Comments on: The 2013 Local Government League Table

By: lazza

lazza — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:22:22 +0000

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.

By: Warren Murray

Warren Murray — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:03:41 +0000

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

By: backster

backster — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:15:45 +0000

My local body comes in at No56 which seems a bit flattering but acceptable.

By: toms

toms — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:33:47 +0000

This just in: Angry old white man not happy with rates bill, waves fist at cloud.

By: hmmokrightitis

hmmokrightitis — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:56:32 +0000

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.

By: wrightingright

wrightingright — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 07:12:24 +0000

It seems he suffers from “Vertical Video Syndrome”:

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 04:49:22 +0000

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.

By: Harriet

Harriet — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 03:09:47 +0000

“….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?