The 2013 Local Government League Table
February 25th, 2013 at 4:00 pm by David FarrarLarry Mitchell has just published the 4th edition of his NZ Local Government financial sustainability and community affordability League Table.
The LGLT scores-ranks each of the 67 NZ territorial local authorities in order according to the strength of each Council’s financial sustainability as well as the affordability of Council rates and charges to their local communities.
The top ranked Councils are the Clutha and Southland District Councils. The bottom ranked ones in order are Kaipara, Horowhenua, Kawerau, Buller and Whangarei.
A video of Larry talking about the league table is above, and the full league table is below.
Local Government Mag has some further details also.
Related posts:
- The local government league table
- Reining in local government
- Why we need local government reform
- Rodney on right track for local government
February 25th, 2013 at 4:09 pm
“….but with high net equity[households]….” is in places like Auckland and Christchurch, and if house prices go up anytime soon – so too will the rankings of the councils.
Or is the ratings weighted to reflect that?
Vote:February 25th, 2013 at 5:49 pm
You get marked down for not having low commercial and investment holdings, and for disclosing liabilities for earthquake strengthening. So a council like Hutt City, who have run modest surpluses, small rates rises (usually at inflation), reduced debt while not fallen behind on council infrastructure spending get a poor score, but sprendthrift, high rate rising, owning commercial enterprises like Zealandia, Wellington City Council gets rated highly.
Doesn’t seem right.
Vote:February 25th, 2013 at 8:12 pm
It seems he suffers from “Vertical Video Syndrome”:
Vote:
February 25th, 2013 at 9:56 pm
Michael: “You get marked down for not having low commercial and investment holdings, and for disclosing liabilities for earthquake strengthening”
Correct. His method is weak, as is his understanding of what ‘strength’ actually means for a local body. He confuses what should be good – identifying risk – with bad – investments. And when asked to explain why, blusters.
A self appointed expert of the first water.
Vote:February 26th, 2013 at 7:33 am
This just in: Angry old white man not happy with rates bill, waves fist at cloud.
Vote:February 26th, 2013 at 11:15 am
My local body comes in at No56 which seems a bit flattering but acceptable.
Vote:February 26th, 2013 at 1:03 pm
Larry has been analysing local govt sector for years. First time ive seen the league table, results seem about right, although Id have to study it a bit further. IMO WCC is not as efficient as HCC, and Porirua is a disaster. Look out Tauranga
Vote:February 27th, 2013 at 10:22 am
Thanks for the responses folks.
Please recall that the League Table measures Council FINANCIAL sustainability circumstances of so that perceptions of “our” Council being better/worse than “others” can? be wide of the mark.
The League Table is intended to alert ratepayers to their Councils relative financial (not service and other) performance.
A better raw League Table score is given to Councils who (for just one! of a number of other factors) hold higher levels of commercial, financial and other assets merely as resources that “could” be applied (to debt reduction) when required.
All things being equal, (both Councils stats show the same scores) Council A will be scored higher than Council B if its holdings (strength of the assets side of their balance sheet) include substantial, feasibly realisable assets. Council A’s financial resilience (sustainability) is better, their service levels, rates and democratic process … may be another! story.
Vote: