A response to a Freedom of Information request has revealed that the Council intends to spend 20% less on repairing roads and footpaths in the City during 2021/22 compared to the current year.
The decision will come as a disappointment to many drivers and pedestrians and will be a particular blow for cyclists, many of whom have criticised the rapidly declining quality of local highway surfaces.
Highway maintenance is one of the expenditure areas in the Council where essentially you get what you pay for. So less money inevitably means that fewer paths and carriageways will be resurfaced.
The Council will announce shortly what proportion of the budget it will spend on reactive pothole filling rather than, longer lasting, patching and resurfacing schemes.
Sources at the Council have criticised inconsistent central government funding allocations – such as the annual so called “pot hole” fund – which make long term investment planning difficult. A late announcement of funding for the resurfacing of Tadcaster Road came only weeks after the work had been completed using local taxpayers money (and is now being done again).
However, there will also be concern that some money has been taken from the maintenance budget to fund other projects. Several new schemes, such as rural cycle routes, are sucking funds from the budgets needed to repair existing cycle paths..
The Council has never recovered from the major reductions made to highways funding some 8 years ago.
Successive administrations have failed to find ways of returning investment levels to those seen earlier in the century.
It is estimated that the backlog in maintenance work nationally would require investment of around £11 billion to rectify.
Post coronavirus strategy confirms major financial issues.
The Council has published areview of its response to the Coronavirus crisis. It will be discussed at a “virtual” Executive meeting next week.
The review mostly looks backwards and therefore contains little that is new.
The report does, however, say, “Further work is needed to accurately assess the impact, then to identify and plan the city’s response. It should be noted that, based on the financial information in this report, and the expected increase in demand for services as we start to move out of lockdown, this work will involve reprioritising council budgets, focussing resource on where there are greatest challenges and providing a new strategic plan for the council to work to over the coming months. It is quite possible that there will be some previous priorities that can’t be delivered in the same way in the light of our new operating context.
A Recovery Plan is being developed (aligning with regional recovery activity through the LRF) which will outline the risks and challenges of the emerging situation, with actions in response and opportunities based on lessons learned during the emergency response. Clearly, this plan will take into consideration and align with Government advice and national plans for recovery. It will be used to inform a review of the existing Council Plan in order to produce an Operational Recovery Plan to guide the council over the next 6 – 9 months”.
That is the right approach.
There needs to be an immediate moratorium on taking on new expenditure. An “approvals committee” should be set up which can publicly test any new expenditure proposals.
The Councils initial assessment of its financial position may produce accusations that it is very much a “worst case” scenario. The government has today confirmed that in total it will grant £10.5 million to help the Council offset its estimated £35 million exposure. Much of the defict assumes a high level of non payment of Council Tax and business rent.
There is a stark warning of cash flow problems later in the year “the Council would have to concentrate on providing statutory services only”. That would be bad news for services like leisure, with some facilities likely to close.
On its capital programme the Council promises a project by project review. “this will include considering the overall purpose of the scheme and whether they are still financially viable given the risk to the overall economy. This is particularly crucial for those schemes that assumed the generation of capital receipts to fund expenditure”.
The report is silent on the consequences of some schemes that area now past the point of no return.
Recent increases in the Council’s commercial portfolio are not analysed but there are fears of a forced “fire sale”.
Empty offices at the community stadium site (underwritten by the Council) could remain empty for years, while the pipeline sales of empty former social care buildings could also fall through. Options for cutting back on the £20 million Guildhall refurbishment project will need to be considered.
The Community Stadium itself, although outsourced, is dependent on other activities on the site to cover its running costs.
It seems certain that there will be delays on the York Central regeneration project while the £14 million new multi storey car park on St Georges Field will no doubt be shelved together with the rest of the Castle Gateway project.
Other cherished capital investment projects, which involved increased debt, and therefore increase the day to day running costs of the Council, will have to go “on hold”.
