More graffiti

The Council will decide today whether to extend its graffiti removal service to include utility boxes. We hope that they will. The professions service introduced 4 moths ago has made a major diffidence to the appearance of parts of the City.

But we would like to see progress made in prosecuting those responsible. It should not be up to taxpayers (or utility company customers) to fund clean ups like these.

Some Councillors apparently want to use “community payback” to do the graffiti removal. From time to time, this might be an option but it does depend on a steady supply of offenders and there would be a supervision cost.

Probably best to give someone a full time job. There are plenty of other clean up tasks to do if, as we hope, graffiti volumes fall..

York Council budget set to be agreed tomorrow (Thursday)

The Council will confirm its budget for the forthcoming year at a meeting tomorrow. A tax increase of nearly 4 % is likely with only the two Tory Councillors favouring a slightly lower hike (3.5%).

Most of the tax increase will be spent on the care of the elderly.

Budget Council meetings are an opportunity for the ruling party (ies) to explain more about their plans. This year, these include, generally welcomed, extra investment in street level services including road repairs, extra litter /poop scoop bins, better tree maintenance, a review of waste collection (including plastics/food waste), additional staffing on waste collection rounds, improved city centre cleaning, more effective weed control plus more for crime prevention.

More controversially there is a big increase in the “capital” programme which will involve borrowing more money.

Most attention at the meeting will focus on the alternative proposed by the Labour opposition. They support the planned tax increase.

As always, opposition parties enjoy the luxury of proposing polices that they won’t have to implement. So, Labour roll out again the ban on “non-essential car journeys” within the City Walls.

Packaged within their plan is £40,000 for “early evening family friendly activities in the city centre”, £30,000 for a good employer charter (including “union recognition”), £70,000 “for substance misuse” (they probably mean reducing the problem), £75,000 for the one year funding of a “Children’s Commissioner” and £50,000 for anti-fly tipping CCTV cameras.

Cuts would be made by reducing the (recently established) graffiti removal service, crime prevention (safer communities) work An apprenticeship post would be deleted and £100,000 spent on developing a “voluntary” tourist tax.

They want to scrap the £270,000 scheme to modernise 29 Castlegate (but don’t say what they would do with the empty property or indeed with the other half dozen or so unused properties that the Council owns in the City).

Their “big idea” is the reversal of the inflation linked 2.5% increase in crematorium charges, although they routinely increased the charges when they were last in power.

The Tory amendment is doomed as they only two of the 47 members.

But they gamely try the populist route with promises to collect dead Christmas trees, improve bus services and freeze car parking charges. Members pay would be reduced as would the number of scrutiny committees. £100,000 would be lopped from the Climate Change programme while York businesses would get the “free use” of an electric vehicle for 2 months, at a cost to taxpayers of £50,000.

5 staff would be sacked as would one executive member.

In both cases the amendments are engineered to provide an opportunity to issue leaflets saying XXX party voted against such and such a policy.

If the opposition parties had been serious about their proposals, then they could have been fed into the process before public scrutiny of the options took place.

York “in hock” for generations?

One of the reports least likely to be subject to detailed scrutiny, as the York Council prepares its budget for next year, is the upward trend in interest charge commitments

By 2022, the amount borrowed by the Council is set to escalate to over £178 million a year. Total debt will reach over £1/2 billion the following year.

This is by far the largest liability the Council has had since it became a unitary authority over 20 years ago.

With interest rates on borrowing by Councils now standing at around 3.5%, it means that, within the next 5 years, the proportion of the Council Tax collected in the City, and used to service debt charges, will increase for 12% this year to 23%. That figure assumes that there will be no increase in interest rates.

In practice the trend means that there will be less money available to spend on street level public services.

So, should we be worried?

At one level, no.

The forecast expenditure, although much closer to the legal borrowing limit, will still be within the ceiling in 2024.

But there is more to it than that.

It is not just principal and interest repayments which erode the flexibility available on the Councils revenue account. New services often bring additional running costs. The Council has forecast zero net expenditure on some high risk investments (e.g. the commercial office space at the Community Stadium, the “business club” being set up at the Guildhall and the Castle Mills development). If it got any of these decision wrong, then taxpayers face a big hit.

What is the additional investment big spent on.

A list of new items being considered tomorrow (Thursday) can be found by clicking here. There are dozens of other items which have already been agreed.

So, is that the extent of the risk?

Unfortunately no. There are several investments that the Council wants to make but for which it has not yet made full financial provision. By far the largest is the York Central project. This could add tens of millions to the programme depending on what financial backing central government decides to offer.

The dualling of the northern by pass is also still not fully funded. Such plans as have been published omit, for example, flyovers at key junctions and across the river. Both could add tens of millions to the costs.

Could we make savings?

29 Castlegate – £1/4 million repair bill

Certainly. The Council has taken on the risk at several developments which the private sector considers to be nonviable. This started when the Council underwrote the office development at Monks Cross, a similar logic was applied to the £20 million Guildhall scheme and most recently we saw the £44 million Castle Piccadilly project brought “in house”. A similar decision was taken on the housing development at Lowfields.

This year £270,000 will be spent on repairing and remodelling 29 Castlegate – an obvious project on which to seek a commercial partner.

Successive generations will end up paying the additional annual £2.8 million interest charges on this year’s new project list unless a more prudent approach is adopted by Councillors.

Delays in York Council investment programme

A report which is being discussed on Thursday reveals that the Council has fallen behind with several major investment projects.

It means that funding is being slipped from 19/20 into future financial years.

The biggest embarrassment is the Community Stadium project which is between 8 and 1 year behind schedule depending on when you started counting.

A development for the homeless on James Street has also recently been revealed as lagging 12 months behind its target completion date (although it doesn’t rate a mention in the Council report).

Setting the scene for a major increase in investment (and consequent debt levels), the report makes some strange claims.

Centre of Excellence for Disabled children “opening in May?)

Foremost amongst them is a statement that the Centre of Excellence for the Disabled, currently being constructed on Ascot Way, will open for business in May of this year. Really?

Site for new football pavilion

Lowfields

We are assured that show homes at Lowfields will also be available in “late summer” while the waterlogged Ashfield football site – located off Tadcaster Road – will have a clubhouse open by September!

Perhaps more understandably, cautious officials now say that the Community Stadium will be opening to the public “during the year”. No more hostages to fortune then!

Council to invest in anti flooding measures

The York Council is set to spend more on reducing the impact of flooding in the City.

The plans, revealed just hours before the latest flooding problems hit the City, include the provision of a dedicated pump which will help to keep the A19 near Fulford clear of water.

A council report also promises more work to deal with surface water drainage issues

” £200,000 for improved drainage. To continue funding the restoration of the Council’s drainage infrastructure supporting the findings of the Surface Water Management Plan. This funding reflects the amount of work that can realistically be done using the available resources within the Council where there is extensive local knowledge

£3.5 million will be spent on Gully Repair Engineering Works – A rolling programme of capital funded drainage survey and investigation works has led to significant improvements of the cities highway gullies and has provided detailed information to identify the condition of the assets and their long term maintenance needs.

It is calculated that more than £8m of investment will be needed over 12 years to address all defective assets on a priority/needs based approach.

£200,000 will also be invested in improving real time signage and on rainfall monitoring equipment (see below).

“Don’t know” response to York Council contracts probe

The York Council has said that it doesn’t hold records of how its public service contracts are being let. A Freedom of information request was submitted asking for the publication of the register which indicates when a Council executive member had – as regulations require – authorised contracts valued between at £250,000 and £500,000.

Extract from City of York Financial regulations

The issue had arisen following the (correct) decision taken by Cllr Nigel Ayre to formally approve contract letting at a public decision session in November. There was no suggestion at that stage of any impropriety, but the decision was welcomed as a move towards greater transparency.

The report to the meeting made it clear that, what were termed, “routine” decisions had previously been agreed by circulating a copy of a register to executive members.

