05.04.2013 Views

Report of the Local Government Efficiency Review Group

Report of the Local Government Efficiency Review Group

Report of the Local Government Efficiency Review Group

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

staffing level <strong>of</strong> five directors <strong>of</strong> service for a county as small as Leitrim is<br />

excessive.<br />

6.4.3 The question <strong>the</strong>n needs to be addressed as to whe<strong>the</strong>r an alternative<br />

configuration would enable a greater level <strong>of</strong> scale efficiency. At present,<br />

counties such as Sligo and Leitrim operate independently <strong>of</strong> each o<strong>the</strong>r.<br />

Given <strong>the</strong> low population levels served by each (Sligo has a population <strong>of</strong><br />

60,894; Leitrim’s population is 28,950), <strong>the</strong> group considers that <strong>the</strong> option<br />

<strong>of</strong> clustering smaller contiguous counties into joint administrative areas to<br />

enable <strong>the</strong>m to achieve greater scale efficiencies should be pursued.<br />

Clearly, this would have implications for <strong>the</strong> overall structure <strong>of</strong> local<br />

government, and in this regard <strong>the</strong> group feels that as many as 20 local<br />

authorities would benefit from some form <strong>of</strong> clustering to enable scale<br />

efficiencies (see Table 6.2 below). The consequential implication <strong>of</strong> this is a<br />

series <strong>of</strong> joint administrative structures, each covering more than one local<br />

authority. As a rough guide, a minimum population target per structure <strong>of</strong><br />

100,000 is recommended.<br />

6.4.4 There were a number <strong>of</strong> factors taken into consideration in determining <strong>the</strong><br />

proposed joint administrative areas presented in Table 6.2. These included<br />

<strong>the</strong> population base <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposed areas, geographical factors, and <strong>the</strong><br />

fact that many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposed joint administrative areas historically shared<br />

a county manager. While <strong>the</strong> <strong>Group</strong> did consider <strong>the</strong> potential for certain<br />

areas to contain up to three counties based on population, it came to <strong>the</strong><br />

conclusion that no manager could reasonably be expected to support more<br />

than two county councils.<br />

6.4.5 A possible approach to realising such efficiencies might be to consider<br />

delivery <strong>of</strong> corporate service functions on a joint basis across two<br />

contiguous local authorities. A scale efficiency <strong>of</strong> 10% across selected local<br />

authorities through joint administrative arrangements or o<strong>the</strong>rwise would<br />

release 170 WTEs for redeployment elsewhere.<br />

6.4.6 However, such an approach needs to take account <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> overall staffing<br />

levels in each joint area. Staff released through efficiencies in <strong>the</strong> corporate<br />

areas would be available for redeployment elsewhere in <strong>the</strong> sector or<br />

beyond.<br />

62

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!