News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


York council tax to rise by 2.9% as services are cut

Refuse collection rounds may be given a shake-up as part of the city council’s  programme of money- saving measures which have just been detailed. Refuse collection rounds may be given a shake-up as part of the city council’s programme of money- saving measures which have just been detailed.

COUNCIL tax bills in York are set to rise by 2.9 per cent and a range of front-line services will be cut as the city’s leaders try to save £19.7 million over the next two years.

The Beckfield Lane waste recycling centre will be closed and sold for housing, parking charges will be increased, some litter bins will be removed and free black bin bags will no longer be provided to residents, under proposals unveiled by City of York Council’s ruling Labour cabinet yesterday. Bin rounds could also be rearranged to reduce costs but could potentially mean householders having different collections on different days.

The budget, first revealed on thepress.co.uk yesterday afternoon, also includes funding cuts for community organisations and a £200,000 reduction in highway maintenace, with more emphasis on reactive work where needed.

The Future Prospects employment service will be reviewed to save £100,000, parking charges will rise by 20p an hour for residents and 10p an hour for non-residents and the cost of bereavement services will increase, while 100 council jobs are set to go next year and a similar number in 2013/14.

Gritting routes, grass-cutting, gully-cleaning and parks maintenance face being scaled back, spending on local ward committees will fall by £220,000 through “restructuring”, and winter salt bins will be left out all year round to cut collection costs.

The proposed council tax rise equates to £31.72 a year more for Band D properties. Council leader James Alexander said accepting a £1.8 million Government grant to freeze bills in 2012/13 would have been “irresponsible”. He said it would have meant a huge council tax increase in 2013/14 and threatened funding for vulnerable people and York’s libraries, children’s centres and leisure facilities.

But Local Government Minister Bob Neill said York’s proposed rise was “incredibly inconsiderate”, adding: “The council cannot justify it and it ought to put their residents first.”

The budget outlines a £1.5 million increase in adult social care and £500,000 more for looked-after children in 2012/13, and a five-year, £28.5 million Economic Infrastructure Fund, paid for through the Government’s New Homes Bonus scheme and by borrowing £20 million.

The council said this would be used for transport and road schemes, rolling out free wi-fi across the city centre, supporting businesses, providing job opportunities and tackling poverty. The authority says it will also put money into a closed cycle circuit at York’s Sports Village, modernising council houses, improvements to York Art Gallery and the Theatre Royal and new energy-efficient streetlighting, disability facility grants and developing a “community hub” for people with learning difficulties and disabilities, as well as piloting pay-on-exit parking in the city centre. However, annual grants to the Theatre Royal and York Museums Trust will be cut.

Coun Alexander defended the decision not to take the Government’s offer of a freeze.

He said: “The implications would have included choosing whether to keep libraries, children’s centres and leisure centres open at the expense of funding for vulnerable people and whether to reduce funding for Visit York, which we have not done because we want to promote economic growth. The Economic Infrastructure Fund will be one of the biggest investments in the York economy this council has ever made.

“In tough times, we are working hard to innovate and take the tough decisions necessary to secure the future for everybody in our city.”

Conservative leader Coun Ian Gillies said the budget proposals showed “confused thinking and confused priorities.” He said: “The hardworking residents of York, some of whom have to take second jobs to provide for their families, are being penalised by a council tax increase which will only equate to about £300,000 in a multi-million-pound budget.”

Lib Dem leader Coun Carol Runciman said she feared for ward committee funding and highway maintenance under the plans.

Green leader Coun Andy D’Agorne said: “These service cuts and the loss of people’s jobs are a huge concern, and while it’s easy to say you are going to make savings, some of these savings will potentially increase workloads, costs and inefficiencies elsewhere.”

Budget details greeted with a mixed reaction

Bob Towner, acting chairman of York Older People’s Assembly, welcomed the council’s pledge to secure £1.5million to spend on helping elderly and vulnerable people in York.

