicians with a vested interest in maintaining the civil service and local political structures as they are. It was never going to recommend radical change.

We are deep in the sh!t. We need to ditch the local government structures that were put in place hundreds of years ago and develop a modern local government for a modern age.

touts

creedp wrote: »

Some imminently sensible ideas there which could/should be considered by the powers that be. However, I think the one above is taking the p1ss a bit. You are going to charge people to put water in their cisterns and then charge them again for flushing it? If a charge is to come in for sewage I think it would be better to have some kind of a flat charge - otherwise there would be juys on here boasting about the volume of their discharge!!

As I said earlier this is already happening for people who have to pay management fees in estates not connected to the public mains and for one off houses who have to maintain and empty their own septic tanks. Therefore in effect they pay for water AND waste. The system that collects, cleans and delivers water is as different to the one that transports and disposes of waste as the telephone line and ESB line into your house. They both carry electrical current but they both don't do the same job.

Scofflaw

touts wrote: »

And if the Swiss were bust like we are they would have to change that medieval local government structure also.

That report makes some interesting points but then you have to remember it is written by civil servants and local politicians with a vested interest in maintaining the civil service and local political structures as they are. It was never going to recommend radical change.

We are deep in the sh!t. We need to ditch the local government structures that were put in place hundreds of years ago and develop a modern local government for a modern age.

Ah, now, that's very much political sloganeering! Why does "a modern local government for a modern local age" necessarily mean centralisation that largely does away with local government? Are people less in need of local control over local affairs than they were previously?

cordially,
Scofflaw

creedp

touts wrote: »

As I said earlier this is already happening for people who have to pay management fees in estates not connected to the public mains and for one off houses who have to maintain and empty their own septic tanks. Therefore in effect they pay for water AND waste. The system that collects, cleans and delivers water is as different to the one that transports and disposes of waste as the telephone line and ESB line into your house. They both carry electrical current but they both don't do the same job.

My difficulty is not with charging per se but with the mechansim proposed for charging .. I don't think metering sewage is the business to get into. In the case of water an allowance will be given to the household based on occupation rates and anything above this allowance is chargeable. How will the allowance be set for sewage I wonder? The reason water is metered is to stop its waste by enouraging people not to wastefully water gardens, wash cars, run taps during winter to prevent freezing and enourage people to install dual flush toilets, use showers rather than baths, etc, to minimise the use of water. I don't thnk that philosopy can be applied to sewage ..

That doesn't mean a charge could be applied to maitain the sewage system. Everything else is being charged for so why not!

touts

creedp wrote: »

My difficulty is not with charging per se but with the mechansim proposed for charging .. I don't think metering sewage is the business to get into. In the case of water an allowance will be given to the household based on occupation rates and anything above this allowance is chargeable. How will the allowance be set for sewage I wonder? The reason water is metered is to stop its waste by enouraging people not to wastefully water gardens, wash cars, run taps during winter to prevent freezing and enourage people to install dual flush toilets, use showers rather than baths, etc, to minimise the use of water. I don't thnk that philosopy can be applied to sewage ..

That doesn't mean a charge could be applied to maitain the sewage system. Everything else is being charged for so why not!

Yea actually now that I think about the nature of the sewage I assume the equipment for metering sewage is probably more complex and prone to breakdown than pure water meters. But certainly a waste disposal charge could, and probably should, be levied to cover the expense of safely disposing of the waste.

kippy

touts wrote: »

Yea actually now that I think about the nature of the sewage I assume the equipment for metering sewage is probably more complex and prone to breakdown than pure water meters. But certainly a waste disposal charge could, and probably should, be levied to cover the expense of safely disposing of the waste.

Somewhere along the line you'd have to ask why this should be the case?
There's absolute no need for it and the costs of implementing and managing it would be prohibitive. I doubt there is any country in the world that meter this.
Waste disposal charge? What about my PAYE,USC, Housing tax, VAT etc etc - surely some of that would be covering this "waste disposal charge"

The point of this thread is to see whether costs can be cut at local government level with as little an impact on services as possible.
This isn't something that would achieve that in any form whatsoever.

touts

kippy wrote: »

Somewhere along the line you'd have to ask why this should be the case?
There's absolute no need for it and the costs of implementing and managing it would be prohibitive. I doubt there is any country in the world that meter this.
Waste disposal charge? What about my PAYE,USC, Housing tax, VAT etc etc - surely some of that would be covering this "waste disposal charge"

The point of this thread is to see whether costs can be cut at local government level with as little an impact on services as possible.
This isn't something that would achieve that in any form whatsoever.

Waste sewage collection and disposal is a major part of the service the councils provide for us.

