City of York Council's budget shortfall reduced, but £2m still needed to be cut

York Press: Council's budget shortfall reduced, but £2m still needed to be cut Council's budget shortfall reduced, but £2m still needed to be cut

COUNCIL bosses in York have reduced a potential budget shortfall but must still save almost £2 million by April to balance their books.

Financial forecasts prepared by City of York Council officials, covering the nine months to the end of December, say the gap which needs to be bridged has closed from more than £3.7 million earlier in the year to £1.93 million.

However, a report which will be discussed by city leaders tomorrow said several departments are struggling to hit their targets. Parking income is predicted to be £218,000 below budget and delays in making savings to the council’s waste services and fleet section add a £765,000 pressure.

The children’s services, education and skills directorate faces a £623,000 overspend, despite the number of children in the council’s care reducing and almost £1 million of spending cuts.

The council has to save about £10 million in 2013/14, a similar amount next year and £12.65 million in 2015/16.

Its annual budget meeting will be held on February 27 and a string of cuts and plans for savings will go before tomorrow night’s cabinet meeting.

The financial report by corporate finance manager Debbie Mitchell and principal accountant Andrew Crookham says about £700,000 is expected to be received through fines from new traffic restrictions on Lendal Bridge and Coppergate, but these will go into an “earmarked reserve”, ringfenced for road and transport schemes.

Meanwhile, £400,000 from the council’s expected surplus in its £6.6 million public health grant is to be used to deal with the likely overspend in adult social care, £150,000 more than was proposed earlier in the year.

The officials said: “Pressures continue to be evident in relation to demand for care, despite significant investment of £2.5 million in the 2013/14 budget.”

They said more people than expected needed nursing care, and delays in a shake-up of elderly people’s homes meant £175,000 would not be saved this year, although fewer external residential care placements had been needed and this had offset some of the projected overspend.

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:01am Mon 10 Feb 14

courier46 says...

It has to be said again, that if the individual pet projects of our so called leaders were not done then we would not need to find 2 million.
Out in 2015
It has to be said again, that if the individual pet projects of our so called leaders were not done then we would not need to find 2 million. Out in 2015 courier46

9:22am Mon 10 Feb 14

ouseswimmer says...

A simple10% pay cut will be sufficient for anyone earning over £30,000.
A simple10% pay cut will be sufficient for anyone earning over £30,000. ouseswimmer

10:32am Mon 10 Feb 14

LibDem says...

The Councils strategy of borrowing more and more is adding over a million pounds extra each year to the interest payments that Council Taxpayers are liable for.

They plan tomorrow to authorise borrowing more than £16 million more over the next 5 years to fund vanity projects

That is the reason for increases in Council Tax in York
The Councils strategy of borrowing more and more is adding over a million pounds extra each year to the interest payments that Council Taxpayers are liable for. They plan tomorrow to authorise borrowing more than £16 million more over the next 5 years to fund vanity projects That is the reason for increases in Council Tax in York LibDem

11:06am Mon 10 Feb 14

Bo Jolly says...

The mystery of the disappearing fines from Lendal Bridge is partly solved:

'£700,000 is expected to be received through fines from new traffic restrictions on Lendal Bridge and Coppergate, but these will go into an “earmarked reserve”, ringfenced for road and transport schemes.'

i.e. this money will not be used for road maintenance (the budget for which is due to be cut by £1m) as has previously been implyed by the council, but for 'road and transport schemes', a phrase which is opaque to say the least.
The mystery of the disappearing fines from Lendal Bridge is partly solved: '£700,000 is expected to be received through fines from new traffic restrictions on Lendal Bridge and Coppergate, but these will go into an “earmarked reserve”, ringfenced for road and transport schemes.' i.e. this money will not be used for road maintenance (the budget for which is due to be cut by £1m) as has previously been implyed by the council, but for 'road and transport schemes', a phrase which is opaque to say the least. Bo Jolly

11:25am Mon 10 Feb 14

pedalling paul says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
The mystery of the disappearing fines from Lendal Bridge is partly solved:

'£700,000 is expected to be received through fines from new traffic restrictions on Lendal Bridge and Coppergate, but these will go into an “earmarked reserve”, ringfenced for road and transport schemes.'

i.e. this money will not be used for road maintenance (the budget for which is due to be cut by £1m) as has previously been implyed by the council, but for 'road and transport schemes', a phrase which is opaque to say the least.
Thereby lies the difference between capital and revenue expenditure.

York's £4.6m Whitehall LSTF grant is currently being spent on a mixture of both. eg
Revenue....school & business engagement, health & leisure activity, public transport information.
Capital....walking, cycling & public transport infrastructure, school & business cycle parking.
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: The mystery of the disappearing fines from Lendal Bridge is partly solved: '£700,000 is expected to be received through fines from new traffic restrictions on Lendal Bridge and Coppergate, but these will go into an “earmarked reserve”, ringfenced for road and transport schemes.' i.e. this money will not be used for road maintenance (the budget for which is due to be cut by £1m) as has previously been implyed by the council, but for 'road and transport schemes', a phrase which is opaque to say the least.[/p][/quote]Thereby lies the difference between capital and revenue expenditure. York's £4.6m Whitehall LSTF grant is currently being spent on a mixture of both. eg Revenue....school & business engagement, health & leisure activity, public transport information. Capital....walking, cycling & public transport infrastructure, school & business cycle parking. pedalling paul

11:44am Mon 10 Feb 14

Knavesmire view says...

"Financial forecasts prepared by City of York Council officials, covering the nine months to the end of December, say the gap which needs to be bridged has closed from more than £3.7 million earlier in the year to £1.93 million."

They've bridged the gap eh? Wonder how they've managed to do that?!
"Financial forecasts prepared by City of York Council officials, covering the nine months to the end of December, say the gap which needs to be bridged has closed from more than £3.7 million earlier in the year to £1.93 million." They've bridged the gap eh? Wonder how they've managed to do that?! Knavesmire view

11:55am Mon 10 Feb 14

Bo Jolly says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Bo Jolly wrote:
The mystery of the disappearing fines from Lendal Bridge is partly solved:

'£700,000 is expected to be received through fines from new traffic restrictions on Lendal Bridge and Coppergate, but these will go into an “earmarked reserve”, ringfenced for road and transport schemes.'

i.e. this money will not be used for road maintenance (the budget for which is due to be cut by £1m) as has previously been implyed by the council, but for 'road and transport schemes', a phrase which is opaque to say the least.
Thereby lies the difference between capital and revenue expenditure.

York's £4.6m Whitehall LSTF grant is currently being spent on a mixture of both. eg
Revenue....school & business engagement, health & leisure activity, public transport information.
Capital....walking, cycling & public transport infrastructure, school & business cycle parking.
You're not being very clear Paul. Are you saying that using the income from the Lendal Bridge fiasco to maintain roads is not permitted and instead it *must* be put into 'an “earmarked reserve”, ringfenced for road and transport schemes.' (whatever they might be)?

The figure quoted is also interesting. The reported 40,000 cars that have illegally crossed Lendal Bridge (only until a month ago - not the full figure) will generate £1.2m (assuming £30 a pop rather than £60). What happens to the missing £500,000? Mr Crookham's frame of reference is not cited, but clearly the shortfall will be even greater than that if he is talking about the entire financial year. I think the scheme's capital cost was reported to be £70,000, which still leaves £430,000 *at least* unaccounted for; presumably this goes straight into the pockets of the private firm monitoring the bridge?

Upshot: a relatively small financial benefit to York residents from the bridge farce, which itself is destined for unknown purposes in a ringfenced fund.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: The mystery of the disappearing fines from Lendal Bridge is partly solved: '£700,000 is expected to be received through fines from new traffic restrictions on Lendal Bridge and Coppergate, but these will go into an “earmarked reserve”, ringfenced for road and transport schemes.' i.e. this money will not be used for road maintenance (the budget for which is due to be cut by £1m) as has previously been implyed by the council, but for 'road and transport schemes', a phrase which is opaque to say the least.[/p][/quote]Thereby lies the difference between capital and revenue expenditure. York's £4.6m Whitehall LSTF grant is currently being spent on a mixture of both. eg Revenue....school & business engagement, health & leisure activity, public transport information. Capital....walking, cycling & public transport infrastructure, school & business cycle parking.[/p][/quote]You're not being very clear Paul. Are you saying that using the income from the Lendal Bridge fiasco to maintain roads is not permitted and instead it *must* be put into 'an “earmarked reserve”, ringfenced for road and transport schemes.' (whatever they might be)? The figure quoted is also interesting. The reported 40,000 cars that have illegally crossed Lendal Bridge (only until a month ago - not the full figure) will generate £1.2m (assuming £30 a pop rather than £60). What happens to the missing £500,000? Mr Crookham's frame of reference is not cited, but clearly the shortfall will be even greater than that if he is talking about the entire financial year. I think the scheme's capital cost was reported to be £70,000, which still leaves £430,000 *at least* unaccounted for; presumably this goes straight into the pockets of the private firm monitoring the bridge? Upshot: a relatively small financial benefit to York residents from the bridge farce, which itself is destined for unknown purposes in a ringfenced fund. Bo Jolly

7:29pm Mon 10 Feb 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Being a York resident it's clear to me that you have already concluded that we are all too thick to contribute to anything related to finance.

