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

Private Joker

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I am looking forward to the plans with regards to water. I pay for my own, upkeep etc.

With regards to refuse collection, it has increased in cost because the LA s charge the contractor more and more per tonne, to dispose of the refuse in the landfill, owned by the LA. So of course the contractor has to pass on
the extra costs. So who is really responsible for the escalating cost of refuse collection... the LA have sure helped.

Reform of the LA s is well overdue. The public needs to see how many people are employed to do what exactly, and the costs, plus, are these people doing the job to a professional level. If we take planning departments over the last number of years, and it was meltdown, and only for An Bord Pleanala there would be double the disasters that were given the go ahead by the LA s.

Totally agree with your last point, transparency in all public departments needs to be a priority, if we are paying for it we must see where our money is being spent. but i dont think the local authorities can be blamed for eu regulations on waste disposal , long gone are the days when you could just dump stuff into a big hole in the ground. all landfill sites need to be managed in accordance with eu legislation, which does cost more.

Lumbo

Mr.Micro wrote: »

With regards to refuse collection, it has increased in cost because the LA s charge the contractor more and more per tonne, to dispose of the refuse in the landfill, owned by the LA. So of course the contractor has to pass on
the extra costs. So who is really responsible for the escalating cost of refuse collection... the LA have sure helped.
.

Would you like to provide a link to that claim.

antoobrien

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

The GF rang about this last week to her usual dentist and the receptionist was telling here you now must be working 5 years full time before you are entitled to the check up ?

She finished college 3 years ago and is working full time pretty much since its ridiculous carry-on.

That's not a new thing, though the way it's described is slightly misleading.

If she is over 25 then she must have 5 years worth of contributions (as opposed to 5 years continuous work)
and either
3/4 year worth of contributions in the governing work year (for 2013, this is 2011)
or
26 in the governing year and 26 in the previous year (2011 & 2010).

The full rules are available on citizens information but I don't think they've changed since I looked at this about 10 years ago (when I was in my early 20s).

donalg1

Mr.Micro wrote: »

As I have posted, CC s are a monopoly in the County and if they are providing a service, it does not mean that its the best value or even adequate.

Local Government is there to administer services for the community, and using private companies to do that for a good price and good service might probably be better than a shoddy run unaccountable and non-competitive CC service.

Banks were a business and under normal circumstances they should have gone to the wall but the Governments decided to bail them out to keep the world going. The Role of CC s has diminished IMO as we pay separately for most every service we need and there are too many CCs doing even less than before, with top heavy administration from the County manager down.

The bin services being provided by my Council were certainly better value than the ones being provided now by the private companies far better value in fact.

So I would imagine any services that went the same way would end up the same as in me paying a hell of a lot more for them than I was paying the Council.

donalg1

murphaph wrote: »

I don't know who your employer is, but the state is flat broke, agreed?

You have (I presume) no idea what the canteen subsidies across the public service costs the state every year, or do you? Even if it's a few hundred thousand and I would suggest it is likely at least in the millions altogether, it is too much for a broke state.

What canteens are subsidised across the public sector, are they all subsidised or just one, by your post it seems that they all are but I seriously doubt this is the case.

donalg1

Mr.Micro wrote: »

With regards to refuse collection, it has increased in cost because the LA s charge the contractor more and more per tonne, to dispose of the refuse in the landfill, owned by the LA. So of course the contractor has to pass on
the extra costs. So who is really responsible for the escalating cost of refuse collection... the LA have sure helped.

Have you anything to show these increased charges per tonne, the last ones I saw were an increase of €10 per tonne passed on to Irelands Councils under an EU Directive, so its not the Councils doing this they are being instructed to do so by Europe. And my bin service has been increased by far more than €10 per tonne.

It is very easy for the private company to say they are being charged more for disposal and blame the County Council when this simply isnt the case.

The average Irish Household disposes of about 1 tonne per year of refuse to landfills so by those figures my refuse collection bill should only have increase by €10 and not the €100 plus it has done this year alone.

Edit

I see that the levy increased by €15 last year to €65 per tonne, still doesnt explain why my bin service has jumped from €240 to €417 in 12 months.

Godge

murphaph wrote: »

I don't know who your employer is, but the state is flat broke, agreed?

You have (I presume) no idea what the canteen subsidies across the public service costs the state every year, or do you? Even if it's a few hundred thousand and I would suggest it is likely at least in the millions altogether, it is too much for a broke state.

I have asked for concrete evidence that the public sector operates subsidised canteens (rather than break-even canteens) and have yet to see a link to accounts or tenders or other information, maybe I missed it but perhaps some of the people getting outraged at the amount of money apparently being wasted would like to actually show that this is really the case.

Rightwing

This is the type of waste that needs eradicating:

A LIMERICK city councillor was paid almost €700 in expenses to attend a HSE meeting which cannot even make a decision.
Meetings of the Regional Health Forum West have cost the taxpayer an average of €8,600 per meeting in members expenses alone, not counting expenses and wages for HSE staff.

http://www.limerickpost.ie/index.php/navigation-mainmenu-30/local-news/5659-700-expenses-for-limerick-politician-to-attend-pointless-meeting.html

Victor

Mr.Micro wrote: »

With regards to refuse collection, it has increased in cost because the LA s charge the contractor more and more per tonne, to dispose of the refuse in the landfill, owned by the LA. So of course the contractor has to pass on the extra costs. So who is really responsible for the escalating cost of refuse collection... the LA have sure helped.

But there are many landfill sites that are owned privately (many of them illegal).

I suspect what you are talking about is the landfill levy, which goes towards recycling initiatives.

snipey

anybody ever think of using our prisoners as free labour as in what is done in the USA as in man on horse with shot gun.

deise blue

snipey wrote: »

anybody ever think of using our prisoners as free labour as in what is done in the USA as in man on horse with shot gun.

Not while sober !

Mr.Micro

donalg1 wrote: »

Have you anything to show these increased charges per tonne, the last ones I saw were an increase of €10 per tonne passed on to Irelands Councils under an EU Directive, so its not the Councils doing this they are being instructed to do so by Europe. And my bin service has been increased by far more than €10 per tonne.

It is very easy for the private company to say they are being charged more for disposal and blame the County Council when this simply isnt the case.

The average Irish Household disposes of about 1 tonne per year of refuse to landfills so by those figures my refuse collection bill should only have increase by €10 and not the €100 plus it has done this year alone.

Edit

I see that the levy increased by €15 last year to €65 per tonne, still doesnt explain why my bin service has jumped from €240 to €417 in 12 months.

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2012-07-05.709.0&s=cost+levy+on+waste+per+tonne#g712.0.r I presume diesel, overheads and wages are the other reasons for the increased costs.

Vizzy

Mr.Micro wrote: »

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2012-07-05.709.0&s=cost+levy+on+waste+per+tonne#g712.0.r I presume diesel, overheads and wages are the other reasons for the increased costs.

Dead right, and the Council vehicles don't have to pay these increases at all,no ?

Mr.Micro

Vizzy wrote: »

Dead right, and the Council vehicles don't have to pay these increases at all,no ?

Well the question I would ask is why the CC s gave up refuse collection and if it is so cheap to run why do they not return to it? We are all going to be paying a household charge and refuse collection will never be part of that cost?

Rightwing

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Well the question I would ask is why the CC s gave up refuse collection and if it is so cheap to run why do they not return to it? We are all going to be paying a household charge and refuse collection will never be part of that cost?

We are paying for more, and getting less. Water is next on the list. You'd just wonder what exactly do councils do?

Vizzy

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Well the question I would ask is why the CC s gave up refuse collection and if it is so cheap to run why do they not return to it? We are all going to be paying a household charge and refuse collection will never be part of that cost?

Couple of reasons.
Firstly the Council were operating a waiver scheme and most if not all of the private operators do not(if they do it is part of the buyout deal that they made with the LA when they took over the service)In my local authority area the waivers amounted to 22% of the total amount due(i.e. 22% off the top was effectively lost)
Secondly the private operators specifically targetted Local Authority customers to undercut the price being paid.This drove the Local Authorities out of the business but now,many of the private guys have gone bust and have either ceased trading or have been bought up by their competitors.The remaining operators can charge what they like,pretty much,as there are no competitors left in the area.
Thirdly the private operators are purely in the business to make money and there is nothing wrong with that but they don't have to deal with the "interference" of local councillors/TD's when they withdraw the service for non payment etc.

Vizzy

Rightwing wrote: »

We are paying for more, and getting less. Water is next on the list. You'd just wonder what exactly do councils do?

I haven't seen you list of cuts(with costings) that you promised me before I set up this thread specially for you.
How are you getting on with it ?

Mr.Micro

Vizzy wrote: »

Couple of reasons.
Firstly the Council were operating a waiver scheme and most if not all of the private operators do not(if they do it is part of the buyout deal that they made with the LA when they took over the service)In my local authority area the waivers amounted to 22% of the total amount due(i.e. 22% off the top was effectively lost)
Secondly the private operators specifically targetted Local Authority customers to undercut the price being paid.This drove the Local Authorities out of the business but now,many of the private guys have gone bust and have either ceased trading or have been bought up by their competitors.The remaining operators can charge what they like,pretty much,as there are no competitors left in the area.
Thirdly the private operators are purely in the business to make money and there is nothing wrong with that but they don't have to deal with the "interference" of local councillors/TD's when they withdraw the service for non payment etc.

I do not dispute that the costs are very high with the contractors, and I appreciate the reasons why they got the customers. The CCs are not blameless though in letting the thing go, and not living in the real world. What was to stop them competing, like other companies have to do, and getting a customer base and do exactly like the current lot?

Why also could not refuse be taken under the new household charge and that would make the public happier and give the CC back one the jobs they used to do as they effectively own the landfills and recycling centres.

Rightwing

Vizzy wrote: »

I haven't seen you list of cuts(with costings) that you promised me before I set up this thread specially for you.
How are you getting on with it ?

Some other posters did it for me on this very thread. very well in fact.

Vizzy

Rightwing wrote: »

Some other posters did it for me on this very thread. very well in fact.

So,to be clear and avoid doubt,
1. You haven't a clue how to save €1Bn from the Councils.
2. You haven't a clue of any of the implication of any cuts.
3. When asked a question,you will duck and dive but will refuse to answer the question.

When I started this thread(following a promise from you that if I did,you would demonstrate where €1 Bn could be saved) I knew that you were full of air with no clue about County Councils or what they did.

May I suggest that you go back to your colouring book and leave adult issues to adults.

Rightwing

Vizzy wrote: »

So,to be clear and avoid doubt,
1. You haven't a clue how to save €1Bn from the Councils.
2. You haven't a clue of any of the implication of any cuts.
3. When asked a question,you will duck and dive but will refuse to answer the question.

When I started this thread(following a promise from you that if I did,you would demonstrate where €1 Bn could be saved) I knew that you were full of air with no clue about County Councils or what they did.

May I suggest that you go back to your colouring book and leave adult issues to adults.

You can suggest whatever you like, but maybe try to avoid childish snipes.

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

Some other posters did it for me on this very thread. very well in fact.

After twelve pages of posts largely unknowing (don't want to use the word ignorant) of how council budgeting actually works and with links to real information being singulary lacking, not one post has demonstrated how to realistically save €100m from the councils' budget, let alone 10 times that amount.

If I have missed something, maybe you could recap and list (with links) in one post for me.

Thanks

Silentcorner

Godge wrote: »

After twelve pages of posts largely unknowing (don't want to use the word ignorant) of how council budgeting actually works and with links to real information being singulary lacking, not one post has demonstrated how to realistically save €100m from the councils' budget, let alone 10 times that amount.

If I have missed something, maybe you could recap and list (with links) in one post for me.

Thanks

Ignorant is the correct term, that is what all in the private sector is when it comes to expenditure in the PS, how can we know what is spent by what managers in any particular department, the system is devoid of accountability which makes it as transparent as the church. I frankly have no faith in "the systems" ability to provide accurate information to the private citizen, of course you will have a proportion of private sector workers who can find relevant information but if that information comes from outside "the system" it is rubbished or ignored instantly.

We can all agree the countries finances are in the toilet, I am willing to bet that any argument presented by citizens working in the private sector will be rubbished by those inside the system, we will be accused of jealousy or amorphous begrudgery...

Maybe we could start a thread to encourage those within the system of proposing how we remedy our finances

Mr.Micro

Godge wrote: »

After twelve pages of posts largely unknowing (don't want to use the word ignorant) of how council budgeting actually works and with links to real information being singulary lacking, not one post has demonstrated how to realistically save €100m from the councils' budget, let alone 10 times that amount.

If I have missed something, maybe you could recap and list (with links) in one post for me.

Thanks

Im fairness the operation of the CC is not so transparent for the public to see what is going on. If there is ever reform of these bodies then we may see, as I posted previously, who does what, who does nothing and where the money is spent and wasted through good and bad. Reform and accountability is the way forward. In the mean time those working in the PS will defend the institutions no matter what.

antoobrien

donalg1 wrote: »

What canteens are subsidised across the public sector, are they all subsidised or just one, by your post it seems that they all are but I seriously doubt this is the case.

At the very least the HSE canteens.

Godge

Silentcorner wrote: »

Ignorant is the correct term, that is what all in the private sector is when it comes to expenditure in the PS, how can we know what is spent by what managers in any particular department, the system is devoid of accountability which makes it as transparent as the church. I frankly have no faith in "the systems" ability to provide accurate information to the private citizen, of course you will have a proportion of private sector workers who can find relevant information but if that information comes from outside "the system" it is rubbished or ignored instantly.

We can all agree the countries finances are in the toilet, I am willing to bet that any argument presented by citizens working in the private sector will be rubbished by those inside the system, we will be accused of jealousy or amorphous begrudgery...

Maybe we could start a thread to encourage those within the system of proposing how we remedy our finances

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Im fairness the operation of the CC is not so transparent for the public to see what is going on. If there is ever reform of these bodies then we may see, as I posted previously, who does what, who does nothing and where the money is spent and wasted through good and bad. Reform and accountability is the way forward. In the mean time those working in the PS will defend the institutions no matter what.

There is plenty of information available on council budgets and council accounts, just look for it and then identify how to cut it.

Gumbo

Godge wrote: »

There is plenty of information available on council budgets and council accounts, just look for it and then identify how to cut it.

http://www.dublincity.ie/YOURCOUNCIL/ABOUTTHECOUNCIL/COUNCILSPENDINGREVENUE/Pages/CouncilSpendingRevenue.aspx

donalg1

antoobrien wrote: »

At the very least the HSE canteens.

And which County Council canteens are subsidised? From what I have read here all canteens in the public sector are subsidised, the ones I know of personally through friends and family working in County Councils certainly arent.

donalg1

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Im fairness the operation of the CC is not so transparent for the public to see what is going on. If there is ever reform of these bodies then we may see, as I posted previously, who does what, who does nothing and where the money is spent and wasted through good and bad. Reform and accountability is the way forward. In the mean time those working in the PS will defend the institutions no matter what.

County Councils produce annual reports with all the information on finances and functions in them, and publish them for public viewing each year so all the information is there for anyone who wants it.

antoobrien

donalg1 wrote: »

And which County Council canteens are subsidised? From what I have read here all canteens in the public sector are subsidised, the ones I know of personally through friends and family working in County Councils certainly arent.

You know that certain LAs don't have them, but what about others? Google will probably know, go get a list of the ones that don't.

donalg1

antoobrien wrote: »

You know that certain LAs don't have them, but what about others? Google will probably know, go get a list of the ones that don't.

Em no I wont, I asked those that claim they are subsidised to prove they are, I know of ones that arent subsidised so know their claims are bull, I have asked them for links to back up their claims, so its up to them to prove this not me.

antoobrien

donalg1 wrote: »

Em no I wont, I asked those that claim they are subsidised to prove they are, I know of ones that arent subsidised so know their claims are bull, I have asked them for links to back up their claims, so its up to them to prove this not me.

Now now, stop moving the goalposts - this was the post I replied to:

donalg1 wrote: »

What canteens are subsidised across the public sector, are they all subsidised or just one, by your post it seems that they all are but I seriously doubt this is the case.

I replied with at least one one (I know of more) and now it's your turn to prove (hearsay of what relatives told you what is not evidence) which ones do not.

donalg1

antoobrien wrote: »

Now now, stop moving the goalposts - this was the post I replied to:



I replied with at least one one (I know of more) and now it's your turn to prove (hearsay of what relatives told you what is not evidence) which ones do not.

No no its not my turn to prove anything, I am still waiting for it to be proven that County Council canteens are subsidised I know of at least one that isnt. Others have claimed that they are so I await their proof.

antoobrien

donalg1 wrote: »

No no its not my turn to prove anything, I am still waiting for it to be proven that County Council canteens are subsidised I know of at least one that isnt. Others have claimed that they are so I await their proof.

You have claimed they are not - back up your claim with evidence that is more than hearsay.

donalg1

antoobrien wrote: »

You have claimed they are not - back up your claim with evidence that is more than hearsay.

I did ask first and people have claimed they are first so I await their evidence first.

Edit

Actually just reading your link for the HSE's canteens, it says there are a number of locations throughout the HSE that have subsidised canteens which I would infer to mean some but not all canteens are, so in effect you have already proven that there are canteens that arent subsidised.

antoobrien

donalg1 wrote: »

I did ask first and people have claimed they are first so I await their evidence first.

Actually you asked for any evidence of any PS canteen being subsidized. Now I'm asking for any evidence that the LAs are not.

There's no evidence to suggest that they are not.

donalg1

antoobrien wrote: »

Actually you asked for any evidence of any PS canteen being subsidized. Now I'm asking for any evidence that the LAs are not.

There's no evidence to suggest that they are not.

I edited my previous post while you were probably typing this one, so I refer you to that.

You provided the evidence yourself.

antoobrien

donalg1 wrote: »

I edited my previous post while you were probably typing this one, so I refer you to that.

You provided the evidence yourself.

As you have said yourself that refers to HSE, not LAs.

Cant see any reference to their not being subsidies on food where catering is supplied by LAs.

donalg1

antoobrien wrote: »

As you have said yourself that refers to HSE, not LAs.

Cant see any reference to their not being subsidies on food where catering is supplied by LAs.

Well I asked for evidence about canteens in the public sector, you then provided evidence that there are canteens in the public sector not subsidised. No moving the goalposts now.

I know of at least two other canteens that arent subsidised in the Public Sector, I did work experience in them a few years ago and all they had there was a room with a kettle and fridge.

antoobrien

donalg1 wrote: »

Well I asked for evidence about canteens in the public sector, you then provided evidence that there are canteens in the public sector not subsidised. No moving the goalposts now.

I know of at least two other canteens that arent subsidised in the Public Sector, I did work experience in them a few years ago and all they had there was a room with a kettle and fridge.

"I know of" is hearsay - which is not good enough on this forum.

Actual documentary evidence please.

donalg1

antoobrien wrote: »

"I know of" is hearsay - which is not good enough on this forum.

Actual documentary evidence please.

Documentary evidence for what? I told you I did work experience in a couple of places without subsidised canteens how do I provide documentary evidence for this, maybe get a time machine travel back and take a picture of myself working there?

I can always put your link up again, sure that proved it for me. I asked for evidence to back up the claims that all public sector canteens were subsidised you provided a link showing that only some are, so point proven and case rested. Thanks Anto.

Mr.Micro

donalg1 wrote: »

County Councils produce annual reports with all the information on finances and functions in them, and publish them for public viewing each year so all the information is there for anyone who wants it.

Who says its accurate or the figures are true or spending was where it was supposed to be. Transparency is a bit of an issue. Are you against reform of the CC s and more transparency?

donalg1

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Who says its accurate or the figures are true or spending was where it was supposed to be. Transparency is a bit of an issue. Are you against reform of the CC s and more transparency?

Well the external auditors may have something to say about it if they are producing inaccurate financial reports. The transparency and accountability comes from having external auditors there so there is no issue with it really.

I am all for reform of CC's.

Victor

donalg1 wrote: »

County Councils produce annual reports with all the information on finances and functions in them, and publish them for public viewing each year so all the information is there for anyone who wants it.

In fairness, the breakdown is by function (water, housing, roads, etc.), not expenditure (wages, materials, rent, etc.).

Mr.Micro

donalg1 wrote: »

Well the external auditors may have something to say about it if they are producing inaccurate financial reports. The transparency and accountability comes from having external auditors there so there is no issue with it really.

I am all for reform of CC's.

Fair enough. I too would be happy to see reform in CC s.

donalg1

Victor wrote: »

In fairness, the breakdown is by function (water, housing, roads, etc.), not expenditure (wages, materials, rent, etc.).

Could you get a further breakdown through FOI?

View

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Who says its accurate or the figures are true or spending was where it was supposed to be. Transparency is a bit of an issue. Are you against reform of the CC s and more transparency?

The C&AG audits the figures for government expenditure (not just CC expenditure). His reports can sometimes make for grim reading but there seems to be little public appetite for major reform.

As it is, although you may well have read up your CC's annual report, most people clearly don't bother so it is questionable whether it is transparency or just apathy that is the issue. Having a really transparent report is likely to be a very detailed report which I suspect would cause the current low levels of CC annual report readership to plummet even further...

Always number 1

Rightwing wrote: »

I'd sack 50% of all council workers. This sounds harsh, but it would eliminate waste imo.

So to save money on the public service pay bill you would put 50% of the workers onto the social welfare bill? :rolleyes:

Head The Wall

Are you claiming that it wouldn't save money?

kippy

Head The Wall wrote: »

Are you claiming that it wouldn't save money?

Not near as much as some would think.