Mr Towner, right, said: “What’s commendable is that the council now appears to have fulfilled its commitment to supporting vulnerable people – that’s welcome.

“You have to put your money where your mouth is. It’s no good pledging to protect vulnerable people then walking away from it so this is very welcome.”

• Gillian Cruddas, chief executive of Visit York said: “York’s cultural offer is extremely important to the city’s visitor economy and we fully support investment plans for the City Art Gallery and York Theatre Royal. Continual investment in arts and culture is needed to ensure York is able to compete in a global tourism market.”

• Nick Smith, of campaign group York Stop The Cuts, said the budget represented “a serious attack on jobs and local services in York”.

“It will lead to vital services disappearing, and those that are left will be dramatically under-resourced. The budget will disproportionately affect the poorest and most vulnerable in our city, those that use and need these services most.

“These cuts are not necessary. The banks owe us billions from the bailout, but the Conservative Government is choosing to pass the cost on to us.”

The Press - Comment

Budget process leaves sour taste

WE’VE known for some time the City of York Council’s next budget was going to be tough. Today, that is confirmed.

Over the next two years, the authority’s £124 million annual spend is to be slashed by almost £20 million.

As if that wasn’t enough, local taxpayers will see their council tax bills rise by 2.9 per cent in April.

We live in tough times, and there are signs that the authority is at least trying to protect frontline services: no libraries, leisure centres or children’s services will close, for example.

Nevertheless, the cuts will be savage. Something like 200 council jobs will be lost over two years, and there will be savings on everything from “reablement” services to respite care, supported living and elderly people’s homes to street cleaning and road repairs.

There is a lot of detail in the budget documents released yesterday. The real concern is by releasing its proposals so late, the authority has given people very little chance to properly digest the implications and make alternative suggestions. The budget will be voted on on February 14, only ten days from now. That doesn’t give anybody much time to have a say, and raises serious questions over how transparent this whole budget process is.

What do you think? - Click to comment

Comments(86)

R'Marcus says...
4:24pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Let me see, Alexander.
You want us to pay more for less.
A question: are you REAL or some political puppet?

Mike Oxuge says...
4:36pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Why are my taxes are going up to pay for a new ground for York City? Disgraceful.

Torycouncil2015 says...
4:36pm Fri 3 Feb 12

"without having to further cut funding to organisations such as Visit York."

Tourists 1 Residents 0

Nothing but cash cows for Calamity James to milk

Woody Mellor says...
4:36pm Fri 3 Feb 12

So they are going to take money out of out pockets so they dont have to further cut funding to organisations such as Visit York. So does this mean that Gillian Cruddas will not be accepting a pay increase this year?

Justinheaven says...
4:38pm Fri 3 Feb 12

When do taxes ever go down ? ?

tangyang says...
4:42pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Is this some sort of wind up?
We've lost half of our street lights and now you want us to pay more!
For what exactly?

Newton1 says...
4:48pm Fri 3 Feb 12

There was a good article in the Yorkshire Post (hardly a Labour supporting paper) earlier in the week that put this into context - every council that takes the Government's money to freeze council tax this year will have to pay it back with heavy interest over the next two years - meaning deeper cuts or eye watering higher council tax rises in the next two years.

Given that choice, a small rise this year seems to make sense.

This isn't really a local story - every council in the country is making massive cuts to their budgets as the Westminster Government passes their cuts on to local government.

If you're looking for people to shout at about this, I'd start with Eric Pickles and George Osbourne.

AJButler says...
4:55pm Fri 3 Feb 12

It would seem to me a lot of York residents will be asking themselves why additional savings couldn't have been found to account for that 0.4% (which is around £6 a year for the average band D household at a rough calculation) so as the council could have taken advantage of the 2.5% government grant that would have allowed people to keep that £28 in their pockets.

Seems a shame that York folk are going to have to scrimp a little harder this year because the council turned down the government grant.