Unbelievable. @jmalexander1982 (York Labour Leader) at @YorkThinkTank: Council budget/spending too complicated for residents to understand

And if this is your opinion it makes me wonder why you are humouring us with the community conversations, although I suppose you might take pleasure from watching the thicko's waste their time.
Being a York resident it's clear to me that you have already concluded that we are all too thick to contribute to anything related to finance. Unbelievable. @jmalexander1982 (York Labour Leader) at @YorkThinkTank: Council budget/spending too complicated for residents to understand And if this is your opinion it makes me wonder why you are humouring us with the community conversations, although I suppose you might take pleasure from watching the thicko's waste their time. YOUWILLDOASISAY

10:34am Tue 11 Feb 14

Scores On The Doors says...

The over night negative scores achievements awards are as follows.

Gold = YOUWILLDOASISAY -45
Silver = courier46 -41
Bronze = Bo Jolly & Knavesmire view -25

Only one award per person, well done to all who took part.
The over night negative scores achievements awards are as follows. Gold = YOUWILLDOASISAY -45 Silver = courier46 -41 Bronze = Bo Jolly & Knavesmire view -25 Only one award per person, well done to all who took part. Scores On The Doors

4:18am Wed 12 Feb 14

Magicman! says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Bo Jolly wrote:
The mystery of the disappearing fines from Lendal Bridge is partly solved:

'£700,000 is expected to be received through fines from new traffic restrictions on Lendal Bridge and Coppergate, but these will go into an “earmarked reserve”, ringfenced for road and transport schemes.'

i.e. this money will not be used for road maintenance (the budget for which is due to be cut by £1m) as has previously been implyed by the council, but for 'road and transport schemes', a phrase which is opaque to say the least.
Thereby lies the difference between capital and revenue expenditure.

York's £4.6m Whitehall LSTF grant is currently being spent on a mixture of both. eg
Revenue....school & business engagement, health & leisure activity, public transport information.
Capital....walking, cycling & public transport infrastructure, school & business cycle parking.
You're not being very clear Paul. Are you saying that using the income from the Lendal Bridge fiasco to maintain roads is not permitted and instead it *must* be put into 'an “earmarked reserve”, ringfenced for road and transport schemes.' (whatever they might be)?

The figure quoted is also interesting. The reported 40,000 cars that have illegally crossed Lendal Bridge (only until a month ago - not the full figure) will generate £1.2m (assuming £30 a pop rather than £60). What happens to the missing £500,000? Mr Crookham's frame of reference is not cited, but clearly the shortfall will be even greater than that if he is talking about the entire financial year. I think the scheme's capital cost was reported to be £70,000, which still leaves £430,000 *at least* unaccounted for; presumably this goes straight into the pockets of the private firm monitoring the bridge?

Upshot: a relatively small financial benefit to York residents from the bridge farce, which itself is destined for unknown purposes in a ringfenced fund.
That £430,000 is most likely reserved for the arrogant few who know full well they're driving over the bridge when it's 'closed', but then get the fine and try to get let off the hook on a technicality... the same sort of people who get stopped by the police for going at 90mph along a single carriageway A-road and then appeal the fine because "the policeman didn't have his hat on" or some bullcrap like that.
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: The mystery of the disappearing fines from Lendal Bridge is partly solved: '£700,000 is expected to be received through fines from new traffic restrictions on Lendal Bridge and Coppergate, but these will go into an “earmarked reserve”, ringfenced for road and transport schemes.' i.e. this money will not be used for road maintenance (the budget for which is due to be cut by £1m) as has previously been implyed by the council, but for 'road and transport schemes', a phrase which is opaque to say the least.[/p][/quote]Thereby lies the difference between capital and revenue expenditure. York's £4.6m Whitehall LSTF grant is currently being spent on a mixture of both. eg Revenue....school & business engagement, health & leisure activity, public transport information. Capital....walking, cycling & public transport infrastructure, school & business cycle parking.[/p][/quote]You're not being very clear Paul. Are you saying that using the income from the Lendal Bridge fiasco to maintain roads is not permitted and instead it *must* be put into 'an “earmarked reserve”, ringfenced for road and transport schemes.' (whatever they might be)? The figure quoted is also interesting. The reported 40,000 cars that have illegally crossed Lendal Bridge (only until a month ago - not the full figure) will generate £1.2m (assuming £30 a pop rather than £60). What happens to the missing £500,000? Mr Crookham's frame of reference is not cited, but clearly the shortfall will be even greater than that if he is talking about the entire financial year. I think the scheme's capital cost was reported to be £70,000, which still leaves £430,000 *at least* unaccounted for; presumably this goes straight into the pockets of the private firm monitoring the bridge? Upshot: a relatively small financial benefit to York residents from the bridge farce, which itself is destined for unknown purposes in a ringfenced fund.[/p][/quote]That £430,000 is most likely reserved for the arrogant few who know full well they're driving over the bridge when it's 'closed', but then get the fine and try to get let off the hook on a technicality... the same sort of people who get stopped by the police for going at 90mph along a single carriageway A-road and then appeal the fine because "the policeman didn't have his hat on" or some bullcrap like that. Magicman!

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree