Councils Holding the Country to Ransom

[Maccachic]

Not specifically council but still cone heads. Rung our water company to find out if we could change our back tenants check meter to a full meter. Yes you can they replied but as we would have to put the new meter on the council berm you will have to pay infrastructure development fees in addition to the $178 meter.
Oh and how much is that I asked.
$10,500 they said with a straight face. What is that for I asked. Well anything that places added demand on the infrastructure gets charged for. I pointed out that the tenant already used the water as they had done for 27 years. We were just changing the type of meter. Still it's $10,500.
Speechless.......

That's worse than my $40 blank CD (council file) when asked what this cost covered, after finding out I could not provide my own blank CD for them to use, they said Council time for scanning etc when I stated that I was already paying for that at $15 per 15mins, they just stated policy!

[artemis]

That's worse than my $40 blank CD (council file) when asked what this cost covered, after finding out I could not provide my own blank CD for them to use, they said Council time for scanning etc when I stated that I was already paying for that at $15 per 15mins, they just stated policy!

https://www.govt.nz/browse/housing-and-property/renovating-and-building/rules-reduction-submissions/

[elguapo]

$10,500 they said with a straight face. What is that for I asked. Well anything that places added demand on the infrastructure gets charged for. I pointed out that the tenant already used the water as they had done for 27 years. We were just changing the type of meter. Still it's $10,500.
Speechless.......

This is standard for Auckland. To add a toilet it's $4k iirc, that is regardless of the fact it makes no difference to the usage of the system. They charge for it simply because they can.

[Davo36]

And they call themselves WaterCare...

It's a bit like the book 1984 where the place they take you to torture you is called the Ministry of Love...

[elguapo]

And they call themselves WaterCare...

It's a bit like the book 1984 where the place they take you to torture you is called the Ministry of Love...

Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning, politicians took it to be an instruction manual!

[Damap]

It was Davo's stomping ground, Papakura :-)

[Davo36]

Which is why it was less! Veolia Water in charge out there.

Council signed away their water rights to them years ago. Bastards should've been strung up as traitors!

[Perry]

It's not all bad, all the time, it seems.

'Best water in the world' made in Nelson

The team credited Tasman District Council for the way it had helped them, from
the resource consent process and general support for the idea. "The TDC was
awesome. "They've helped us from start to finish. We were on the hunt for
a source for a long time and it just came down to us sitting down and saying,
‘here's what we want to do'." The TDC said the business was a great example
of what could be achieved within tough parameters which were sometimes
thought too onerous, but there was a reason such rules existed.

The reason may not always be larding the council coffers, perhaps!

[eri]

According to the royal commission on Auckland governance, amalgamation would provide better services through well co-ordinated resources that, with economies of scale, would reduce the cost of those services or provide more services with the same resources.

If that was not the aim, why amalgamate?

What's happened is the opposite. There have been only minor improvements in outlying places like Orewa and no major "works" since the birth of the Super City.

But council staff levels and the associated wage and salary bill have burgeoned.
Now we are told services and projects are to be slashed.

A classic example of the absence of sense and logic is that we can't afford to upgrade public facilities, yet are seeking people to go on an "advisory panel for art in public places".

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/super-city...ectid=11346670

[Perry]

Well, no surprises there, really. Below, advert copy from a HB newspaper.
Seems that - in this case - a CoC is more like a Crock o' . . . .

Auckland's Amalgamation A Mixed Bag

Last year the Local Government Commission released its draft proposal
to merge Hawkes Bay's five councils into a single regional authority.
This proposal followed some legislative amendments made in 2012 which
eased the process for council reformation. It has caused an outcry
from some smaller councils, worried that changes could be forced upon them.

Auckland's experience of amalgamation has been a mixed bag. It came
with its own specific legislation so is somewhat different but
nonetheless there are things to watch out for and lessons to learn.

Four years on and ratepayers are still waiting for Mayor Len Brown to
deliver the cost reductions and increased efficiencies promised in the
lead up to 2010.

Critics consistently point to skyrocketing debt and that elected
representatives now struggle to influence both big and small decisions.