Ignatius Lumpopo says...
4:55pm Fri 3 Feb 12

The price of council allotments went up 10% in January. And now they're going to introduce "visiting residents" parking permits at £44p.a. for some allotment sites where parking used to be free.

eastofcity says...
5:02pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Given the prolification of 'To Let' signs on houses which are obviously aimed at the ever increasing student population who do not pay council tax, perhaps this one of the reasons why residents are being asked to pay more to make up for lost revenue?

micky moodys hat says...
5:06pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Newton1 wrote:
There was a good article in the Yorkshire Post (hardly a Labour supporting paper) earlier in the week that put this into context - every council that takes the Government's money to freeze council tax this year will have to pay it back with heavy interest over the next two years - meaning deeper cuts or eye watering higher council tax rises in the next two years.

Given that choice, a small rise this year seems to make sense.

This isn't really a local story - every council in the country is making massive cuts to their budgets as the Westminster Government passes their cuts on to local government.

If you're looking for people to shout at about this, I'd start with Eric Pickles and George Osbourne.
Newton 1 is correct on this and I have to say well done to the council for having the balls to do this.
It would have cost the council, therefore you and I more in the longer term. Some of you spouting your bile on here could do well to find out the facts surrounding a headline before putting finger to keyboard and making yourselves look stupid

bentanguay says...
5:10pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Last year I stood for election with Labour, Luckily I did not get elected as there is no way I could stand up and agree with this. Paying more in order to recieve less. Politics schmolitics, my principles are not for sale

newscritic says...
5:25pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Looks pretty fair to me.

monkeyhanger says...
5:32pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Can live with the small increase in council tax,however think that raising parking charges again is plain stupid.The current charges are very high in my opinion.Suppose its an easy cash cow to milk.
I hope the council are not just cutting back on low paid workers and are reducing the huge number of middle ranking workers on 25 to 35k.

Andy1675 says...
5:41pm Fri 3 Feb 12

What on earth are the idiots in charge of CYC doing!? There is no need to rise council tax at all. CYC is an highly inefficient organisation with working practices from the Stone Age! If CYC was run properly, millions would be saved. You so called 'leaders', 'senior managers', 'middle-managers' should be ashamed of yourselves. Please resign before you mess things up any further! Idiots!

pw8757 says...
5:58pm Fri 3 Feb 12

So, for the sake of the City getting an extra 0.4% above what the Government would have given in additional grant so the City of York Council could freeze the tax, everyone will have to pay 2.9% increase in Council Tax.

Indigo75 says...
6:10pm Fri 3 Feb 12

CYC are currently doing some road resurfacing in Fulford at the moment. From 7.30am - 4pm there were contractor vehicles of all description sitting idle with their engines running. Fuel's expensive, as we all know, not to mention the fumes.
I rang the council to complain (something I would not usually do but this really annoyed me) but they cut me off!
I'll be contacting my local MP this weekend.

the butler says...
6:52pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Is it not impractical to leave the streets not swept? further to this what would the total savings amount to? allow the cleaning crews to do a thorough job, including public toilets!

Urban-Guerrilla says...
6:53pm Fri 3 Feb 12

We have to pay for the cops sending choppers up in the air to catch burgulars in wheelie-bins somehow, ye'know! Absolute Joke

snugglebunny says...
6:53pm Fri 3 Feb 12

When you read this article and all the points after it I realise what a mess this country of ours is in.Thats what democracy does for you-what a depressing world.

The Straight Bat says...
6:57pm Fri 3 Feb 12

It looks like the council budget is the best that could have been done, given the massive cuts in the money we get from central government. Its interesting to note there are many Tory run councils that have come in with a higher increase in council tax, such as Scarborough.

hustler says...
7:29pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Thank goodness for shopping facilities at MONKS CROSS and Clifton Moor, with their easily accessible free car parks !

Oaklands Resident says...
7:34pm Fri 3 Feb 12

The details are on the Council web site now. The above is only the tip of the iceberg.

The two year Council Tax increase will be at least 5%. Council house rents are up by 7.4% and business rates by 5.8%.

That’s on top of the water and sewage charges where an 6.1% increase was announced earlier in the week.

