Budget 2015 packed with Liberal Democrat policies

The final Budget of this Parliament has Liberal Democrat policies at its core.

The Budget confirms that Liberal Democrats in government are building a stronger economy and a fairer society, creating opportunity for everyone.

In government we have ensured that Britain has kept on the path to recovery in a way that is fair.

We won’t jeopardise our economy credibility by overseeing a Budget that is a pre-election giveaway. That’s why everything in the Budget is paid for, and in a fair way.

It is because of our sound economic management that we can afford to deliver these policies.

And to help pay for these policies we are taking further steps to clamp down on tax avoidance by multinational companies and ensuring banks make a fair contribution by increasing the bank levy.

This Budget is packed full of policies that deliver Liberal Democrat priorities:
(more…)

2015/16 Budget bills sent to all households by York Council

Following approval by City of York Council’s Full Council to set its Budget for 2015/16, the authority is now issuing council tax information to over 86,000 households in the city with details of their new payments for the year from April.

Council tax payers can also sign up to receive their council tax bills by email. The fast, free, environmentally-friendly and secure service is available online at www.york.gov.uk in the Do it Online area. The service gives them instant and 24/7 access to their bill and they will be sent an email notification when their new bill is ready.

The Council has for the first time in 4 years accepted a government subsidy which means that Council Tax bills have been frozen

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:

Scroll to Do it Online
Select Apply for it
Scroll to Council Tax
Select Council Tax e-billing – then follow the instructions from there.

As soon as their bill is available they will be sent an email notification and will be able to view their account securely online at any time and download and print the bill if needed. Each person named on the bill can arrange to receive their own e-copy.

City of York Council has a net revenue budget of £119.6million, funded by Council tax income of £72.8million, government grant of £21.0million, Retained Business Rates of £24.1million. A one off income of £1.8million has also been identified from a surplus Collection fund of Council Tax and council reserves.

The budget – voted through by Labour with Green party support – includes highly controversial proposals such as the introduction a £35 pa charge for emptying (all) green bins, a reduction in grey bin emptying frequency to once every 3 or 4 weeks and an end to support for local Community Centres.

The price that Green Councillors secured in return for their votes was a 10p per hour increase in car parking charges.

York has the 14th lowest band D council tax, the 3rd lowest spend per head of population of any unitary council in England and the 8th lowest government funding per head in the country.

Council Tax frozen in York

…..as Green Councillors and Tory turncoat vote through massive cuts in public services

The Labour budget was tonight passed as once again the 2 Green Councillors sided with Labour.

On this occasion they were joined by Cllr Watt who was elected in 2011 as a Conservative for the Skelton area. He supported a budget which will cripple public services in the City while continuing to prioritise “vanity” projects paid for by a large increase in borrowing. It was a truly astonishing policy somersault.

The only significant “concession” that the Greens won in return for their votes was a promise to provide a “free” bus service between the station and the hospital. The £150,000 cost will be paid for by another big increase in car parking charges in central York (by 10p per hour).

NB. Bus passengers can currently use the number 1 or 6 to get from the station to the hospital, although the passengers numbers using this link are modest

The Greens rapidly diminishing credibility took another battering as they voted for a cuts package which includes so called “rewiring savings”. These will see basic public services like grass cutting, street sweeping and community centres hit hard.

Labour plan to charge for emptying all green bins and have supported reducing grey bin emptying frequencies to once very 3 or 4 weeks.

The Greens also voted to spend even less than Labour proposed on dealing with icy roads in winter.

The only really original proposal put to the meeting – the plan aimed at regenerating York’s deteriorating housing estates – failed to get majority support.

However there is every chance that after the local elections on May 7th, the new Labour/Green coalition will be thrown out.

This will allow the new Council to rejig the budget if it chooses to do so.

After 5 years of talk, muddle, delay and confusion, Labour abandon plan for Lowfields Elderly Care Village

£1 million wasted on aborted project?

Acomb care village site – project abandoned

Labour have today admitted that they have failed to deliver a new modern facility – aimed at older people – on the site of the former Lowfields school.

The Council report can be read by clicking here

Talks with potential contractors have been abandoned and the future of the site has been thrown into the air again.

The site had been “marketed” jointly with the Burnholme school site on the other side of the City (which may still go ahead)

Residents in the west of the City were hoping to see the equivalent of the Hartrigg Oaks facility, which Rowntree Housing manage on the other side to the City, built in Acomb. The Lowfields site was considered to be ideal because it is within walking distance of all major services and facilities. It is close to a frequent buss service.

Although the retirement village was agreed in 2010 by the last LibDem administration, the project was derailed when Labour took office in 2011. They tried unsuccessfully to develop the scheme as a Council run home…. believed to be a condition which a local government union imposed when funding Labours last election campaign.

