Mayor Martin Connelly is asking the South Wairarapa community to speak up on the issues of spending and efficiency.
He’s written in The Post:
“The current legislation sets out that the purpose of local government is to enable local decision-making and to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities. These are very wide purposes and councils have interpreted them to mean they can do pretty much whatever they like.
The new Government states, among other things, that it intends to: remove any references to well-being; specify core services, to refocus the objectives of local government; impose a revenue/rates cap on non-core expenditure; review bylaw-making powers to enable cost-efficiencies; and examine ways to increase the use of shared services, reduce insurance costs, and lift debt ceilings for larger councils.
The Government is clear that it expects councils to focus on “core activities” and not on the “nice to
haves.” And the current purpose for local government will probably be replaced by something along the lines of “to provide for good-quality local infrastructure, public services, and regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses, while supporting local economic growth and development.”
I expect that this refocusing of the purpose of local government will go down very well with many ratepayers.
I get a lot of people telling me that our council should focus on core activities and save money by staying away from activities that are done by other agencies or which people should pay for themselves. They, and the Government, agree that councils should stick to the basics.
The problem is that one person’s “basics” are another person’s “nice to have.” Does a council need to provide an art gallery? Some people would say “Definitely,” others would say “No thank you.”
I suspect even this would not generate much discussion provided those who visit the art gallery paid for the upkeep of the gallery through their entry fees.
But in practice this does not happen. What does happen is that all ratepayers end up subsidising activities and facilities that only a few people use.
There is a strong hint in the Government’s Cabinet Paper that councils will be expected to recover the costs of many services from the people who use or benefit from those services, rather than using cross-subsidisation from ratepayers as a whole.
And while I get many people coming to me and asking for money to be saved, I get just as many people asking for more money to be spent on their favourite projects. Mostly those projects are highly creditable.
An example would be bike trails. I am a fan of bike trails and we have many passionate bikers in the community who would love the current network of bike trails to be extended. But is that something that all ratepayers should fund?
In answer to that question, it would be very helpful to the council if residents would communicate with their councillors, and me, telling us which services they think are core services and which services and activities we currently spend their rates on that they think are “nice to have.”
There is another consideration also: are there services we provide which you think we could provide more efficiently or cost-effectively?
We look forward to hearing from as many people as possible.”