But the real news is about the cuts.

£2.6 million is being cut from care services, while extra money is going on an off road cycle circuit at the University, on extending the art gallery and on improving traveller sites.

The libraries are going out of Council control and highway maintenance expenditure is being slashed.

Providing pay on exit equipment at ONE car park will cost taxpayers £100,000.

ResPark permit charges for small cars are increasing by 5.7% while large car owners get away with a 4.5% increase!

Can’t imagine what the crew who protested about last years council budget will make of this lot when everything becomes clearer.

Silver says...
7:57pm Fri 3 Feb 12

the butler wrote:
Is it not impractical to leave the streets not swept? further to this what would the total savings amount to? allow the cleaning crews to do a thorough job, including public toilets!
The public toilets aren't cleaned by the council they're done by an outside contractor.

emen says...
8:06pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Newton1 wrote:
There was a good article in the Yorkshire Post (hardly a Labour supporting paper) earlier in the week that put this into context - every council that takes the Government's money to freeze council tax this year will have to pay it back with heavy interest over the next two years - meaning deeper cuts or eye watering higher council tax rises in the next two years.

Given that choice, a small rise this year seems to make sense.

This isn't really a local story - every council in the country is making massive cuts to their budgets as the Westminster Government passes their cuts on to local government.

If you're looking for people to shout at about this, I'd start with Eric Pickles and George Osbourne.
Where does it say that the grant has to be paid back with "heavy interest over the next two years"?

Also, the council could introduce "eye watering higher council tax rises" in the future but would have to hold a referendum first for anything above 3.5%. By the tone of the comments this year’s increase has attracted they'd have no chance of getting a mandate.

Older Sometimes Wiser says...
8:32pm Fri 3 Feb 12

My Council tax direct debit payment is already the biggest item every month.
I see gross inefficiency particularly with road repairs where roads are closed yet no work appears to be happening.Some Councilors do and say nothing at Meetings ,apparently not having read the papers.Their contributions are minimal most of the time (and this is said by colleagues!).
It is the lack of competence, of ability, and of responsibility of SOME, NOT ALL that offends me most.
Yet this is our fault as the public at large seldom pays any attention , has no interest in what is being done and never gets involved!
I do congratulate the efficiency of the waste disposal operatives ( bin men) who work efficiently and speedily on the days they appear.

Gramayre says...
8:37pm Fri 3 Feb 12

All that goes through my mind is £43 million for council offices - easy for them to needlessly spend money they haven't got. York city council is a waste of space.

mickeytops says...
10:50pm Fri 3 Feb 12

How can our Council Tax be going up when people are being sacked and they are making cuts everywhere. I pay £122 a Month to get my bins emptied every 2 weeks and they turn all the lights off in York to make it a lot easier for robbers to not be seen?
It is ridiculous that they are talking about spending hard working peoples money on new offices and a new football stadium for this City. This Council is run by complete idiots who have not got a clue about there people, remember we voted you in and we can not vote for you next time you useless idiots. Putting up parking again is just getting people to go to Monks cross and Clifton and staying away from York Centre, that is why so many Businesses in the City are going bust.
I am appalled by this Council wasting money on a daily basis.

openallhours says...
11:03pm Fri 3 Feb 12

Take a walk around York on any given day and you'll see the following; trouble causers, drunks, system (& substance) abusers, the handout reliant, scroungers and worse.

And that's just the gravytrain politicians!!!

ReginaldBiscuit says...
12:00am Sat 4 Feb 12

snugglebunny wrote:
When you read this article and all the points after it I realise what a mess this country of ours is in.Thats what democracy does for you-what a depressing world.
Except you do not get true democracy and crucially, this needs to change.

An example would be the council's 'Have your say' on what gets cut. 'Have your say on what we offer to have a say on' would be a truer version. These Trojans of democracy, purveyors of power, best interest charlatans, are out of touch with the people who put them there. The democracy mongers think they know best. One wonders what would happen if Britons were given a free referendum on the death penalty and membership of the EU?. I suspect we would find out that the minority in power do not best represent the interests of the majority.

