Sign of the times

It looks like the traditional figure signposts on the City centre will start to disappear shortly.

New direction sign in foreground. Old finger sign in background

The project to replace them with a “modern” equivalent could cost taxpayers £350,000 with a similar matching contribution coming from the York Bid.

Controversial in many ways, the timing of the expenditure looks even more suspect against the background  of a City centre now desperately trying to attract local shoppers.

The future off the redundant finger signposts has been highlighted by a campaigning Councillor. He wants to repurpose the posts for use in sub-urban York and in the surrounding villages.

This seems like a sound idea.

A new cast iron post can cost as much as £4,300 and repurposing existing signs would not only be cheaper but would also meet the Council’s environmental objectives.

Arguably the finger signs are also less visually intrusive designed as they were to complement Conservation Areas.

So what will happen to the recovered posts?

No one seems to know.

There are many locations – not least the routes of the public rights of way made even more popular for exercise during lock-down – which would benefit from better way marking.

Consigning the iron posts to the scrap heap would add insensitivity to the poor judgement of the original decision.  

York Council wants to borrow more money

The York Council leadership has written to the government asking for restrictions on borrowing to be eased.

The request comes in the wake of claims that the City faces a £24 million black hole in its finances.  The Council was urged last week to provide more details of the deficit but has so far failed to do so.

The only information available to the public was published prior to the last executive committee meeting at the beginning of May.  This showed that much of the deficit as made up of Council Tax and Rates income defaults although £10.9million was the assumed cost of extra social care.

Council budget deficit as at 7th May 2020

No savings for reduced travel, energy and materials costs were included.

Now Council Leader Keith Aspden has written to Local Government Minister Robert Jenrick making a case for government support.

Perhaps surprisingly the letter concentrates on the Councils borrowing powers. The present Council leadership committed to a £560 million investment programme only a few weeks ago and is now agonising about how much it can actually deliver in the new financial climate.

It has separately said that it will press on with the York Central development although many will feel that some of the basic assumptions about office and retail growth are now redundant. It seems the best – most fanciful – hope is that the government will agree to move the House of Lords to the site.

The Council leadership also says that it wants a 2 year moratorium on making a “minimum revenue provision” in its budget. This is the funding set aside to repay interest and principal repayments on borrowing. The implication of not paying off this debt (most is borrowed over a 20 year period) could be to push a bow wave of debt onto future generations.

Council letter to government 18th May 2020

This tactical approach is also exposed by another request in the letter.

The Council wants to borrow to cover revenue expenditure – a bit like taking out a bank loan to buy a jar of jam.

The Council goes on to ask for the suspension of S114 “so that struggling Councils don’t have to deliver a balanced budget in the medium term”. 

Section 114 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 requires the Chief Finance Officer, in consultation with the council’s monitoring officer, to report to all the authority’s members if there is, or is likely to be, an unbalanced budget. In practice, this is most likely to be required in a situation in which reserves have become depleted and it is forecast that the council will not have the resources to meet its expenditure in a particular financial year. A full council meeting must then take place within 21 days to consider the notice. In the meantime, no new agreements involving spending can be entered into.

Many will feel that issues like these do require full and public debate. That will involve ensuring that all Councillors and taxpayers are alerted to [problems at the earliest opportunity.

The Council could make a start by providing a candid and full disclosure of its financial position.

It should then go on to review its financial strategy and options in a way that promotes understanding by local residents.

Government boost for ailing York highways

City of York Council is getting a £5.592 million grant from the government to be spent on road maintenance. It would effectively double this years resurfacing and repair budget, although the phasing of the grant hasn’t been confirmed.

York residents say the worse public service in the City is road repairs

When the Council published its repairs budget a few weeks ago it attracted criticism as many paths and carriageways – although uneven and potentially hazardous – were omitted from the programme.

The new money should allow the Council to begin to restore the highways network to standards last seen in the previous decade.

How quickly additional resurfacing capacity can be made available by the Council and its contractors remains to be seen.

We hope that the focus will be on large scale patching and complete carriageway resurfacing schemes, avoiding the prospect of hastily filled potholes reappearing when bad weather returns.

West York snubbed in cycling budget hand out

The Council has allocated virtually the whole of its pedestrian/cycling budget to schemes in central York. £500,000 had been earmarked for delegation for ward committees to spend addressing local issues.

In a decision list (below)  published today, the work programme concentrates on cycling schemes claiming that no improvements for walkers were identified (other than possible long term improvements to pedestrian crossings).

There is no funding allocated for schemes in the Westfield, Dringhouses, Holgate,  Acomb or Rural West wards.

Even pleas for cycle margin work on roads like Bradley Lane, Foxwood Lane and School Street have been ignored, as has a request for resurfacing work on the Knapton – Rufforth off road cycle track. The latter has been heavily used during the lockdown period with sections now breaking up .

Works to improve access for walkers don’t even rate a mention in the decision notice.

No action to tackle public footpath ponding

Among the schemes local Councillors were asked to back were actions to tackle difficulties on footpaths linking Westfield Place and Grange Lane as well as within the Council maintained section of Acomb Wood. All that was required at these locations were short sections of chippings to avoid flooded areas. A relatively inexpensive initiative.

Despite the budget apparently having been delegated for local determination, it seems to have been carved up by an official in discussions with the (Executive) Councillor for Fishergate; a ward which gets the bulk of the funding along with the Guildhall and Micklegate areas. There is no sign in the report of any influence on priorities by ward Councillors or residents.

It is unclear how much each scheme will cost, but it is unlikely that the funding will stretch far down the list.

Cycle margin leveling would encourage more cycling

The money could probably most usefully have been allocated to cycle margin repair work. This type of resurfacing programme sees the inner 2 metres of the most uneven carriageways levelled to allow safe passage for two wheeled machines. There was a margins repair programme in place until about 2011 when it was scrapped.

A further £500,000 was allocated for highway repair works which should also have been determined by local Councillors at neighbourhood level.

The Council has not said where this money will be spent although the recent lockdown has served to highlight just how poor some road surfaces are. A list of priorities in Westfield was given to Ward Councillors some 6 months ago but so far there has been no response.

The latest controversy, following on from the Bishopthorpe Road carriageway closure, may serve to confirm the views of those taxpayers who feel that sections of the Council are now out of control and are pursuing their own blinkered, parochial agenda.

The Council Leader may need to make some changes to Executive portfolios if he is to avoid large sections of the York community becoming increasingly alienated from his administration.

Funding to be fast tracked to support York residents through the impact of coronavirus

Local ward funding is to be accelerated and used flexibly to help community organisations respond to local needs during the outbreak of coronavirus. 

This source of funding is ideal for supporting local charities, community groups and other agencies delivering the support to residents in need.

Ward Councillors are being encouraged to work with their communities to identify needs and solutions and use their ward budgets accordingly. The Council will be as flexible and as responsive as we can in approving expenditure, so long as it complies with the council’s financial regulations.

The Council will be able to process applications very quickly to ensure that funding can be with the relevant community organisation immediately for use to support local residents.

Any groups interested in applying for ward funding should go to www.york.gov.uk/WardGrantApplications to submit their application. To find out more, contact the Council’s Communities team, email: shapingneighbourhoods@york.gov.uk or telephone: 01904 551832.

Cllr Darryl Smalley, Executive Member for Culture, Leisure and Communities at City of York Council, said:

City of York Council is doing everything possible respond to the current situation, and the latest part of this is ensuring that every penny possible goes to those on the frontline in the coming weeks.

“Ward Councillors have been urged to consider how the ward budgets, particularly the Safer Communities Fund, can be deployed in a way that supports their communities through Coronavirus.

Ward committee funding will be as flexible as possible and any funds granted for date-specific activities will be extended until it is safe for them to be held.”

Shocking list of empty Council owned properties in York

Thursday can’t come soon enough for York taxpayers. On that day the City’s planning committee will decide whether to allow the Ashbank former social services building on Shipton Road to be converted into residential accommodation.

Ashbank has now been empty for a shocking 7 years.

Together with the Guildhall, it is the Councils most underused asset.

The above list was produced in response to a Freedom of Information request. The rates column indicates what the Council might have received if the properties had been let. To this must be added either the proceeds of a sale or lease income.

Several other valuable properties including Oakhaven in Acomb and the prime Willow House site next to the bar walls have also now been unused for over 3 years.

There are ongoing maintenance and security costs at each site.

The list does not include several brownfield sites which are suitable for development. These include the land to the rear of Acomb Library which was purchased 12 years ago but remains unused (currently it is a building compound).

Many years ago the Council used to have a Policy and Resources committee. One of its tasks was to challenge and optimise the use of the Councils portfolio. Sadly it was replaced by a “scrutiny” committee which rarely expresses any interest in the efficiency of the Councils processes.

Six monthly capital programme reports to the Councils Executive often fail to provide an update on long term unused assets. When they do get a mention it is restricted to a couple of anodyne sentences.

It is not just commercial properties that are a cause for concern.

The Councils housing department still often has a 10% vacancy rate on its garage blocks. There are waiting lists for garages in most parts of the City. Some of the garages are located in the City Centre where demand is high.

January 2020

The housing department has been told to advertise all vacancies in order to maximise income. They have failed to do so.

They don’t even make full use of free social media channels.

The result is that the Council loses thousands of pounds of income each month while on street parking spaces becomes unnecessarily congested.

Theatre Royal £500,000 Council grant decision next week – still few details available

The York Council is expected next week to confirm an additional grant of £1/2 million to the Theatre Royal.

The plan – which will be classified as “capital expenditure” and will increase the Councils already large capital debt – was revealed during the recent budget debate.

The report to the decision meeting which take place on 16th March is unsatisfactory in several respects. It fails to include essential information about the Theatres financial performance.

As a minimum the 2018/19 outturn, the 2019/20 and the (draft) 2020/21 budget should be made public. At the moment taxpayers have no idea whether the Theatre is profitable or not (probably not!).

There is no detail of the Theatres medium term business plans. There is no comment from the York Councillors (Crawshaw, Daubeney, Mason) who are supposed to look after the Council and residents’ financial interests on the Theatre Board

In 2015 the Council decided to sell the Theatre Royal building to the York Conservation Trust for £1. The Trust is a benign body which agree to make a major investment in essential repairs. The Council said that it planned to stop its annual support grant to the Theatre but instead agreed to make a contribution of £770,000 towards a £4.1 million restoration project. This project was intended to make the Theatre self-supporting.  The Council’s responsible executive member told the York Press in February 2016 “This funding agreement will strengthen York Theatre Royal’s sustainability for the future”

Theatre Royal refurbishment 2016

The refurbishment overran its timescale and the Theatre was effectively closed for nearly a year.

The most worrying aspect of the new deal is the decision to borrow money to fund it. The Council report says that the £500,000 borrowing will cost taxpayers “£35,000 a year” in interest charges and principal repayments. Only if the Council borrows the money over a 20 year term. Some of the proposed expenditure (IT, box office software) will be on items with an expected lifetime of less than 7 years. Borrowing money over a period longer than the life of an asset would be financial madness.

A more realistic borrowing time-frame would be 10 years, meaning taxpayers would be committed to ongoing payments of around £65,000 a year. 

NB The Council aggregates all its borrowing requirements and currently enjoys interest payments on its borrowings of less than 5%

Then there is the question of whether more investment will be sought in 4 years time?

The Council should not agree the expenditure without publishing a lot more information about the financial trajectory for the Theatre.

In the event of it ceasing trading, most of the taxpayer investment would be unrecoverable.

The demise of the Rose Theatre last year has already left the York taxpayer with a £40,000 plus bill.

It could be viewed by the Council as a timely warning about the need for prudent and well informed decisions.

Council Budget passed

The York Council approved the LibDem/Green budget last night

In an unconnected development, the Council is today inviting residents to sign up for FREE suicide prevention training workshops in the City

People are being encouraged to sign up for free suicide prevention training workshops in York next month as part of the #TalkSuicide campaign from local NHS and council organisations.

The Humber, Coast and Vale Health and Care Partnership is hosting two workshops in York on Tuesday, 10th March 2020 at Mariott Room, York Library, Library Square, York YO1 7DS – and members of the public are invited to attend to learn life-saving skills.

These one-hour workshops, which will run between 9.30am-10.30am and 11am-12pm, are free to attend but it is essential to register beforehand. You can register at bit.ly/talksuicideyork.

There were 6,507 registered suicides in the UK in 2018 – which amounts to one death by suicide every 80 minutes. Yorkshire and Humber had some of the highest rates of suicide in England in 2018.

The suicide prevention workshops will be group training sessions, including interactive video-based training from the Zero Suicide Alliance and discussion with people who work in suicide prevention within our local community. Free refreshments will be available.

Completing the training at the workshop will help you to:

  • Identify the signs of when someone might be suffering from suicidal thoughts.
  • Feel comfortable speaking out about suicide in a supportive manner. 
  • Signpost anyone suffering from suicidal thoughts to the correct services and support. 

The workshops are part of the Partnership’s #TalkSuicide campaign, which aims to reduce the stigma around talking about suicide by raising awareness about suicide in our communities and encouraging our people to complete suicide prevention training.

Jo Kent, Suicide Prevention Lead for the Humber, Coast and Vale Health and Care Partnership, said: “Every death by suicide is a tragedy and in Humber, Coast and Vale we are working collaboratively with the NHS, councils, voluntary organisations and other groups to prevent suicides from happening in our communities.

“The suicide prevention training is integral to this work as those who complete the training can make a real difference in their communities, simply by being better placed to identify those people who might be suicidal, and knowing what to say to them and signposting them to the most appropriate services.

“We want to train as many people as possible in our communities so if you can spare an hour on the morning of Tuesday, 10th March please register for one of the free suicide prevention training workshops taking place in York – the skills you learn could help you save someone’s life in the future.”

Can’t attend either of the York workshops? Workshops are also being held in Scarborough, Beverley, Hull, Scunthorpe and Grimsby during March. Visit talksuicide.co.uk to find out when these workshops are taking place.

You can also complete the training on the talksuicide.co.uk website, where you can also find out more about the #TalkSuicide campaign.

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.