“In house” provision proved to be unaffordable with build figures of over £20 million leaked to the media in 2012.

The project then went the same way as the Community Stadium plan, with additional requirements being heaped onto potential developers making the whole scheme unviable.

Instead of admitting failure 2 years ago, Labour continued with a doomed “procurement process” until today’s’ announcement brought the sorry saga to an end

The project was 5 years behind schedule and is probably a bigger example of mismanagement than even the Lendal Bridge fiasco.

Clearly one big question is how much has been spent (staff time, “soft marketing”, plans, procurement etc.) so far on the Lowfields project?

Some sources put the figure at over £1 million.

The U turn will cause consternation in elderly care facilities across the City. Some were destined to close when occupiers moved to the brand new state of the art village.

Now it seems that some may be modernised with suggestions that there could be a new facility and health hub at Oakhaven.

The Council has promised to work with current providers to provide improved facilities especially for dementia sufferers. A £2.5m extension to Glen Lodge may be built for dementia care.

The level of care at Auden House is to be “improved”.

Labour have said that they want to build houses and flats on the Lowfields school site.

Our view is that local residents should be consulted and that the Council should remember that, while the care village had widespread support, alternative building plans were viewed with suspicion by the local community.

Obviously all this will be overtaken by the elections in May when most people expect Labour to be ousted from the leadership of the York Council.

Liberal Democrats still believe in the principle of establishing a quiet, caring, environment for older people in Acomb.

We would look to make the Lowfields site available to providers with the experience and drive to move the project forward again.

The tragedy unfolds – year by year guide to failure (click for details)

2011 May – Developers offer to build care village at Lowfields
2011 Aug – “Future of care homes homes” consultation starts
2012 Jan – Council plans to build on Lowfields playing fields, according to leaked documents
2012 April – Council announce 2014 opening date for Lowfields care village
2012 May – “Private sector to run Lowfields care village” Council announces
2012 Dec – Council announce delays to Lowfields Care Village. 2014 opening date abandoned
2013 May – Lowfields care village opening slips to 2016; huge cost increase
2013 Nov – “Dementia Support” promised for Lowfields Care Village.
2014 July – Secrecy descends on school site plans
2014 Dec – Labour Cabinet member accused of “dithering” on Lowfield project
2015 Jan – “In light of continuing care crisis in NHS”, Scrutiny Committee chair forced to submit Freedom of Information request
2015 Feb 23rd – Council announces it is abandoning the Lowfields care village project

Drop in car parking income bad news for York Council Taxpayers

“Meddling” by Labour Cabinet blamed for £400,000 shortfall in next years car parking income.

Car parking income click to enlarge

Fewer drivers are paying to use York’s car parks since controversial changes were made by the Labour lead Council. Labour famously doubled some charges when they came to office in 2011 and then tried to mitigate the effects with a series of ill-considered marketing trials.

The biggest drop predictably comes at the, now closed, Haymarket car park where nearly £150,000 a year in income has been lost. The site was sold by Labour two years ago as part of a much bigger land deal which also saw the former ambulance station and Peasholme hostel sites in Hungate included in the sale package. The sale to an insurance company, at the depth of the recession, bought in little over £2 million; less than half its present day value.

The parking income figures were revealed to members of a scrutiny committee which is chaired by Cllr Andrew Waller.

The reports also revealed that only around £80,000 has been paid by drivers for the, £20 a time, new style Minster badges which entitle users to free evening parking and day time discounts. This suggests that sales levels were exaggerated last year. Over 30,000 of the old (free) badges were in circulation

The cost of the “free parking” days is put at £250,000 a year. It is unclear whether the Council will be able to afford to continue the scheme into the new budget year.

The introduction of barrier controls at the Marygate car park may have contributed to a £128,000 fall in income at that site.

The only car park performing significantly above financial expectations is Esplanade (which has been designated as “short stay” for several years now).

“On street” parking income is performing above target, but accounts for less than 10% of the Councils income.

The Council has now been forced to reduce its forecast of car parking income for the forthcoming year by £400,000 meaning that savings on other public services will have to be made.

The Councils decision to tinker with car parking charging arrangements has proved to be damaging to the City.

We hope that they will allow things to stabilise over the next few years.

“It’s almost as if they didn’t want us to know”

Council delivers notification leaflet after meeting has taken place!

Following on from our story yesterday, the Council has started to issue a survey form to residents asking for their views on cutting public services (aka “rewiring”).

Most residents have yet to receive the leaflet which advertises a “drop in” taking place at the Acomb Library on …err yesterday. (There are other “drop in” dates next week)

No attempt was made by the Council to publicise yesterday’s event. No media release was issued. The Consultation is not listed on the Council web site and cannot be downloaded from there. (Although we have provided a link HERE to a copy on “dropbox”)

The Council has for some reason set up a separate, impenetrable, web site containing what it describes as background information http://rewiringyork.com/ . Most residents won’t, of course, know it even exists. There is no link shown from the Council web site.