Slippage. Digression.

I don't mind paying higher council tax if our best interests are fought for and represented. This calls for rational thinking and conclusive debate. What is necessary in times of austerity and what is not. I for one am fed up of paying out council tax for unnecessary posts (£150,000k+ Chief Exec) and ill-thought out projects. A council given a budget by the government does NOT need a Chief Exec. Frontline services must be kept and any rationalisation should startwith the numerous and extremely well paid middle to senior management roles that exist therein.

The public have no choice but to pay council tax. Unlike the private sector, we cannot shop around for different services. In the private sector, if something is too much and unaffordable, we simply change our supplier.

Rationalise wisely, spend frugally. Think on. Actions have consequences and we are only 3 missed meals away from revolt.

piaggio says...
12:33am Sat 4 Feb 12

and still,we send millions of pounds to overseas dodgy countries??, what the hek is going on???,am i going to get a 2.9% pay increase??.me thinks not

Torycouncil2015 says...
6:52am Sat 4 Feb 12

emen wrote:
Newton1 wrote:
There was a good article in the Yorkshire Post (hardly a Labour supporting paper) earlier in the week that put this into context - every council that takes the Government's money to freeze council tax this year will have to pay it back with heavy interest over the next two years - meaning deeper cuts or eye watering higher council tax rises in the next two years.

Given that choice, a small rise this year seems to make sense.

This isn't really a local story - every council in the country is making massive cuts to their budgets as the Westminster Government passes their cuts on to local government.

If you're looking for people to shout at about this, I'd start with Eric Pickles and George Osbourne.
Where does it say that the grant has to be paid back with "heavy interest over the next two years"?

Also, the council could introduce "eye watering higher council tax rises" in the future but would have to hold a referendum first for anything above 3.5%. By the tone of the comments this year’s increase has attracted they'd have no chance of getting a mandate.
It's telling that Newton1 is the only of the Labourcouncillors/po
litics students to log on here and try and defend this. Even they can't find anything positive to say about it

Thisisme says...
8:40am Sat 4 Feb 12

Get to your ward committee meetings and challenge the Labour councillors on these cuts!!!
James Alexander has had his meeting and conveniently turned the microphone off when it was the publics turn to have their say (as reported in the press).

Woody Mellor says...
8:53am Sat 4 Feb 12

So they are going to take money out of out pockets so they dont have to further cut funding to organisations such as Visit York. So does this mean that Gillian Cruddas will not be accepting a pay increase this year?

Casual_Reader says...
8:53am Sat 4 Feb 12

Hang on... "and borrowing £20 million." We have a £1t national debt caused by the last Labour government and now CYC want to continue the trend of borrowing when we can't afford it!

peter123456 says...
10:55am Sat 4 Feb 12

Typical Labour attitude to solving all problems spend spend spend. Make the most of it new or old Labour as your time in office is coming to an end hopefully forever.

newscritic says...
11:06am Sat 4 Feb 12

Can't people read - there are still going to be 200 job cuts and service cuts, and thats with a council tax rise.

What would the cuts be like if council tax did not rise?

Austerity is taking money from the poorer so the wealthier can retain theirs.

The Tories and politicians in general are taking us for fools.

Oaklands Resident says...
12:22pm Sat 4 Feb 12

Even now The Press don't seem to realise the scale and nature of the cuts that are being proposed.

They're cutting £4.9 million this year and another £3.7 million next year (page 229 of the cabinet report) from adult and childrens care services. Bob Towner should be standing up for elderly people not helping Labour to spin a web of deceit.

The Press is right about the Council not giving residents time to digest the details of what is being proposed. They would be enraged if they did.

For example, borrowing another £20 million to pay for services like the extention of "free" WiFi access in the City centre, is just plain mad.

They plan an 18% increase in car parking charges for residents; yet are spending £100,000 to install a "pay on exit" barrier at just one City centre car park.