Morally I agree with you on all the other tax we already pay but unfortunately thanks to the Troika and their FF/FG/Lab/Greens puppets that money is now long gone to bail out German billionair investors in Anglo, BOI, AIB etc. Charging people for a service they receive (i.e. waste disposal) is a lot more acceptable than just upping the general tax rate again.

antoobrien

touts wrote: »

Waste sewage collection and disposal is a major part of the service the councils provide for us.

Morally I agree with you on all the other tax we already pay but unfortunately thanks to the Troika and their FF/FG/Lab/Greens puppets that money is now long gone to bail out German billionair investors in Anglo, BOI, AIB etc. Charging people for a service they receive (i.e. waste disposal) is a lot more acceptable than just upping the general tax rate again.

Guido fawkes strikes again eh?

It's been done to death but the myth that we bailed out german banks has been disproved several times here.

monkeypants

Rightwing wrote: »

all the messing they are doing with equipment

wrecking perfect roads and footpaths

delaying productive people trying to get to work

I didn't even know that the council provided these services.

kippy

touts wrote: »

Waste sewage collection and disposal is a major part of the service the councils provide for us.

Morally I agree with you on all the other tax we already pay but unfortunately thanks to the Troika and their FF/FG/Lab/Greens puppets that money is now long gone to bail out German billionair investors in Anglo, BOI, AIB etc. Charging people for a service they receive (i.e. waste disposal) is a lot more acceptable than just upping the general tax rate again.

I dont give a crap(pardon the pun) ultimately where the money is gone.
The point is, this has got nothing to do with implementing savings at local government level. All it does is push a completely impractical charge on people who are already paying for such services by other means.

You want to tax something or add another charge? Do it to chewing gum, sweets, fatty foods etc, but don't do it to a basic requirement.

Godge

touts wrote: »

Then I suggest we merge those quangos into one.



.

Already done.

http://www.lgcsb.ie/en/who-we-are


It is amazing how many experts on public service reform there are who do know very little of what has been happening over the last few years.

The Corinthian

touts wrote: »

And if the Swiss were bust like we are they would have to change that medieval local government structure also.

The Swiss system works well, regardless if it is medieval or not in origin. However, an important factor in the Swiss system is that it is ultimately based upon the self-reliance of the various cantons and Gemeinde; if they can't balance their budgets, then bailouts are very hard to come by and typically do so in the form of loans (you know, those things people want to default on). Culturally too, as much of Swiss political power is exercised locally, any local government disgracing itself would be quickly voted out of power.

Now consider how such decentralization would work in Ireland. As it is many, if not most county councils run at a loss and constantly need extra money from Dublin. I can't see many county councils agreeing to any kind of autonomy without that continuing. Without reform of that, all you would end up doing is giving autonomy of power, without autonomy of responsibility.

In short, county councils would run at even greater deficits, require constant bailouts and, being autonomous, could not be forced to act responsibly by anyone - and why would they need to, after all?

antoobrien

The Corinthian wrote: »

Now consider how such decentralization would work in Ireland. As it is many, if not most county councils run at a loss and constantly need extra money from Dublin.

This may be true but it's not by design. Take the Galway City council budget for 2013 - they will more than likely come in with lower revenues than expected.

The reason for this is not they they have not proposed a balanced budget, they have. The reason is how their projected income is calculated. The rates are calculated based on a the difference between the "normal income" and projected expenditure. It calls for rates of €34.8m to be paid by business in Galway City (they claim the rate is one of the lower ones in the large urban areas).

They have no chance of collecting the full rates bill for the year, they rarely did even at the height of the boom.

SO one of the things we probably need to do in order to make the LAs more effective is come up with more realistic budgetary processes.

The Corinthian

antoobrien wrote: »

SO one of the things we probably need to do in order to make the LAs more effective is come up with more realistic budgetary processes.

That is very true, but unless fiscal responsibility is imposed on LA's and they can expect free bail outs whenever there's a shortfall, there will be little incentive for such reform.

antoobrien

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is very true, but unless fiscal responsibility is imposed on LA's and they can expect free bail outs whenever there's a shortfall, there will be little incentive for such reform.

You seem to just want to beat the LAs with the stick - they're only half the problem.

Private business/activities ability/willingness to pay is the real problem with the LA budgetary processes. The LAs have to set out an expenditure programme and once set out these programmes are very hard to roll back.

If there are rollbacks to be made in the Galway programme this year because rates can't be gathered, I hope you'll be there standing beside the city manager in college road explaining why cutbacks are being made.

The Corinthian

antoobrien wrote: »

You seem to just want to beat the LAs with the stick - they're only half the problem.