The rewiring blog makes much of the Council’s new (under development) web site – but fails to acknowledge the leap backwards on communications that has taken place over the last 12 months (the facility to report issues like broken street lights and potholes using the internet was withdrawn by the present administration – increasing pressure on an already overburdened “contact centre”)

The content of the leaflet is risible.

It says that residents can see a copy of the “business case” for change on the blog site. No such business case is visible.

The leaflet says “the proposed changes will have an effect on the frequency, accessibility and cost of services such as waste collection and STREET CLEANSING”. It talks of changes to “roads”

Waste collection “survey”

The leaflet fails to say how much green bin emptying will cost a resident under Labour’s plans and doesn’t’ even mention “street cleansing” or “roads” again.

The leaflet makes the bold statement that the Council “needs” to save £2.5 million from “this service area” They mean street level public services but don’t define them or mention current standards.

The statement is in any event untrue.

The Council can make savings in other areas. Many capital investment plans (new access bridge into the station land, new Scarborough footbridge, turning the Guildhall into a media centre etc) could be shelved with annual savings on borrowing costs equivalent to the amount being cut from essential street services.

£9.32 million on Guildhall media centre

It’s not all bad. Investment in LED lights may well save energy and running costs, and MAY prove to be more reliable and durable than the exiting street lighting systems. But there is no information provided which allows residents to make an informed judgement on that claim.

Included is a very limited prioritisation list. It muddles service improvement (collecting kitchen waste) with service reductions (charging for all green bin emptying & reducing the frequency of grey bin emptying to monthly).

The costs and implications of the latter two “options” are not explained.

So what does it really mean?

Labour are seeking endorsement for their plans to:

Reduce the investment in road and footpath repairs
Reduce the number of sub-urban litter bins
Sweep streets less frequently
Reduce grey bin emptying to once a month
Make an annual charge to everyone who has a green bin
Get local “volunteers” to “manage” parks and open spaces.

Should I respond to the survey?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t

Silence may be pronounced as contentment with the changes planned by “rewiring” supporters.

On the other hand, prioritising a very limited number of options could be used as a justification for an unpopular change to waste collection arrangements (just about the only Council service that every resident uses).

The survey couldn’t be answered “on line” so freepost returns will cost taxpayers over 40p each, putting more pressure on public service standards.

NB. Belatedly the Council have now put the survey on line but without the option to suggest alternatives to their limited list of questions

What we’d do

Send an Email with your views to rewiringyork@york.gov.uk.

Say that the Council should abandon other, less essential, projects to make savings.

Say that core street level public service standards should be sustained.

Tell the Council to make future consultations timely, fairer giving full information on costs, provide a wider range of options and offer a flexible “on line” response option.

Council failing to communicate on major public service changes

Jargon used to hide York Councils real intentions

Residents attending today’s “drop in” at the Acomb Library (1:00pm – 5:00pm) should beware.

They will be talking to the “rewiring” team about changes to “place based” services.

Use of jargon and euphemisms is a well tested way of disguising the true motivations and intentions of corrupt organisations

In reality the proposals in York include plans to charge for waste collection while making local residents responsible for managing and maintaining local parks and open spaces.

Council to charge for refuse collection

The PR campaign is part of an emerging trend with the Council encouraging other propaganda initiatives aimed at influencing public opinion…..while being economical with the facts

These may include the ostensibly independent (business led) @YorkLocalPlan twitter account.

This group advocates building “at least” 850 additional homes in the City each year and erroneously claims that there is only room for 5000 to be built on brownfield land. In fact, over 2000 additional brownfield planning permissions have been granted during the last 2 years…. all on brownfield sites which were not identified on the draft Local Plan for housing. More are in the pipeline.

Still at least that organisation is unashamedly driven by vested commercial interests.

More worrying is the impenetrable “rewiring” project. It aims to save over £4.5 million a year for the Council.

Of this £800,000 will be cut from street level public services.

It is dressed up as a devolution project in a report to the Councils Cabinet next week

The reality is given away in a paragraph in another report which says,

” Community Open Space Management – As part of the review of Place Based Services the Council are looking to transfer the management of open space to local communities. Such a transfer would reduce both day to day and long term costs and enable the Council to achieve savings”.

The Council report – rightly – does criticise some local Councillors for not providing “leadership”.

In truth many – particularly on the Labour side – do not live in the wards that they represent and rarely even visit the people that they are supposed to represent. They don’t produce newsletters, don’t survey public service quality standards and only follow up issues when there is an election in the offing. They are the people who are least likely to drive community action.

