Acomb Business Rates discount

Mystery deepens over Council decision as FOI response reveals only 4 empty units may be affected.

11-15 Front Street

The Labour Cabinet came under fire earlier in the month when it nodded through a proposal to give 50% Rates relief to any empty property in the “Acomb” area that was brought back into use.

Now the Councils list of empty retail (and commercial) properties in the YO24 and YO26 area has been published.

The list reveals that the main “problem” property (which is also very prominent) is 11 – 15 Front Street (part of which was formerly occupied by Superdrug). We understand that the property was sold be the Coop Bank a couple of years ago and is now understood to be back on the market.

Many will feel that this site needs redeveloping although what Rates discount would apply to new properties remains unclear.

As we have said before, there is a good case for improving on the government scheme which gives a Rates discount on re-occupied properties which have been empty for more than 12 months.

However if discounts apply from day one then this could rightly be regarded as unfair competition by existing traders.

It was pointed out at the time, that the area of benefit was ill defined and – if it was intended to boost the Front Street area – then it needed to be focussed on longer term empty properties.

With the recession now ending it appeared that most shops had either been occupied or were under offer. Some prime sites are now understood to be changing hands at a premium.

The LibDems submitted the following comments to the meeting earlier in the month

The Liberal Democrat Group was disappointed that the Labour Cabinet did not support a comprehensive regeneration proposal for Front Street at July’s full Council.

This proposal, which uses powers given to Councils by the Coalition Government, seems to have been cobbled together in a rush – as the rewrites in the paper published on the council website indicate. Key details such as which exact area the discount will apply within are missing (the council papers refer only to “Acomb”). The paper does not explain why the scheme is restricted to retail premises (the similar Government scheme refers to all businesses) and it does not explain how temporary ‘pop-up’ units will affect entitlements.

We would also like further information on how the process will work given the September deadline for applications. The concern that the discount could be used by national chains, moving into prime sites immediately as leases become available, is not addressed and no alternative proposals are considered e.g. focusing discounts on properties which have been empty for over 3 months (business rates are not payable on a commercial property for the first 3 months that it is empty).

The Council needs to act promptly to clear u the confusion caused by its decision

York Council racks up £20,000 bill for propaganda films

Lendal Bridge video click to access

20’s plenty video click to access

An astute resident, surveying the annual accounts of the York Council, has spotted bills totalling over £20,000 for videos promoting the 20’s plenty campaign and defending the decision to close Lendal Bridge.

The videos were produced by a local company but do not seem to have been subject to a formal tendering process.

At the moment, the brief given to the producers has not been published by the Council.

The videos have been available to view on You Tube for about a year but have attracted little interest.

The 20’s plenty video has been viewed on 1500 occasions while the Lendal bridge closure – which attracted international notoriety – film has been viewed only 4500 times.

There is a fine line between information and propaganda. Soft sell tactics like these, on highly controversial issues, cross that boundary.

Balance is a serious issue when taxpayer’s money is being used to fund media initiatives.

It would not have been so bad if there had been public discussion on the need for the videos before they were ordered but that is not the way that the current Council does its business.

NB. Concerns have also been raised about payments allegedly exceeding £100,000 for a temporary head of communications (media) at the Council. It appears that the post has been occupied for around 2 years but without any competitive process. The former head of media at Council was paid less than half this figure in 2010.

Council spent £3,600 on Consultants who tried to “develop” York Cabinet

click to enlarge

The York Council spent around £4000 on a workshop for its Cabinet members last December.

The 2 day workshop was held in secret and no details of its objectives – or feedback on its achievements – have emerged.

A bill from Consultant John Tizard was spotted by an eagled eyed resident when she perused the Councils accounts

It is not unusual for executive committees to consider how they want to operate – and how to go about achieving objectives – at the beginning of their term of office.

But the York Cabinet is close to the end of its life and expenditure like this – and the way that it has been authorised – is open to criticism.

Businesses urged to go for growth with share of £200m fund

A new round of the Government’s Regional Growth Fund has opened for businesses across the country, and firms in York have until 30 September 2014 to bid for a share of the £200 million cash pot.

