News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


News coverage for York, Ryedale, East Yorkshire, Harrogate and Selby.

Popular topics: Community Stadium | York Wheel | Germany Beck | ftr | Queen's visit


City of York council's debts hits £116m


YORK’S council chiefs are sitting on a debt mountain of more than £116 million.

New figures have revealed City of York Council ended the last financial year £14 million more in the red than it was 12 months earlier and had to fork out almost £4.8 million in interest payments.

They show the authority’s debt has risen by £54 million in seven years, and come in the wake of the news it currently faces overspending its 2010/11 budget by more than £4 million.

Its debt position was outlined to the council’s Labour group by finance officers, with the figure standing at £116,064,956 at the end of the 2009/10 financial year, compared with £62,064,956 in March 2003.

Labour group leader Coun James Alexander said: “The council’s debt now stands at more than £116 million and is already higher than the national debt of countries like Greenland. “Interest payments alone have reached almost £5 million a year, an increase of more than 35 per cent since the Lib Dems took over in 2003 and enough to build a first-class swimming pool within two years.

“People will be wondering why so much money has been wasted on the Barbican, which remains empty, and on the ftr bus, which increases congestion rather than reducing it. It really isn’t good enough and York deserves better.”

Interest payments on the debt reached £4.771 million at the end of the last financial year, up from £4.391 million the year before and £3.279 million in 2003. York’s Labour group has today launched its War On Waste campaign, which Coun Alexander said would “expose wasted spending and propose ways of reducing public expenditure in a fair way”.

But council leader Coun Andrew Waller said: “Coun Alexander fails to understand the way his party operated Government funding for councils when they were in power.

“In order to provide the resources for improvements to schools, roads and other public schemes, the Government required councils to borrow and factored the repayment into the grant to the council.

“They required the council to borrow £67 million to fund major projects and the way they set up the grants to councils takes account of the interest and loans. The interest and principal payments are covered by an increase in Government grant, and through this system in the period since 2003, we have paid off £33 million in debt.”

He said the borrowed £67 million included money for modernising schools and projects such as the new York High School and extending Canon Lee Specialist Art College, road safety, resurfacing and reconstructions schemes, the Monks Cross Park&Ride site and modernising York’s housing stock.

Coun Waller said, elsewhere in Yorkshire, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council had a debt figure of £549.19 million at the end of 2009/10, with their Wakefield counterparts in the red by £201 million. Also, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council was £258.7 million in debt.

Comments(24)

Boatie says...
9:57am Fri 3 Sep 10

I see that our leader has taken a leaf out of Labour's book and blames anyone else for the debt other than taking some responsibility for it. Time to go Andrew along with all your other Lib Dem members. Council Tax Payers can't afford you, you have almost banked the City Council.

LibDem says...
10:05am Fri 3 Sep 10

These comments are just plain wrong. York has a lower debt per head of population than most Labour (and Conservative) run authorities.
Nor did James Alexander vote against this capital investment, and he has had several opportunities to do so since he was first elected in 2007.

pedalling paul says...
10:11am Fri 3 Sep 10

Should York stay in the stone age, allow buildings and facilities to crumble? Or should they be renewed and if so on what basis?
Sound to me as if investment produces a one-off debt during that financial year, until promised Govt. grants are injected to redress the imbalance. So we see a temporary loss on paper, which does not reflect underlying trends.
The headline figures may unfortunately be seized on by oposition politicians and ill-informed commentators. Sadly many of the latter are not experts on Local Authoity finance. I myself am not.

mystic_genius says...
10:11am Fri 3 Sep 10

LibDem wrote:
These comments are just plain wrong. York has a lower debt per head of population than most Labour (and Conservative) run authorities. Nor did James Alexander vote against this capital investment, and he has had several opportunities to do so since he was first elected in 2007.
If you compare crap with crap, that doesn't mean that any particular type of crap is good.
`
Every electorate member knows the UK is as corrupt as every other country, and it's just a case of picking the least worst - that is exactly what happened in May in the general election.

DanishViking says...
10:41am Fri 3 Sep 10

Just to put the numbers in perspective:
£116m is around £1200 per taxpayer = economically active people. Lots of money for most people...

meme says...
10:42am Fri 3 Sep 10

so why on earth is another £40m plus going on the new HQ ifw eare so in debt
Lots of things are wanted by our local authotity but we should only be paying for essentials that we can afford just like business or a household budget
A new HQ may be desirable but its NOT essential

Head of Bomber Command says...
10:50am Fri 3 Sep 10

LibDem wrote:
These comments are just plain wrong. York has a lower debt per head of population than most Labour (and Conservative) run authorities. Nor did James Alexander vote against this capital investment, and he has had several opportunities to do so since he was first elected in 2007.
Just because York has a lower debt per head of population than in most Tory or Labour run authorities does not make it right Lib Dem.

116million is still far too much and it is getting out of hand that it is uncontrollable.

I can't believe the pass word is lazy-rich.

YUalwayswhinging? says...
10:53am Fri 3 Sep 10

What exactly is the "**** up here." Council's borrow to invest.

The city come 2003 was pretty much looking like a s**t hole. In the last 7 years there's been money fpoor 2 new swimming pools, 2 new schools, massive modernisation of the remaining schools. Extra cash year on year to repair a decrepid road network that suffered massive underinvestment. 3 new Park and Ride sites?

As with council tax, the city's debt is lowest than most but people just dont pay attention to the facts

anti-rant says...
11:03am Fri 3 Sep 10

Does anyone know of a UK Council NOT in debt?