There is a lengthening list of blunders, gimmicks and just plain bad economics yet to be fully revealed.

thefutureis says...
12:41pm Sat 4 Feb 12

And dont forget this is only the ones theyre admitting to. As serial overspenders you can expect much more to come. Take a look at this years budget. £600k cut from road repairs £100k from libraries £100k from Ward Committees.

bloodaxe says...
12:47pm Sat 4 Feb 12

eastofcity wrote:
Given the prolification of 'To Let' signs on houses which are obviously aimed at the ever increasing student population who do not pay council tax, perhaps this one of the reasons why residents are being asked to pay more to make up for lost revenue?
The owners of the properties presumably have to pay council tax. The tax is on the property, not the occupants.

thefutureis says...
12:50pm Sat 4 Feb 12

And for those blaming the government, if you read the papers, the total cut from the government is £5million, the total cuts proposed here £19 million.

Cut from government in 2013/2014 £0 proposed cuts by the council £8.7 million

bloodaxe says...
12:54pm Sat 4 Feb 12

Cutting back on street cleaning sounds like a recipe for disaster. It's pretty dire at the moment down Huntington Road and New Earswick (easily the dirtiest suburb in York). Let's hope that the Queen gets here before the cuts take place and the whole place becomes a slum. Personally I'd rather see my Council Tax increased to prevent cuts. As for money spent on the new Council Offices, most of that is covered by moving out of existing inadequate premises and in any case the budgets are entirely separate. If Cameron and his chums really cared about localism then they would have local income taxes and fully accountable councillors who had to be re-elected in toto every four years. Taxes on property are regressive and undemocratic.

newscritic says...
1:22pm Sat 4 Feb 12

thefutureis wrote:
And for those blaming the government, if you read the papers, the total cut from the government is £5million, the total cuts proposed here £19 million.

Cut from government in 2013/2014 £0 proposed cuts by the council £8.7 million
Why are the council saving £20 million if they don't have to?

Surely any council would prefer not to have cuts if possible?

pedalling paul says...
1:55pm Sat 4 Feb 12

Urban-Guerrilla wrote:
We have to pay for the cops sending choppers up in the air to catch burgulars in wheelie-bins somehow, ye'know! Absolute Joke
Correct that CoYC Council tax includes a precept to help fun our local emergency services. And it was shortly after the wheelie bin burglars got nabbed, that my Octegenarian neighbour had some credit cards returned by NYP that had been stolen in an earlier burglary. That burglary was a traumatic experience for him, and I don't begrudge anything that puts local scroats behind prison bars.

Stevie D says...
2:23pm Sat 4 Feb 12

It's good to see that everyone is blindly attacking the council without looking further into the facts. The council is seeing its incoming budget slashed. That means it has to cut services and/or put up council tax – there's no way it can carry on providing the same level of service without a huge increase in income to make up for what Whitehall has taken off it. It has settled on a compromise of some reduction in services and some increase in council tax, to give the fairest balance. It is in the same boat as most other councils across the country.

As for the government grant, don't make me laugh. Taking that would set us up for much higher costs in the future, robbing Peter to pay Paul and creating huge liabilities for the next few years. No thanks.

eastofcity wrote:
Given the prolification of 'To Let' signs on houses which are obviously aimed at the ever increasing student population who do not pay council tax, perhaps this one of the reasons why residents are being asked to pay more to make up for lost revenue?

The council is reimbursed by central government for all exempt properties (such as student homes), so there is no cost to the council there.

thefutureis says...
2:48pm Sat 4 Feb 12

I didn't say they didn't have to I said that only £5 million of the 19 million can be attributed to central government. Perhaps the council should be more honest about what is causing the cuts. They are presenting it as a fait accompli we have to save £19 million because the governemnt is taking the money from us. This is not the case. In reality the government is taking £5 million away only. The rest of the savings are to make up for profligate spending elsewhere

In fact if you read the Capital papers you'll see there is actually an additional £8.5 million coming from central government over the next 5 years

And lets not forget these paper propose borrowing £28 million over five years for an "Economic Investment Fund"

thefutureis says...
2:55pm Sat 4 Feb 12

Stevie D wrote:
It's good to see that everyone is blindly attacking the council without looking further into the facts. The council is seeing its incoming budget slashed. That means it has to cut services and/or put up council tax – there's no way it can carry on providing the same level of service without a huge increase in income to make up for what Whitehall has taken off it. It has settled on a compromise of some reduction in services and some increase in council tax, to give the fairest balance. It is in the same boat as most other councils across the country.

As for the government grant, don't make me laugh. Taking that would set us up for much higher costs in the future, robbing Peter to pay Paul and creating huge liabilities for the next few years. No thanks.

eastofcity wrote:
Given the prolification of 'To Let' signs on houses which are obviously aimed at the ever increasing student population who do not pay council tax, perhaps this one of the reasons why residents are being asked to pay more to make up for lost revenue?

The council is reimbursed by central government for all exempt properties (such as student homes), so there is no cost to the council there.
"It's good to see that everyone is blindly attacking the council without looking further into the facts. The council is seeing its incoming budget slashed. "

Ok Lets consider the facts. The council's budget is approximatley £120 million. Government and withdrawing £5 million from 2012/13. Simple maths shows this is a 4% reduction in the council's income. Hardly "slashing" In 2013/14 there is no reduction whatsoever in government contributions.

in 2012.13 the government has offering £1.8 million for freezing council tax and will give about £1.8 million in the New Homes Bonus according to these papers. As such while taking away £5 milion they are offering back £3.6 million.

The council could take the £1.8 million and use the New Homes Bonus to meet the shortfall in 2013/2014.

In short this budget is not being forced on the council it is an ideological choice.

And one that will saddle tax payers with an additional £30+ million of debt !!!!!!!!

Micklegate says...
3:16pm Sat 4 Feb 12

I like the way for council funding issues it's always something like bin lorries shown, exactly the sort of thing EVERYONE wants. A picture of an office with lots of people say at desks, whose job aren't necessary would be a more realistic illustration of today's council.

If you want a freeze in tax and to get £1.8 million from the government (not a loan!) make sure to sign the petition:

http://democracy.yor
k.gov.uk/mgePetition
ListDisplay.aspx?bcr
=1

marvell says...
3:29pm Sat 4 Feb 12

To all of you that voted Labour at the last council elections - happy birthday - you've got exactly what you deserve.

If you expect these hapless misfits that occupy key positions within the Labour Cabinet to preside over anything more than a catasrophic disaster over the next 4 years then you're more stupid than them - and that's fairly impossible.

There's such a lack of talent and skill-sets to do the job that is needed it's scary. And before we allow them to blame the Coalition for all of this - the total reduction in funding is 4% - that's right 4% - and yet Labour use this as an excuse to make punitive £19 million cuts.

And this is just the start of the apocolypse...

newscritic says...
3:29pm Sat 4 Feb 12

thefutureis wrote:
I didn't say they didn't have to I said that only £5 million of the 19 million can be attributed to central government. Perhaps the council should be more honest about what is causing the cuts. They are presenting it as a fait accompli we have to save £19 million because the governemnt is taking the money from us. This is not the case. In reality the government is taking £5 million away only. The rest of the savings are to make up for profligate spending elsewhere

In fact if you read the Capital papers you'll see there is actually an additional £8.5 million coming from central government over the next 5 years

And lets not forget these paper propose borrowing £28 million over five years for an "Economic Investment Fund"
Nevertheless there are still £15 million of savings to be made £20 million including cuts by government.

Has the borrowing got anything to do with the increased costs to me made concerning council housing through the localism Bill?

Magritte says...
3:50pm Sat 4 Feb 12

Gillian Cruddas... said: “York’s cultural offer is extremely important to the city’s visitor economy and we fully support investment plans for the City Art Gallery and York Theatre Royal. Continual investment in arts and culture is needed to ensure York is able to compete in a global tourism market.”