Auckland's seven Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) which look
after key assets and infrastructure are now so powerful they have
become a force unto themselves - sometimes competing with council
rather than working for it.

Earlier this year CCO Waterfront Auckland revealed plans to install a
$1.5m 'state house' sculpture on Queens Wharf with almost no elected
representative support and a largely disgusted public. Despite a human
outcry Waterfront Auckland is set to advance this project.

This is just one small example of how the public and politicians have
lost control of many daily decisions now being made. Effectively we
sign off an annual statement of intent for each CCO and then they
disappear and do the business. The advantages are local body
politicians can't meddle. But again the flipside is non-elected CCO
boards are now calling many of the shots in Auckland.

Unfortunately it has not just been councillors who have been
side-lined with Auckland's corporate model in place.

Many of our 21 local boards are furious with the lack of control they
have of their own drastically reduced budgets. While legislation talks
of a shared governance structure, the reality is anything but.

Local boards oversee large areas of up to 80,000 people but have very
little capital budget and discretionary operational spend for local
initiatives. They are great local advocates but have little financial
teeth to make a big impact. They have to front up to the Governing
Body of councillors every year and plea for their projects to get funding.

Many of the outlying areas think the Mayor and council is too
CBD-centric. They see their local initiatives getting deferred while
often pet projects in the city centre get priority.

Aucklanders were promised that amalgamating eight councils into one
unitary authority would enable the region to do "more stuff with less
staff". However recently I released the latest staff numbers and costs
which show they have in fact ballooned beyond imagination.

Since 2011 total staff numbers, including the CCOs have increased from
9,300 to 11,134 while at the same time our annual wage and salary bill
has jumped from $615m to $730m. We now have nearly 2,000 staff earning
over $100,000 and these numbers exclude the additional cost of hiring
an army of consultants and contractors.

Smaller councils are often restricted in how much they can borrow due
to their limited revenue streams and rating base. However in Auckland,
once we amalgamated, our ability to borrow opened right up. Our debt
will hit $11b in the foreseeable future. We started with less than
$4b, and we're now paying over $1m a day in interest alone.

Management's argument that the organisation continues to make big
savings in its running costs since amalgamation carries no meaning for
many ratepayers who have endured compounding rates increases of over
20%. Spin about supposed savings counts for little given we're
spending, borrowing, rating and charging fees like never before.

Rest assured many have been keeping a close eye on the Hawke's Bay
proposal since the Local Government Commission received for and
against submissions earlier this year.

The Commission is expected to report its findings soon which will
hopefully encourage more of you to get involved on how your towns,
cities, and beautiful region should be run. Whatever those findings
deliver, just make sure you don't remove the 'local' out of local
government in Hawke's Bay.

[eri]

"The council is framing this debate as a choice between higher rates versus road tolls.

The reality is that Auckland Council could avoid both if it stopped wasting ratepayer money on vanity projects and a bloated town hall. "

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/10674852/Auckland-motorway-toll-could-hit-prices

Auckland Council announced plans for the sculpture in March last year, to be funded by a $1 million donation from Barfoot & Thompson, marking the company's 90 years in business.
The documents show the cost of the sculpture - a "scaled version of a Mount Eden state house" by renowned artist Michael Parekowhai - had reached $1.9 million by May 2013.

With $800,000 budgeted for a crystal glass chandelier made in Venice to be enclosed within the house, the project came under review and the budget was scaled back to $1.5 million in July 2013.

[Wayne]

Yeah - like who in their right mind would ever think a $800k chandelier was a good thing?

[PC]

A hard look should also be taken at the cost to build roads.
Is it really necessary to spend $millions on council consents and taniwha extortion?

[eri]

council consent charges

allow council to exert more control, grow its staff and not raise rates

taniwha pacification charges

allow council to financially support tangata whenua

but pass those costs on to developers

and so

not raise rates

rates will of course rise

but that extra money can be spent on future pork

[speights boy]

Oh the humanity !
Forced to slum it with us Plebs.

www.3news.co.nz/nznews/costly-auckland-transport-shuttle-scrapped-2014110308