S17A Service Delivery Reviews Strategic Planner’s Network 8 May 2015

Outline:

• What’s required? - Legislation• How to do it – advice from SOLGM• Current examples• What we did at Waipa• How it went• Recommendations

Purpose of local government:

S10:1 “The purpose of local government is:

(b)To meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses”.

So - What’s Required?

Section 17A:1 of LGA (Delivery of Services):• ‘A local authority must review the cost-effectiveness of current

arrangements for meeting the needs of communities for good quality infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions’.

• Local authorities have 3 years to complete the first review - ALL service assessments must be completed by 7 August 2017 -even if the services have been reviewed just prior to the legislation taking effect (S2(1) Schedule 1AA LGA).

• each service must be reviewed at least every 6 years.

Triggers for Review?

Outside of the first overall service assessment, there are 2 other triggers for a review. A review must be undertaken:

• when considering a significant change to relevant service levels (LOS); and

• when current contracts relevant to the delivery of that infrastructure, service or regulatory function are within 2 years of expiring (Section 17A:2).

When is a Review not required?

S.17A:3 A review is not required if: a) delivery of that infrastructure, service or regulatory

function is governed by legislation, contract or other binding agreement such that it cannot be changed within the next 2 years; or

b) the local authority believes the cost of doing a review would outweigh the benefits (usually where a service is small, significant cost savings are unlikely; or a review has been conducted recently).

Options that must be consideredA review must consider options for the governance, funding, and delivery of infrastructure, services and regulatory functions, including but not limited to, the following options (s17A:4):

Resp.

governance funding delivery

1. Local authority does all2. Local authority Council CCO

joint council-owned CCO another local authority another person or agency

3. delegated to a joint committee or other shared governance arrangement

exercised by one of the above entities

4. Other options for delivery can be considered, e.g. carrying out some internal improvements to gain efficiencies.

Key Actions Required to meet S17A• For collaborative delivery with other local authorities (e.g. water

services) – could agree on a joint review – LASS?

• Council to determine the level at which the review should be set (E.g. the Group of Activity level – SOLGM advice).

• Council to decide if they want to set triggers for review – e.g. $ threshold or SEP thresholds

• Council to develop a forward programme to ensure that each service is reviewed by 7 August 2017 (and then every 6 years)

• Group Managers - review planned work and contract renewal programme to ID early any situations that would trigger a review.

S17A Exclusion Reports - contracts

S17A:3(a) exclusion reports need to:• Explain why agreement cannot be altered in the next 2 years;• Resolution required from Council.

S17A Reports –LOS/contracts:S17A:2(a and b) reports need to:A. Document the options considered along with some attempt

at costing them;B. Document which of those listed in s17A:4 were deemed ‘not

practicable’ and why; C. Provide the basis on which conclusions were reached about

cost-effectiveness; andD. Consider SEP – need to observe processes or criteria for

assessing significance consider community views and preferences.

Also applies to S17A:3(b) exclusion – report required outlining costs vs benefits of the options etc

Examples Issue Option to address

1. Water services has been working with other councils, as part of the Mayoral Forum work, to develop an enhanced shared service. The expectation is that the delivery review will be conducted to meet s17A so that all three councils involved will not have to carry out an additional s17A reviews.

Regional process – e.g LASS

Examples Issue Option to address

2. Water services is currently looking to change the level of service on delivery of the drainage service - (included in the proposed LTP budgets). Relatively low $s.

For services/contracts that are below the $ threshold or of minor nature - Report to show that cost of doing a review would outweigh the benefits – could be difficult to justify. Must document reasons for deferral and get report signed off by Council.

Examples Issue Option to address

3.The Roading Group is currently reviewing the roading service delivery contract. This example would trigger the criteria for a review as it may change the LOS and also the contract is being reviewed and can change within the specified 2 year period. There is a lot of money involved.

For services/contracts above the $ threshold or of ‘significant nature – prepare a report that shows the requirements of S17A were complied with and get signed off by Council.

What we did at Waipa

Developed Report Template that covers:• How service aligns with Council's strategic direction• Objectives for the service• Current situation• Options for service delivery that were considered• Table of options considered with costs/benefits• Preferred option – why is it most appropriate• Assessment of significance and engagement• Next steps – re contract specs

How it went:

• Reluctance from engineers to comply – extra work and new requirement that they felt they shouldn’t have to do – so we tried to make it easy for them – report template

• Lack of ownership as it doesn’t fit neatly into one group of Council’s management structure

• Lack of leadership in Council about what to do & how to do the work required

• Other’s experience?

Recommendations 1. That Mayoral Forum/LASS develop a shared structure or

approach for Groups of Activity reviews (for all Waikato Councils to use in their review programme of groups of activities by Aug 2017)

2. That Mayoral Forum/LASS ensures that all contracts for the review of shared service delivery at the regional level (by

consultants) incudes all the options specified in s17A (e.g. waters review only covers off 3 of the options).

Recommendations 3. The Waipa DC report template be made available for SPN use

(or is used as a base for a SPN group to develop further) for the review of service delivery contracts.

4. A SPN group develops a shared exclusion report template for services/contracts where the cost of doing a review

would outweigh the benefits.

5. Decisions from this meeting be shared with Councils and Craig Hobbs’ workstream (Mayoral Forum).