No new contracts should be let unless they direct address the adverse consequences of the health crisis.
Much more on this and the implications for other public services in the City will become apparent over the next few weeks.
Foxwood Lane (12 & 14), Gale Lane (20) and Hamilton Drive (16A) links could be lost
The Council is organising “drop in” sessions at which the scale of the cuts that they plan to local bus services will be revealed.
The Council has decided to cut £350,000 from its public transport support budget so dramatic changes can be anticipated.
The Council says that members of the public will have the opportunity to give their views on the services proposed for withdrawal or alteration between Monday 11 April and Friday 6 May, either by emailing firstname.lastname@example.org or through drop-in sessions (“details to be announced nearer the time”).
The Council claims that public feedback will be considered as part of a report which will be taken to an Executive Member Transport and Planning public meeting on Thursday 19 May.
A final decision on the services to be withdrawn or altered will be taken at this meeting and it is anticipated that the changes will take effect from Sunday 28 August.
The services which the council currently subsidises and which may be altered, reduced or withdrawn are:
• Monday to Saturday daytime services: 12, 19, 20, 27, 36, 627, 637 and 647
• Evening services: 10, 11, 14, 18
• Sunday services: 11, 12, 13, 14,16a and 19
So far the Council has not released details of alternative provision. As a minimum, residents who depend on the bus service to get around will expect Dial and Ride services to be expanded. There is also likely to be a call for the option, for pensioners to be able to choose transport tokens (instead of a bus pass), to be reintroduced. The tokens can be used to pay taxi fares.
ftr bus in York
Eighty per cent of bus services are commercial in York and are not subsidised by the council. Local authorities across the country have the discretion to provide financial support for local bus services where the commercial bus market does not provide such services, but it is not a statutory duty.
Bus usage in York has increased during recent years following a slump when the last Labour Council pulled out of public transport modernisation plans like the ftr “superbus” project.
The Council has consistently refused to publish weekly reliability stats for bus services in the city
Details are emerging this evening of the Council’s budget plans for 2016/17.
Council Tax will increase by 3%, of which 2% will be ring-fenced to help with social care costs.
Council house rents will be reduced by 1% (in line with central government instructions). This will mean cuts in repairs budgets, although the housing account is showing a £20 million accumulated surplus.
The Council is to spend £234,000 more to fund “additional Community Safety Hub officers” to cover additional enforcement around dog fouling, street drinking, licensing infringement and noise enforcement plus ” a reactive service for street services to deal with fly-tipping, graffiti, litter and weeds” which would be a welcome step forward.
Another welcome improvement will be an investment of an additional £100,000 to help tackle mental health issues, while the completion of the Local Plan will cost another £350,000 and an update of the strategic flood risk assessment will cost £60,000.
An extra £74,000 will be used to increase Councillors pay.
Some of the more eye-catching cuts include:
£350,000 cut in bus subsidies. Number 20 service to be scrapped.
£1.1 million cut in adult social care provision
£1.3 million cut in education support (schools are funded directly by the government)
Reductions in public garden and tree maintenance
Handing over allotment management to users
Theatre Royal (revenue) grants scrapped.
Less on Public Health (drugs, alcohol, smoking, dentistry and sexual health)
Fewer health checks
Many residents will be looking at the Council capital investment plans to see whether the excesses of the last administration – which doubled the debt per head of population figure in the City – have been reversed.
The Council has revealed details of a new staffstructure in its “learning” team. The restructure is aimed at saving £284,000 a year in staffing costs and has been influenced by the conclusion of some Europe funded projects.
Some voluntary redundancies have already taken place. Three existing staff face compulsory redundancy
“Many of these savings are coming from reduction in management posts, but there will also be some savings in direct service delivery, including reductions in some teaching staff, reductions in employability programmes and provision to support mental health issues.
These reductions are going to have a serious affect on the service’s ability to support individuals seeking work and those who require help with recovering from mental health issues”.