It is also fanciful to suggest that all communities have the capacity to take on public service management .

While the devolution of powers to local communities is welcome

Seeking a way of blaming local volunteers for a deterioration in public service standards is a deplorable tactic

York Council plans huge increase in borrowing

£1 million a year in interest charges to be added to Council Tax burden

Labour Council leaders say that they want to spend an additional £44 million on capital schemes in the City.

Potentially controversial projects include:

Scarborough footbridge £3 million bill

£3 million on a replacement Scarborough (foot/cycle) bridge (the adjacent rail bridge is currently being renewed in a completely separate project)
£12.1 million on new IT systems (£1.8 million of which will be charged to Council tenants)
£1.8 million on further “reinvigorating” York work
£11.0 million on a bridge into the York Central site
£800,000 on LED street lamps (despite the Council poor performance in getting existing lights repaired)

No provision has been made for the new Elderly Care facilities at Lowfields or Burnholme – effectively confirming that the Council intends either to abandon these projects or hand them over to the private sector.

Instead a further £300,000 is to be spent repairing existing homes.

Summary of new growth proposals click to enlarge

Also missing is any reference to investment in the Guildhall although the last Labour Cabinet meeting authorised a £9.2 million scheme to convert it into a Digital and Arts Media centre.

The Council is making cuts to road resurfacing (structural maintenance) with its contribution falling from £1.0 million next year to £3/4 million in future years.

Labour intend to impose wheeled bins on terraced houses – sparking fears that wars, about the impact that collection points may have on neighbouring properties, will be reignited.

There is a lot missing from the published programme – or hidden from public view.

Despite promises that the “Combined Authority” link with West Yorkshire would provide capital investment funding for transport improvements such as the dualling of the northern by pass, no such contribution is shown during the next 5 years.

Congestion on northern by pass set to continue?

Similarly no new economic development funding is shown – leaving hopes, for a regeneration initiative in Acomb, floating in the air.

The housing programme once again fails to recognise the need for a face-lift on many sub-urban estates, despite the surplus on the housing account now approaching £15 million.

It is likely that Liberal Democrat Councillors will seek to use some of this surplus to tackle parking issues on some of the older estates where road widths are relatively narrow.

Should we be worried about the Councils increasing debt burden?

Planned Council borrowing levels click to enlarge

The York Council currently owes about £330 million.

That is set to rise to £348 million over the next 2 years.

This is an historic high and means that a significant proportion of the taxes being paid (around 14%) are being absorbed by interest and repayment costs.

The Council is currently borrowing at an interest rate of about 4% pa

The new proposals (above) will add around £28 to the average tax bill.

Government grant settlement for York Council announced.

Council Tax levels set to be frozen

The York Council has fared relatively well in the grant settlement announced today.

The Councils “spending power” will fall by only 0.1% against a national average of 1.8%.

The “spending power” figure combines regular central government funding with one-off grants and things like Council Tax, a proportion of business rates and other fees and charges.

The government has also confirmed that it will underwrite the costs of freezing Council Tax levels. The new Labour leadership have promised to accept the offer of support unlike their predecessors who hiked up Council Tax rates unnecessarily.

York Council heading for £1.3 million overspend?

A report being considered next week suggests that the York Council could over spend its budget this year by £1.3 million.

Coppergate – York Council failure, to win appeal against unlawful fines issue, could plunge it into a financial crisis

The – much delayed – half year report does not include any deficit which may arise from outstanding issues on the Coppergate/Lendal bridge fine refund policy.

Other areas of concern identified in the report include

Waste There is a forecast overspend of £98k due to lower than budgeted income from commercial waste, £100k shortfall in income from garden waste subscription, £100k due to the forecast shortfall in dividend from Yorwaste and £233k pressure at Household Waste and Recycling Centres primarily due to lower than expected income from charges
Car Parking There is a continued shortfall from parking income (£408k) and “ongoing monitoring will be required to assess the impact of the current parking initiatives, including the charges for Minster Badges, the free parking introduced in late June and pay-on-exit at Marygate”.
Social Care There is a significant projected overspend of £864k within the Elderly Persons Homes budgets.

A separate report identifies problems with the Councils capital investment programme.

Failure to move ahead with the reuse of the Guildhall means that £350,000 of “critical” repairs will now be needed.

And a major problem is arising with the Councils existing Elderly Persons Homes. These were supposed to have closed by now having been replaced by the new care village at Lowfields. But that project is 3 years behind schedule and the existing buildings will need to be patched up at a cost of £500,000!

**The report ominously warns “existing EPH’s are currently in need of renovation, some aspects of which are threatening their ability to pass Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection”.**

« Previous
1
…
9
10
11
12
13
…
15
Next »