One thing that was missing that could have a large impact on operating costs (OPEX) thus rate take is the Governance and Support budget line. Ratepayers know it more simply as staff numbers and corporate support. With Governance/Support attracting high amounts of attention in the Long Term Plan debate (see breakdown below) I sent a question to Council on why the line was not included in the calculator.
My Budget and relative comparisons to Council’s budget
The LTP Feedback Breakdown (check Governance and Support for the sea of red)
I have been playing around with the LTP Budget Calculator with varying results depending on what levels of funding I placed on which line. After sharing it with a few people it was raised that the arguably the most controversial budget line that is mentioned in the LTP documents is not on the calculator.
That line being the Governance/Support Budget Line.
It was pointed to me that in the Beta testing phase that the Governance/Support budget line was initially included into the calculator but dropped in the final product now released to the public.
My question is why was the Governance and Support Line dropped given that it is attracting high responses in the Long Term Feedback although arguably negative responses at that (cut backs to the budget).
For the sake of honesty and transparency no matter what the result shouldn’t have the Governance and Support line been in the final public release?
…….
Their Answer
Thanks for your question. We’ve received the answer below from the Long-term Plan team; hopefully this answers your question.
We are glad that the budget calculator is having such a good response.
Which specific cost areas were included was something that we discussed a lot in the development of the tool.
A key consideration was ensuring that the tool was simple and enabled the public to develop a better understanding of the types of trade-offs that are made in developing a council budget.
To do this it was important that each question could marry changes in investment levels with changes in the service levels that the community would see.
The nature of the Governance and Support theme is such that this sort of question was not possible and thus it was never included in the model.
Close to half of the operating cost in this theme is made up of the full costs of Ports of Auckland, legislated grants to support regional museums and amenities, and the costs of co-governance with iwi.
This theme also includes functions such as human resources, finance and property management which support front-line services. These support costs can be changed through more efficient operations (our projected annual efficiency savings rise from $183 million this year to $298 million by 2024/2025) or by decisions around the services we deliver to Aucklanders under the other themes.
Cheers,
———
Again I have been informed reliably that the Governance and Support budget line was included in the Long Term Plan Budget Calculator and worked with no problems nor lack of understanding by the testers. So with that forgive me if I am very suspicious that the most controversial budget line that worked in the calculator is not put into the final release because everyone in the testing phase kept sending the “funding” to absolute minimum levels allowed.
And yes I would have kicked the funding level down for Governance and Support down with a target of reducing Employee costs from $720 million/year to $500 million/year which equates to $2.2 BILLION savings over the full ten years of the Long Term Plan.
Also when you see this you know it is time to put the broom through the bureaucracy:
Auckland Councillors not told for months of IT blowout
5:00 AM Friday Mar 6, 2015 – Bernard Orsman
Officers knew of problems with NewCore programme that pushed cost up to $157m.
Auckland Council officers were aware of big problems with an IT project for months before they informed Mayor Len Brown and councillors, official documents show.
The council yesterday released documents under the Official Information Act on the NewCore project, which has soared in cost from $71 million to $157 million.
…..
Among the concerns were that programme director Glenn Bittle was too involved with the detail to devote sufficient time to the bigger macro issues, suspected poor performance of some NewCore programme staff, no formally defined roles and accountabilities for the programme, and timelines slipping.
“Too many quasi-decision makers are involved and issues requiring resolution suffer from a lack of active, timely resolution while ownership is debated and the issue is rearticulated numerous times,” said the EY report, which recommended a change to the governance structure.
Talking Southern Auckland 