The decision was taken at a “behind closed doors” meeting held on 21st December.
Reports were not made public until after the decision had been published
· By post to FREEPOST RTEG-TYYU-KLTZ, Budget consultation, City of York Council, West Offices, Station Rise, York, YO1 6GA
· By hand at West Offices or libraries/Explore Centres”.
On line consultation questionaire https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/YorkBudget
The Council of course omits to mention many options that many residents might like to take.
You noticeably won’t be able to vote for a pay freeze for Councillors or to reduce their support costs,
There’s no option to stop the “Our City” newspaper.
Quangos like “Make it York” are off the options list.
Not can you vote to save money through the lower debt (interest) charges which would come if the subsidy was reduced for big investment schemes like the:
New swimming pool at Monks Cross
Access bridge to the York Central development or
Development of the Guildhall site.
There isn’t even a “write in” option for those feeling inventive!
You can say whether you prefer a tax rise to service cuts but you aren’t offered a choice on how much any increase might be!
NB It is likely that the cap in increases will be around 3.9% most of which will be ring-fenced for elderly care.
The Council justifies its stance by saying, “This year’s budget proposals will seek to ensure the council’s priorities continue to be delivered, whilst also ensuring the council’s financial position is managed effectively. (more…)
The Conservative Government is planning to cut the Home Office budget in November’s Comprehensive Spending Review and change the ‘Police Funding Formula’.
The North Yorkshire Police Federation has warned that these comibined cuts could see a reduction in police numbers and leave North Yorkshire Police (who cover York) with fewer police officers than when the force was founded in 1974. The Federation has called for North Yorkshire to be given a “fair deal” by the Government.
To show our support for North Yorkshire Police we have started the folloiwng petition which we urge you to sign:
I/We the undersigned oppose plans by the Conservative Government to cut the funding for the North Yorkshire Police.
North Yorkshire Police, Cleveland Police and Durham Constabulary are to merge their police dog sections to create a single integrated service from summer 2016.
it is claimed that the move “will increase police coverage in rural areas, reduce overall costs by more than three million pounds over the next five years, and enable a substantial 24-hour dog unit to be to retained across the three Forces”.
Police dogs carry out a wide range of duties to support police operations, including tracking people, chasing down criminals, finding explosives, cash, weapons or drugs, “passive” drug identification, keeping public order and supporting firearms officers. Many of these tasks require highly specialised training, which means that, at the moment, each Force only has a limited number of police dogs with these skills.
Cleveland Police and Durham Constabulary embarked on a shared dog unit earlier this year and hope to build on this success through the further collaboration with North Yorkshire. Police dogs and their handlers from the three forces will all be trained in the same way and will adopt the same tactical approaches. This will give each force access to more police dogs per shift, as well as greater access to specialist police dogs to cover particular types of operations.
In North Yorkshire, dogs live with their handlers in different locations across the whole county.
To support them better, operational bases will be set up in Harrogate, York Fulford Road, Northallerton/Thirsk and East Coast/Ryedale.
These, together with bases in Durham and Cleveland, will mean that more dogs are deployable to the north of the county, improving the service to some of North Yorkshire’s most remote rural areas, as well as covering urban “hot spots” more effectively.
As part of the move, dog handlers in North Yorkshire will fall in line with their counterparts by working 12-hour shifts, a change from their current variable pattern with shorter shifts.
Mike Stubbs of North Yorkshire’s Police Federation, which represents rank and file officers, said it had “serious concerns about the move to 12 hour shifts”.
He said: “North Yorkshire is a very different environment to Cleveland or Durham – our dog handlers have to cover a massive area.
“Is it right they should be expected to do a blue light emergency run on demanding roads towards the end of a 12 hour shift, having already driven many miles across the county in the course of their shift?
“There are laws and limits for commercial drivers to protect against the effects of driver fatigue which the police enforce. It defies common sense that those principles are being ignored for drivers of police vehicles.”