The fund has already helped over 220 projects get started across the country, creating and safeguarding jobs in a diverse range of industries from life sciences to motor vehicle manufacture.
(more…)

York Council looking to extend charging for waste collection?

“Scrutiny” review could lead to new fees

It looks like Labour are considering introducing more charges for waste collection and disposal.

Residents criticised Labours decision to introduce charges for second (and subsequent) green bin collections this year.

Mixed messages from Labour

This came hard on the heels of some new charges at civic amenity sites (and the closure of the Beckfield Lane facility)

It now seem that the Council is set on considering other charges which may include:

Commercial waste collection including service provided to schools and charitable organisations
Trade waste disposal at household waste recycling centres including service provided to charitable organisations & landlords/letting agents
Clinical waste collection
Provision of waste containers
Hazardous wastes including chemicals

In other parts of the country Labour have been campaigning against green waste charges ironically using a “one nation” slogan (above left)

A background paper can be read by clicking here

Although not specifically mentioned in the York Council officials report, it is known that – in some countries – charges are levied on the basis of the weight of (landfill) material collected from each dwelling.

It will take the review committee several months to report so it is unlikely that any additional charges could be introduced before next Mays Council elections.

£3.9 million Social Care budget problem forces major rethink in York

“the service was not responding quickly enough or effectively enough to the challenges it faced” – Auditors

The Council has now published an outline of how it intends to recover from the Social Care budget deficit discovered by Auditors.

The Auditors identified a budget pressure of £2.5 on this year’s budget together with outstanding actions needed to secure budgeted savings of £1.4 million.

In a separate report the Auditors they say

“Our view is that financial management and commissioning in the adult social care service needs to improve and this service has not responded quickly and effectively enough to the challenges that it faces.

If the underlying financial pressures are not robustly addressed and actions to secure significant future base budget reductions are not effective, there is a risk that the Council will not be in a position to deliver the best possible value for money in adult social care services.

Of critical importance to the delivery of sustained improvement is a review of existing contracts and a new commissioning approach that secures the required services at an affordable price”.

The crisis had led to the demotion of the Cabinet member, who had responsibility for the department, earlier in the year with several senior staff following her out of the door last month.

A summary of the action that the Council intends to take can be read here

10 substantial issues, raised by the Auditors, are addressed. They include:

Producing a clear and unambiguous budget for the current year which eliminates overspends
Improved accountability for senior officials
More delegation of responsibility
Improvements in the budget build process for next and subsequent years
A clear savings plan
Improved management information systems and IT

Council Leader with Cllr Simpson Laing (right) a few weeks before she was sacked from her Social care post

Challenged on the problems at the last Council meeting, the Leader declined to say why he had not taken action last year to address the emerging issues.

Council officials had earlier declined to say why one of the savings projects – the opening of a new “super care village” at Lowfields – was running 3 years behind schedule.

£1 million Exhibition Square/theatre bus stop upgrade plans to be challenged tomorrow (Monday)

click for larger map

Plans to remodel the bus stop area outside the Theatre and Art Gallery may be shelved at a meeting taking place tomorrow.

Critics say the plans will do nothing to improve the area, could lead to more traffic congestion and will not contribute to “reinvigorating York”

The Council’s huge expenditure programme for central York has come under fire from many quaters in recent times. It is partly blamed for the increase in the Councils debt and for squeezing the funding available for other parts of the City.

The Theatre bus stop project is being partially funded from a central government grant and will not therefore directly impact on local taxpayers. The money could, however, have been used to upgrade busy sub-urban bus stops.

The proposals for the Theatre Interchange element of the scheme include:” increasing circulation space for visitors to the Square, pedestrians and bus passengers by reducing the size of the existing bus lay-by; replacing the two existing bus shelters with two new more attractive shelters; and providing real time information and more/better seats for bus passengers”.

Many residents are likely to have some sympathy for having a least a pause in the Council’s extravagant expenditure programmes

Huntington Stadium “Grand Departy” costs to be questioned at Council meeting

Sparse crowd for Grand Departy

Cllr Crisp faces a grilling at the next Council meeting about her decision to add the “Grand Departy” event to the Tour de France programme.