And you seem to not want to hold them accountable at all.

I agree that what you cite is a part of the problem that should be reformed, but you can hardly deny that as long as the present policy of bailing out LA's continues, there's little incentive for any reform by anyone.

My point however was to do with the question of autonomous government; autonomy without fiscal responsibility doesn't work - as the Spanish and, to a lesser extent, Italians are now finding.

antoobrien

The Corinthian wrote: »

And you seem to not want to hold them accountable at all.

I agree that what you cite is a part of the problem that should be reformed, but you can hardly deny that as long as the present policy of bailing out LA's continues, there's little incentive for any reform by anyone.

My point however was to do with the question of autonomous government; autonomy without fiscal responsibility doesn't work - as the Spanish and, to a lesser extent, Italians are now finding.

I do want to hold them accountable, it's just that I know they they aren't even the majority of the problem in this particular case.

You're seeing a problem and turning it into something that doesn't exist.

The problem is the system of matching rates to expected income & expenditure. That guarantees a shortfall and that system is handed down from Dublin. So far from the bailouts from Dublin being the exclusive problem of the LAs but it's the aim of the department of the environment.

But lets say that GCC raised rates in order to hit a target. Could you imagine that whiny so and so conolloy complaining about all that "money that the council aren't spending". Hell it's worth being in hock a couple of million to Dublin just to keep that crap off the airwaves!

If they raised rates in order to hit the targets (say 80% budgeted actually collected) then there'd be an outcry over the councils not spending everything they budgeted - regardless of whether they expected to be able to use it or not.

listermint

kceire wrote: »

There should of been an embargo on external employment since 2009, where were these jobs advertised?

Various job sites, ive been looking at over the last 2-3 years. As you well know the 'embargo' isnt real.

Lumbo wrote: »

Extravagances. LOL.

If you dont think a subsidised canteen is a perk then it goes to show you your not living in the real world.

donalg1

How many millions of unpaid rates are struck off each year by County Councils because businesses refuse to pay up? Or how many other fees due to them go unpaid. County Councils need to start getting tough with the non payers however, in order to do this they would need to be granted additional powers and start prosecuting people daily until the collection rates get to 95% +

Centralising Local Government is not the way forward its the reverse of what should be done, there needs to be more decentralisation, more local funding for local government, such as property taxes, water charges etc. more autonomy for local government and more accountability as a result. Less interference from the DECLG and more powers given to the Councils, how can local government work if the powers are delegated from central government?

As it stands now Central Government or the DECLG tell the LA's across the country to do this that and the other, forgetting the fact that what may work in Louth wont necessarily work in Waterford, that is one of the main reasons Councils need more power to affect change at local level, they are answerable to the local population yet have no power to assist the local population as the powers rest with others in another county.

People talk about the private sector functioning better than the county councils which is true but at least in the private sector the services are paid for by the customers and if not the services are stopped, which is not the way with LA's they are often far too soft in collection of monies owed to them. Not only that but what private sector business operates in a way that their funding is given to them by some central office with no control over the running and funding of their own day to day activities and almost zero consideration given to the needs of each subsidiary office around the country instead funding goes to who can shout the loudest.

Idbatterim

county councils should outsource revenue collection, give the company a % of the total income, I would say revenue would increase massively...

Lumbo

listermint wrote: »

If you dont think a subsidised canteen is a perk then it goes to show you your not living in the real world.

I had to deal with a member of staff being assaulted this morning by a member of the public. I know all about the real world.

donalg1

Idbatterim wrote: »

county councils should outsource revenue collection, give the company a % of the total income, I would say revenue would increase massively...

Id imagine it would LA's are far too soft on this matter, would love to see the figures for arrears in Social Housing and Mortgage given by the Councils and the prosecutions related to these, and the figures for commercial rates too

Gumbo

listermint wrote: »

Various job sites, ive been looking at over the last 2-3 years. As you well know the 'embargo' isnt real.

I'm confused. All LA jobs go through the PAS and are advertised on www.publicjobs.ie so should not of been on various websites. I have to be honest, I haven't seen any over the last few year and I keep an eye on them.

Even internal jobs are a rare opertunity these days.

I will admit when I'm wrong though, I may have missed them have you any links available?

Mr.Micro

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is very true, but unless fiscal responsibility is imposed on LA's and they can expect free bail outs whenever there's a shortfall, there will be little incentive for such reform.

Indeed. Are there any rules for LA s ? When will they be reformed and be open to transparent scrutiny, let alone accountable for the money they waste, and contracts given to certain people even though not often the cheapest. What do they actually do outside the cities and big towns..... nothing or very little for what it is going to cost the public in the future. Reform cannot come to soon.