A copy of the register has now been produced (below)which shows only 10 entries during the last two years.

“Routine” contracts register (FOI response)

Officials can’t say when items were approved by Councillors. There appears to be no documentation which would confirm that Councillors had even seen the register.

The register is also difficult to reconcile with the “on line” contracts list (for all local authorities) which can be found here

Any contracts valued at over £500,000 require formal member approval and should appear in the Councils forward programme of decisions. Some, but not all, have been listed.

Of course, the main question is whether the Council is getting good value for money?

There is still a lack of communication on contract specifications with sometimes on line descriptions being impenetrable (e.g. £880,000 being spent on “hard facilities management services”). There is also a lack of information on a contractors subsequent performance against targets. Mostly monitoring is done behind closed doors, if it is done at all.

We have asked the responsible Councillors to review contract letting and management arrangements.

Spark – Questions that need to be answered

In November 2016 we first heard of a plan to site shipping containers on Piccadilly and use them as vending units.

It was the start of “Containergate” with an outfit called Spark York persuading naive Councillors to give them the use of a prime site at 17/21 Piccadilly for a minimal rent.

As well as £13,333 a year in rent the Council was promised a 30% share of the profits which were forecast to total £213,085 over 3 years.

Business plan considered by York Council Executive Nov 2016

On that assurance, the Council spent £40,000 on installing new utility services to the site

The developers made a series of claims about what their (visually hideous) development would bring to the City. The small business growth figures strained everyone’s credulity but Councillors bought the line.

It subsequently transpired that the firm were unable to raise the £220,000 set up costs and had to resort to the commercial loans market. Although they had beneficial use of the site from September 2017, it was to be the following summer before Spark opened for business.

Further controversy followed the granting of planning permission. Quite simply the owners chose to ignore a series of conditions – including the need for a disabled access – and even now have failed to cover with cladding the garish street art which dominates the Piccadilly frontage.

The original business model failed, and the scheme concentrated on alcohol sales as its main form of income. It enjoyed a good summer in 2018 but the high noise levels proved to be a major irritant for the occupiers of nearby flats.

Thankfully the nightmare lease was due to come to an end in June. We would be rid of the containers and a start could be made on building something that would be a credit to the city.

But now York Councillor Nigel Ayre is apparently considering extending the Spark lease (The original decision was taken by the Councils Executive). He is being promised footfall and “economic vibrance” on Piccadilly, although the rest of the street is likely to be a building site for much of the next two years.

Spark are good at some things. PR is one. They held a party when they opened which was attended by the media and several Councillors and officials. It appears to have been an insurance policy judging by the report being considered next week.

The report fails to examine the performance of the company against the claims that they made in 2016.

Where is the list of small businesses Spark claim to have “incubated” at the premises?
The operators claim to have had a turnover of £3 million across the whole site yet the Council has had a zero share of any “profit”. (The original plan was for an annual turnover of £272,000 a year yielding a profit of £64,620). Where is the updated business plan?
Who at the Council agreed that the repayment of loans should take precedence over the Council being recompensed for its investment?
Where can a full set of accounts be viewed? (there is little information at Company House)
Why are no other options considered? Parking revenue alone could be worth around £100,000 a year even if a start on the permanent redevelopment of the site is delayed for 2 years
Is the Council still the preferred creditor if the business goes bust? It was told in 2016 that it could sell the containers to fund any outstanding infrastructure costs.
Why is no independent up to date valuation of the site assets provided?
How much have the Directors received in remuneration from Spark (and any subsidiaries) since September 2017
How much has been paid in Business Rates and how much is outstanding?
Who at the Council has received hospitality from Spark? Has it all been properly registered?
Where can financial details of the container occupants’ businesses be found?
Are any of the Spark Directors potential beneficiaries of any of these businesses?

Until these, and other, questions are answered it would be irresponsible for the Council to consider any extension of the lease.

In the meantime, the planning department should take enforcement action on outstanding breaches of the planning permission.

Other businesses in York deserve to be competing on a level playing field. They, and taxpayers, seem to be the losers in the current arrangement.

Castle “Gateway” development will cost £55 million

Officials recommend York Council borrows £45.8 million to fund major development

The York Council is being asked to fund phase 1 of the Castle Gateway development next week. The development includes

Providing the replacement MSCP at St George’s Field that will allow Castle Car Park to close and be replaced with new public realm
A new pedestrian cycle crossing over the inner-ring road
A new pedestrian cycle bridge over the Foss
A new public park at the rear of the Castle Museum and a riverside pocket park on Piccadilly
106 new apartments at Castle Mills – 20 of which would be new council housing – above street level commercial spaces suitable for small independent traders
New apartments above further commercial spaces at 17-21 Piccadilly

Contrary to expectations, the Council is planning to undertake the development itself putting potentially £55 million of taxpayer’s money at risk.

Masterplan for Castle Gateway

There is an estimated viability gap of £3.3 million even if all flats and commercial spaces are sold. £532,000 will be spent diverting a sewer on St Georges Field.

20 Council apartments would be built at Castle Mills at an estimated cost of £3.7 million.

The “delivery strategy” for the, long unused, 17-21 Piccadilly site (currently occupied by Spark) would not be determined before summer 2020. Officials want to build apartments above ground floor commercial units on the site. It is not clear why such a development could not be private sector led (reducing risks to taxpayers).

There is a danger that the Council, is now giving some elements of the £1.5 million “Masterplan” a “Moses” status.

The location of the £2.4 million Foss bridge, the £1.5 million Castle Museum park and the (frankly slightly odd) £800,000 inner ring road surface level crossing may all be nice to have but they are scarcely essential.

Even the multi storey car park at £14.2 million now looks like a very expensive way of facilitating the provision of a new park.

Simply selling the development sites – as surely the Council should have done with 17-21 Piccadilly by now – would produce a receipt of £6.6 million. This might be a useful insurance if the Councils other reckless property gambles (like the refurbishment of the Guildhall) go belly up.

Other major Council funding commitments like York Central and the outer ring-road are also imminent.

If the Council decides to go forward with the recommendations, then they would be wise to adopt a parallel path approach and seek alternative proposals from the market.

They would then be in a position to make an informed choice when they make a final decision later in the year.

A small change in the national economic picture could leave the Council with empty properties and no way of paying interest charges on its borrowings, without prompting massive public service cuts.

The Castle Mill development is scheduled to be completed in spring 2023; a few weeks before the next Council elections are scheduled to take place.

Issues reported in west York today

Verges need tidying up and damaged equipment replaced.

Another one for the new graffiti removal team

Acomb Moor damaged stile still not repaired. We understand that local Councillors are dealing

Dumping and litter blights nature area

“Investment in waste and environment services to include additional staffing on waste rounds, improved city centre cleaning and effective weed control”. That’s what the York Council is promising in their newly published budget for next year.

In total – over two years – an additional £1 million will be found for a new system of “neighbourhood working”.

This, says the Council, will “improve the waste collection service to residents by increasing the number of green waste collections, adding two extra green waste collections each March from 2021 onwards.

The pilot of 3 free replacement boxes per property will continue and be made permanent.

The Council will develop neighbourhood working models across public realm and waste to better respond to the communities needs building on the success of local management, ownership and responsibility elsewhere in the council.

The Council will work with York Business Improvement District to review how city centre cleansing can be improved. The resilience of the services will be improved by removing the reliance on fixed term staff.

In addition they will invest in the weed control service to increase the areas treated and, in response to the world wide ongoing challenge about the use of glyphosate, will trial alternative methods for dealing with weeds such as foams etc”.

The proposal is short on detail but improvements in cleaning services can’t come soon enough for some sub-urban areas.

Several amenity areas are now overwhelmed by fly tipping and litter.

The Westfield/Grange Lane park and adjacent nature area is a case in point and is particularly bad at present.

Westfield Park which is located between Grange Lane and Westfield Place

« Previous
1
…
7
8
9
10
11
…
55
Next »