Small business rate relief – non claimers in York

Power company fails to cash cheque

The Council has published a list of the business premises where the occupier may be able to claim Small Business Rates Relief but who had, by the end of July, not done so.

The list of properties with a Rateable Value of less than £12,000 can be accessed by clicking here

NB. Small businesses can only claim relief for one premise.

——————

The Council has also published a list of Business Rate refunds where the cheques have not been presented.

Click here for the list of un-presented cheques which includes, as well as companies that went into administration, some big names such as NPower, the Theatre Royal and the District Valuer (!)

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.

York Council Tax bill by Email?

The Council says that it can save £30,000 if residents agree to receive their Council Tax bills by Email.

To sign up for e-billing, all residents have to do is have their last council tax bill to hand and go to the council’s website at http://www.york.gov.uk/ and

◦Scroll to Do it Online
◦Select Apply for it
◦Scroll to Council Tax
◦Select Council Tax e-billing

York Council set to underspend budget allocated to help poor

Local Assistance Scheme only half forecast

It looks like the York Council will underspend its budget for welfare payments during the current financial year.

click to enlarge

The budget was delegated to the Council by the government replacing – in part – the Social Welfare fund.

It is intended to make emergency payments to less well off people who encounter unexpected expenses.

The York scheme is called the York Financial Assistance Scheme (YFAS). Its explanatory booklet says that the YFAS can be used to help with, for example:

• Expenses and household items to help you move out of residential care or stay in your home

• Rent or council tax payments

• Financial assistance in an emergency.

By the end of January nearly half of the Council’s £315,000 YFAS budget had not been committed.

A total of 1062 payments had been authorised with the authority saying that 176 of them were made to people aged under 25.

Given that the budget is not being fully spent this year, it is surprising that the Council announced last week that it will to add another £100,000 to the payments that it intends to make next year

———————-

Meanwhile many fears about Council Tax income are proving to be unfounded.

The York Council had collected 85% of monies due by the end of December. The same percentage as in 2012.

However the number in arrears with their Council Tax payments had increased from 5556 in 2012 to 7040 in 2013.

Of these 2601 were receiving Council Tax support (formerly known as “benefit”)

Perhaps surprisingly the numbers who had been referred to bailiffs had fallen from 3996 to 2902

The Council is budgeting next year to collect an additional £1/4 million through “further improvement of collection performance”.

Council leadership policy mistake costing average York resident £50 a year

The government has announced that how individual Councillors vote on crucial budget decisions – like Council Tax levels – will, in future, be published.

In York, such decisions are often the subject of a “recorded vote” anyway although it can be weeks before vigilant taxpayers can find the records in meeting minutes.

Meanwhile the government has again offered to underwrite the income required to freeze Council Tax levels. £779,000 has been offered to the City. The funding would continue in future years.

The Council has made poor decisions over the last 3 years when turning down this funding.

The inexperienced Labour leadership – wrongly – assumed that the subsidy would be available for 1 year only. In reality the government has built the payment into the basic grant that the City receives.

This means that York Council taxpayers are – on average – now paying over £50 a year more for local services than they would have been if the Council had accepted the central government offer.

Next year a band D council taxpayer will have to find £1,165.54 to pay for York Council services, to which will be added the costs of Fire (4% increase planned) and Police (2% increased proposed)

————–

The York Council is planning to give £1 million to the Leeds Council “infrastructure fund”.

In addition, around £300,000 in additional (new) Business Rates are being “pooled” with West Yorkshire Councils.

These are optional payments with no guarantee that any of the money will be invested in York.

A bridge too near?

The promised report on Labour plans for a new £10 million bridge near Wilton Rise has now been published.

It turns out that £1.5 million of this will be spent on consultant’s fees.

Housing numbers. click to enlarge

The report claims that the costs of the bridge would be repaid “from the additional income in Business Rates and Council Tax generated by the new developments” (on the York central site).

It then goes on to claim that 1083 new homes will be provided. That is a surprise because the draft Local Plan published by Labour in April assumed only 438 homes would be constructed on this site.

However, the housing numbers included in the Labour draft Local Plan have already been undermined with actual planning applications submitted, and approved, over the last 6 months being in every case higher than the Plan estimate
.
Therefore a much higher housing figure is a legitimate target for the York central site.

The present coalition government policy does encourage development and allows local authorities to retain and invest, for 6 years, additional Council Tax monies generated by new homes (New Homes Bonus).

Business Rates have also been “localised”. So an increase in income from additional commercial buildings would increase the amount that the Council receives from Business Rates. However government grants, which seek to equalise Council income between “prosperous” and less well off areas, could be reduced.

No business case of any sort has been provided for the meeting next week.

In addition to the homes, the “plan” talks about “building 93,000 sq m of office space with ancillary bar, restaurant, retail and leisure uses” in 2015.

A further 35,000 sq m would be built in 2019 in the form on a commercial area “in front of the station” and would include a new hotel although most would be more offices.