Maquis says...
11:36am Fri 3 Sep 10

DanishViking wrote:
Just to put the numbers in perspective: £116m is around £1200 per taxpayer = economically active people. Lots of money for most people...
Putting it into perspective like that ignores the real problem. It INCREASED by over 10% in the last year, and has been increasing for years, and is still increasing.

We are wasting £5 million per year on interest alone. Do you have any idea how many potholes that could fill in?, or it is also about the same size as the increase in council tax for 2010-2011.

We need to get some councilors in here who have some idea how to get value for money, and only spend it on what is needed, not pointless pet projects.

oldgoat says...
12:35pm Fri 3 Sep 10

LibDem wrote:
These comments are just plain wrong. York has a lower debt per head of population than most Labour (and Conservative) run authorities.
Nor did James Alexander vote against this capital investment, and he has had several opportunities to do so since he was first elected in 2007.
And to put things in context, the population of Greenland is around 57000. About half of York's population.

Mullarkian says...
12:44pm Fri 3 Sep 10

Councils everywhere are full of posts which add no value to anything or anyone but their incumbents.
Abolishing these non-jobs woudld help, but I can't see that happening can you?

Mooseknuckle says...
12:52pm Fri 3 Sep 10

meme wrote:
so why on earth is another £40m plus going on the new HQ ifw eare so in debt Lots of things are wanted by our local authotity but we should only be paying for essentials that we can afford just like business or a household budget A new HQ may be desirable but its NOT essential
New HQ is at no additional cost to the city & will save money over time. Or so the publicity goes...

Prob says...
12:52pm Fri 3 Sep 10

"The council’s debt now stands at more than £116 million and is already higher than the national debt of countries like Greenland."
.
LOL
.
Greenland has half the population of York and many of those do not partake in economics. Of course it has a smaller debt. What's your point?
.

Victor Smythe says...
1:58pm Fri 3 Sep 10

LibDem wrote:
These comments are just plain wrong. York has a lower debt per head of population than most Labour (and Conservative) run authorities.
Nor did James Alexander vote against this capital investment, and he has had several opportunities to do so since he was first elected in 2007.
So LibDem, are you denying the level CYC has increased?

Guy Fawkes says...
2:57pm Fri 3 Sep 10

...and is already higher than the national debt of countries like Greenland.


York (population 195k) has almost four times the population of Greenland (56k).

Soothsayer17 says...
3:49pm Fri 3 Sep 10

Guy Fawkes wrote:
...and is already higher than the national debt of countries like Greenland.
York (population 195k) has almost four times the population of Greenland (56k).
Greenland also has one council-run 25m swimming pool which means Greenlanders have twice the swimming provision per capita head that York folk do.

marvell says...
3:52pm Fri 3 Sep 10

Looking a bit deeper into this and what Waller said - it appears to be TRUE. Gulp...

The way the Labour goverment funded local councils was to force tem to take loans to pay for projects. This in Yorks case was £67 million.

This exposes Cllr James Alexander as a completely clueless halfwit and highlights his party's complicity in the debt York now finds itself in.

How stupid do you have to be to cast the spotlight on your own parties complete funding incompetence. Cllr Alexander - hang your head in shame you clown.

isitjustme says...
5:10pm Fri 3 Sep 10

What on earth is that Greenland comment about? Did someone in the press office just Google some debt stats and paste in a tenuous comparison...

sportman says...
8:14pm Fri 3 Sep 10

The City 'placards' said "City of York Debt Surprise". The only surprise would be if they weren't in debt !!!!

pedalling paul says...
9:50pm Fri 3 Sep 10

Yosser Hughes wrote:
pedalling paul wrote: Should York stay in the stone age, allow buildings and facilities to crumble? Or should they be renewed and if so on what basis? Sound to me as if investment produces a one-off debt during that financial year, until promised Govt. grants are injected to redress the imbalance. So we see a temporary loss on paper, which does not reflect underlying trends. The headline figures may unfortunately be seized on by oposition politicians and ill-informed commentators. Sadly many of the latter are not experts on Local Authoity finance. I myself am not.
No Paul, you are not. However you are an expert on wearing the same suit since 1976 and havig a ridiculous haircut. You are also an expert in brown nosing the lib dums.
I've not worn a suit for years............

Blackdragon says...
10:25pm Fri 3 Sep 10

anti-rant, York says...
11:03am Fri 3 Sep 10

Does anyone know of a UK Council NOT in debt?


The SDC is sitting on a pot 15 million
is was reported last week in the S.T.

Council Care Worker says...
12:25am Sat 4 Sep 10

Security word is edge-wide but I am afraid that, as per usual, its our older and more vulnerable residents that are sitting on a not wide edge!

I have no party political allegiance, I am not a unionite, I understand that cuts have to be made countrywide to services in times of need and, yes, I do worry about my own financial problems as a council employee, but what really worries me is the looming cuts that threaten the people that I am 'supposed to' look after.

The cuts that are taking place within adult, children and education are vast and leaving the vulnerable even more vulnerable!

Often on this site council employees are cited as 'lazy' 'over paid' 'layabouts'. In my 15 years plus service in this re-named A.C.E service I have never known morale so low.

Understaffing in order to save money is going to have a significant impact on our older residents.

leninwasright says...
9:08am Mon 6 Sep 10

Sounds like yet more "York in a bubble" stuff. It only happens here and nowhere else. I bet every local paper in the UK is running nearly identical stories and with probably the same shocked responses. Whatever happens, the government pegs council tax rises so it's unlikely that men in hard hats and flak jackets will come demanding more money from individuals. As for the true level of debt or otherwise, which of us can put our hand on our hearts and say that we really know anything ? We know what the newspapers want us to know.


Most popular


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses