let’s assume the lower bound

$76M, divided by 4 million people is $19 per person per year. Assuming 4 people per rate paying house hold, a projected saving of $76 per year on your rates…

“Integration costs of $120m to $240m over four years”

let’s assume the upper bound

$240M, divided by 4 million people is $60, assuming 4 people per house hold, that’s $60 per year (times 4, divided by 4).

NET gain per rate paying household for the first few years, per year?

$16.

WOOOHOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Net gain after that? Allowing for inflation and increase in costs, etc?

Probably $30-$50 savings per year per rateable household paying $1500-$2500 per year.

Will these savings be passed on?

Anybody?

NO.

My prediction: 1 city willhave no net savings for rate payers.

That’s stretching the truth beyond breaking point. The law opens the door a crack to race-based electorates but it certainly doesn’t require it. The commission has booted down the door and charged through it in a way which frankly calls into question its objectivity and judgment on everything else.

As others have said, the 3% saving is a fatuous mirage that will never happen. On the other hand the transition costs will be huge, immediate and fleece ratepayers as happened last time with the trick of pulling the rate collections forward 3 months to empty ratepayers’ pockets into Council coffers.

I’ve skimmed through the “Executive Summary” and it is 17 pages of bureaucrat-speak, political button-pushing codswallop.

As I said before, it will be good for Big Business and Big Government, bad for small business, will cost more, be less responsive, innovative and adaptable to communities and will not make a blind bit of difference to Auckland’s existing problems.

But it will create better political theatre – hopefully you don’t mind subsidising other people’s ego trips because that’s what Auckland ratepayers will be doing.

“The terms of reference for the Royal Commission
(a) (consistent with
the purposes and principles of local government as described in the Local Government Act 2002)”

“Local Government Act 2002
Part 6
81. Contributions to decision-making processes by Maori
· (1) A local authority must—
o (a) establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Maori to contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority; and
o (b) consider ways in which it may foster the development of Maori capacity to contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority; and
o (c) provide relevant information to Maori for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b).”

I like the Auckland Council concept. I like the fact that the local councils are only going to be slightly more powerful community boards. I like that there will be one District Plan in the future. I like the way the central city area is dealt with and there are many other things I like.

The big question remains… how much will the government screw with it?

I have no confidence Rodney Hide has the political skills to sort this out

It’s a very tricky job alright, but so far in his career from my observation, Rodney has gone from strength to strength. Talking Roger into returning to Parliament was no mean feat, and with the strength of his advice standing behind Rodney, I’d give Rodney good odds on making this into an outstanding success.

It’s about bloody time Auckland got its shit together. The ratepayers there get totally screwed via unresponsive lazy bloated unnecessarily expensive inefficient services.

Aucklanders themselves don’t see the separate cities as being separate, why does the bureaucracy?

The integration process will be the key here. Each city performs hundreds of processes each of which is differently designed. In each process, only one of the current cities is simply the best, better than all the rest. The trick will be identifying the key processes, identifying and measuring the KPIs for each while taking into account the fact they are rarely entirely comparable, then deciding for each process which city does it best and using that as a model and benchmark for the new super-city. Doing that without getting bogged down in the detail is an incredibly difficult proposition.

The alternative of course is to start with a blank sheet and take the best from here and overseas and use that as a model. IT costs alone for doing it this way would be significant, but it might actually be the best way. Provided you were modeling the best and not the dross of course.

Either option costs a lot but is the only way to achieve long term performance gains which is the raison d’etre for the whole thing anyway. Therefore I agree with the comment above: integration cost appears underestimated, significantly.

I had the same problem as another commenter, the link took me to a logon screen with no info re: how to register. DPF can you please post a workable link.

The voting turnout will fall further. All the problems Auckland has now will be worse in ten years time.

“(The Commission has been unable in the time available to identify a suitable Māori name for Rodney Local Council, but recommends that one be identified after consultation with mana whenua.)”

A bit like Norman Mailer who after yearning for revolution one evening (In the Armies of the Night) suddenly realised his dream might come true and he would be living in a nightmare.

Robbie’s plan for a BART style rapid transit was never a goer. It was a hoax designed to explain how you could build such a tiny motorway system for Auckland and still carry the traffic.
Even San Francisco has not been able to afford BART.

Costs will not decrease and large councils are more prone to hijacking by organised lobby groups.

The fascination within boundaries never delivers fruit. The proper analysis begins with deciding what functions are best served by what organisation and at what scale. AFter a few years everyone will be able to name the Mayor (probably because he or she is a TV star) but noone will be able to name or recognise their councillors.

If you are in Mangere Bridge or Devonport , you should have the same ‘local council’ , while those in the truly rural areas have lesser expectations of the Council ( no water supply or sewage or buses).

There is no real savings if we continue with the 4 major urban councils in a slightly different form.

This is because we have 3 ‘worthies’ who are not especially knowledgeable about local councils giving a report .

better to have an ex brisbane Lord mayor, or someone from Toronto to look at it in a fresh way

Much and all as I like the idea of a one structure format I fear rather than reduce costs we will se a major blowout as Councillors ramp up their fiefdom and empire to even greater heights. they know no better.

I do like the French example of a mayor for every 300 citizens someone local who can take issues to a central body.

I fear the Super City will mean the citizen will be even more divorced from their representative than at present.

Craigm Good point and we must remind the pollies at every opportunity about the wasted years when neither central nor local government had the will capacity or capability to carry out old Robbies plans.

Its a disgrace that everyone of them past and present must share the blame for their incompetence and arrogance in failing to act in the best interest of the citizens

Community Boards to be abolished except for the Great Barrier and Waiheke Island Community Boards which get wider delegated powers

Oh god no. Ah well, that means no progress or economic growth here for the next however long then. Backward leftwing bigotted whining cronys the lot of them.

Imagine if we had acted then.

I look forward to the new ‘Auckland Council’ being formed, sometime around ?