The reform of Local Government was accompanied by a series of problems, several of which remain unresolved two years after its implementation. At the same time, the Parliament, which is responsible for parliamentary control of state spending, calls on the state to continue to financially support the reform, with the cost being passed on to taxpayers.
Following Sunday's report on the distortions recorded in the reform, we are looking at another aspect, which burdens taxpayers.
With the implementation of the reform, responsibilities and fees, such as those related to water supply and sewerage, were transferred to the Provincial Self-Government Organizations. The responsibility for issuing planning and building permits, which had previously been held by local authorities, has also been transferred to the EOAs.
Along with the responsibility, the relevant revenues were transferred, which now end up in the EOAs instead of the municipalities. To cover the loss of these revenues, it was agreed that the state pays compensation to the municipalities.
The issue that arises is that citizens continue to pay the fees for the issuance of licences normally, with the difference that the sums are now collected by the NSAIDs. At the same time, the state compensates the municipalities for the revenue they lost due to the transfer of this responsibility.
The NGOs collect the revenues from the planning and building permits, as part of the effort to become financially independent. At the same time, however, municipalities receive state compensation for the loss of their own revenues.
This is also mentioned in the official documents, since the state sponsorship for the Municipalities is divided as follows:
The €144 million will include the €117 million state grant, €15 million for road maintenance and €12 million to compensate for the loss of licensing revenue.
The additional cost for the state, which amounts to 12 million euros per year, based on the number of households in the last census, corresponds to a burden of between €30 and €34 per year for each house.
The application query
The need to reform Local Government is not disputed. The question that arises concerns the way in which it was designed and implemented. Economic data show that, two years later, there are still gaps, while related expenditure is increasing.
For their part, representatives of local authorities argue that more time is needed for the new system to be fully operational and for the benefits for citizens to become visible. According to them, the state should proceed, for example, with a compensation plan for employees in local authorities, in order to reduce costs for staff.
The question remains, however, whether the problems that were known to arise could have been addressed before the implementation of the reform. The Parliament had the option of either postponing the implementation or requesting changes in the design, as it has done in other cases of reforms or changes.
The state had presented the reform as a change that would bring benefits to the citizens. So far, however, the figures that can be clearly calculated mainly concern additional costs and disputes between Municipalities and the Ministry of the Interior.
It is unknown when we will see the benefits
So far, no one seems to know when the economic and operational benefits of the reform will be felt by the citizens.
Mayors and representatives of the new organizations attribute part of the problems to the inadequate, as they claim, preparation of the state and the Ministry of the Interior.
However, the adequacy of the preparation and the sustainability of the planning were issues that should have been assessed before the adoption of the relevant legislation and the implementation of the reform.
If these were known, then it should be answered why they proceeded with the implementation of a system that for citizens so far translates into additional costs and not benefits.