The event was poorly supported by York residents with only around 1000 of the 10,000 tickets sold.

The event was dogged by inadequate planning with a License application only granted at the last minute.

Now LibDem Councillor Ian Cuthbertson has tabled a question for the next Council meeting (17^th July) in the following terms.

“Regarding the “Grand Departy” held at Huntington Stadium on 4th July, how much was spent on this event (broken down by artist fees, charity contributions, equipment hire, stadium costs, traffic management, staffing costs, hospitality etc), how much income was derived (broken down by ticket sales, sponsorship etc), and who took the decision – and when – to add this event to the Tour de France calendar?”

Some leaks from West Offices are putting losses on the event as high as £100,000.

If the figure is correct, then it is likely to lead to calls for the Cabinet member to resign.

Big York Council Departmental overspends in 2013/14

Council took £1.8 million in spy camera fines which may have to be refunded

Social care budgets were over spent by £1.3 million last year with Environmental Services (mainly waste collection) clocking up a £443,000 and Children’s Services/Education a £309,000 loss.

Overall York Council Departments spent £1.7 million more than had been budgeted.

The budget broke even only because of a £2 million surplus on “centrally administered” budgets.

The figures are revealed in a report to be considered by the Councils “Cabinet” tomorrow (Tuesday)

As previously reported, the biggest problems arise in Social Care where the Council reveals overspends on community support (£236k) due to a higher number of customers than forecast, a continued increase above forecast level in the number of customers taking up Direct Payments (£129k), increased use of external placements for emergency and short term breaks (£252k) and a higher than budgeted number of customers in residential nursing placements (£718k).

The Councils financial position was saved only because it continued to enjoy the benefits of low interest rates on its borrowing (equivalent to a £990,000 budget saving).

It achieved only 73% of its planned capital investment programme storing up a massive £83 million backlog in work which it says it will try to address during the current financial year.

The government gave the City an extra £732,000 to reduce the Rate burden on small businesses although there has been a slow take up on this important concession.

The position is also masked by £1.765 million in fines income received from spy camera use in the Lendal Bridge and Coppergate.

The Council has now admitted that the trials cost a whopping £718,000 to implement. £1.047 million has been put in a reserve account which will presumably be used to refund fines imposed unlawfully.

The balance would have to come from Council taxpayers (the equivalent of a 1% rise in Council Tax levels).

The spy cameras on Lendal Bridge have been removed while those on Coppergate were switched off on 1^st April.

The housing revenue account (Council house rents income) showed a £12.1 million surplus at the end of the year.

The report to the Cabinet pointedly fails to contain performance data on the quality of public services being provided to York residents.

NB As at April 1^st 2014, 6717 York Council Taxpayers had arrears of £ 4,769,989.36

Holgate community centre business plan queried

The Council opened a new community centre (“Space 217”) serving the Lindsey Avenue area last year.

The initiative seemed to signal a welcome reversal of the current Council Leaderships policy of cutting all funding support from local community facilities.

However more information has become available which suggests that there is no ongoing business plan to support the facility.

At present all costs are being born by Council tenants (rent payments) through the housing account.

Ironically the two community centres most likely to close, as a result of Labour’s cut’s programme (Foxwood and Chapelfields), were also built on Housing Department owned land.

The Council says that it has had to spend around £31,000 bringing the former shop up to a standard that would allow it to be used as a community “hub”. This cost included the provision of disabled access and the removal of asbestos

The Council says that ongoing costs will also be paid for from within existing ring fenced “housing maintenance budgets”.

Strangely the Council is not offering financial support to other community centres from its housing maintenance budgets despite them being used by estate management officers, and other Council staff, as local meeting points.

NB. Lindsey Avenue is currently represented by Council Leader James Alexander. He will be under a lot of pressure if he is to retain his seat in next years local elections. The decision to open the new centre was taken behind closed doors.

Space 217 costs

« Previous
1
…
37
38
39
40
41
…
55
Next »