Of course, any incremental development in the City provides similar increases in Council income plus more jobs and homes.

Residents might have expected any income to be earmarked to pay for repairs to the public services in the City which have deteriorated so badly over the last 3 years.

Public consultation results – York central access options

Incredibly, the Council is being asked to earmark the £10 million without a development “Masterplan” being in place.

As a result no planning permission exists for the development.

The absence of a business plan is the major problem at present. It remains unclear how the site clean up will be funded (it is heavily polluted) nor is there any guarantee that other transport infrastructure needs can be financed.

From the information, that has been made available, it does seem that the Councils investment will not be underwritten in any way.

It is therefore a very high risk venture.

There is no proposal to form a joint development company which would allow Council Taxpayers to share in the success of any development (to offset the substantial risk)

The legal restrictions – which apply across Europe – on subsidising private companies are not explored in the paper.

Like the sale of the Haymarket car park on Hungate – for around 50% of its current open market value – the Council is being both naïve and reckless with taxpayers money. The promised offices and hotel on Hungate have yet to move forward and so have provided no economic stimulus for the City.

The “Bridge to Nowhere” could well be a similar embarrassment.

With the national economy improving, and some local developers reflecting the more buoyant approach in the City, less risky ways to kick start important developments like York Central should be considered.

York Council’s £3.5 million payment to local Universities

The York Council has released details of the payments that it has made to local Universities over the last 4 years.

Click to download full list

In total, payments of around £3.5 million have been made although the vast majority of this (£3 million) was a grant to York University for the provision of a County Standard swimming pool. The scheme – part of the new “sports village” on Hull Road – was agreed after the Barbican pool closed and was paid for from the proceeds of the sale of the land there.

In total £192,519 has been paid to St Johns University. The largest payments were made to an anti bullying campaign although the University receives significant payments from taxpayers for the “Higher York” organisation.

The University of York fee payments range from £170,000 paid for the York Cares organisation (which managess voluntary projects in the City) to £850 for a speaker at a “women’s development session”.

All Council expenditure is now being closely scrutinised following the decision of the Labour Leadership to remove winter salt bins from key foopath locations in the City.

The bins cost only £50 a time to fill.

NB. At the last Council meeting the Labour Leadership revealed that it will pay £31,000 to York Athletics Club as a sweetener to move out of the Huntington Stadium. It had been intended to provide a replacement athletics facility at the sports village but Labour now propose to fund the refurbishment of the existing University athletics field.

Council frozen into inactivity on Lendal Bridge failings

We are still receiving a large number of adverse comments from visitors who have been caught out by the ANPR cameras on Lendal Bridge

A selection is reproduced below.

None of the Cabinet Councillors responsible is prepared to respond publicly to the criticisms and the local media increasingly adopt a supine approach to Labour’s excesses.

The Press haven’t even published the footfall figures, which were released last week, and which showed a 12% drop in the number of visitors in the City since the traffic restrictions were introduced.

Disillusion with the local democratic system is resulting in residents shunning the Councils activities.

-The annual “democracy week” attracted low attendances.

– Few residents attend the new ward forums

– The much vaunted (and expensive) web casting of Cabinet meetings attracts a tiny audience

– While the so called “housing week” events attracted in the main only officials and Labour members.

The Councils procession from the Guildhall to its new offices attracted City wide derision.

So it does raise the question of what residents can do, in a democracy, if their views are totally ignored by an inflexible Council leadership?

In the end, the answer will be to ensure that it never happens again.

Reintroduction of the “so called” committee system where decisions are take (at meetings open to the public) by all party groups, looks increasingly attractive.

Cabinet/Executive members have no delegated authority to act under such a system.

We will see if this option finds its way into the party manifestos for the local elections in 2015.

Sadly other options for reinvigorating the democratic system in the City (annual elections and smaller wards) have so far been rejected by the Boundary Commission

In the meantime those who have suffered through the bad planning of new traffic restrictions, who are appalled at the profligate expenditure of the Council, who oppose the ridiculous plan to increase the City’s size by 25% over the next 15 years, who fear the impact that new de-icing schedules will have on safety or who reject the idea that 20 mph is the right speed limit for all urban roads, should continue to make their views known to local Labour Councillors.

There is evidence that’s some of them are now beginning to question the style and content of the Alexander leadership.

Only 18 months to the next Council election. For some businesses though they will come too late.

Recent feedback includes these comments
(more…)

£16 million owed to York Council

The Council has published a list of the outstanding amounts owed to it in each of the last 3 years.

The size of the debt shows an upward trend which could lead to cash flow problems if not reversed.

Although many of the debts will eventually be recovered, some will not.

There have been significant increases in the amounts owed on business rates, former tenant arrears and sundry debts.

In total the amounts owed have increased from £12 million to £16 million over a 3 year period.

« Previous
1
…
3
4
5
6
7
Next »