I hear around £3 million will be spent on the Art Gallery...Oh yes, and it's free to visit! Makes me think it's not WHAT you know, but WHO you know!

thefutureis says...
3:53pm Sat 4 Feb 12

newscritic wrote:
thefutureis wrote:
I didn't say they didn't have to I said that only £5 million of the 19 million can be attributed to central government. Perhaps the council should be more honest about what is causing the cuts. They are presenting it as a fait accompli we have to save £19 million because the governemnt is taking the money from us. This is not the case. In reality the government is taking £5 million away only. The rest of the savings are to make up for profligate spending elsewhere

In fact if you read the Capital papers you'll see there is actually an additional £8.5 million coming from central government over the next 5 years

And lets not forget these paper propose borrowing £28 million over five years for an "Economic Investment Fund"
Nevertheless there are still £15 million of savings to be made £20 million including cuts by government.

Has the borrowing got anything to do with the increased costs to me made concerning council housing through the localism Bill?
Nope. £28 million of borrowing for something that they havent even specified yet.

I agree there are another £15 million of cuts proposed but these are to pay for Labour spending elsewhere. Time to be honest show the £15 million of extra spending and dont blame it on government cuts of 4% over 2 years

newscritic says...
4:00pm Sat 4 Feb 12

Wont the £28 million borrowing requirement have to be detailed at some point as to what it is for?

I thought government was cutting back council money to 2015 and beyond?

And what about th e£33 million shortfall regarding housing due to government cutbacks.

thefutureis says...
4:17pm Sat 4 Feb 12

newscritic wrote:
Wont the £28 million borrowing requirement have to be detailed at some point as to what it is for?

I thought government was cutting back council money to 2015 and beyond?

And what about th e£33 million shortfall regarding housing due to government cutbacks.
Biggest government cut came last year. Thats been dealt with. There's $5 this year and nothing next year.

Yes the £28 million will have to be accounted at some point but we'll still be paying it off in the meantime.

And this is from a Council Leader who stated he was so concerned the councils debt was now higher than that of Greenland. Soon changed his tune when he got his hands on the credit card

newscritic says...
4:53pm Sat 4 Feb 12

thefutureis wrote:
newscritic wrote:
Wont the £28 million borrowing requirement have to be detailed at some point as to what it is for?

I thought government was cutting back council money to 2015 and beyond?

And what about th e£33 million shortfall regarding housing due to government cutbacks.
Biggest government cut came last year. Thats been dealt with. There's $5 this year and nothing next year.

Yes the £28 million will have to be accounted at some point but we'll still be paying it off in the meantime.

And this is from a Council Leader who stated he was so concerned the councils debt was now higher than that of Greenland. Soon changed his tune when he got his hands on the credit card
What about the extra housing cost?

cherokee says...
4:57pm Sat 4 Feb 12

Whatever happened to all that money we were supposed to get from "Sustrans" to provide facilities for cyclists? Hepworth,turnout your pockets

low class says...
5:00pm Sat 4 Feb 12

The point has been put accross surrounding single persons discount thats fine however it roughly encours a small amount per year , the thing is we are on our own and certainely dont abuse the system as we also pay tax nt contributions as any working person and have to work a lot more hours to even achieve sumwhat decent hours to pay our bills, as in marriage ok yes i was, so no cheap comments on marriage we dont choose our paths i am a single person i dont have 2 plus more wages coming in i have mine and mine only and if you think a small reduction isnt enought then fair enough

low class says...
5:17pm Sat 4 Feb 12

Silver wrote:
the butler wrote: Is it not impractical to leave the streets not swept? further to this what would the total savings amount to? allow the cleaning crews to do a thorough job, including public toilets!
The public toilets aren't cleaned by the council they're done by an outside contractor.
i just wonder why most individual has a go at the public toilets the staff that do the job do there best more than the public knows it is not the staff or the ycc fault it is the something that is out of there hands, i just beg to ask you all a question would you do there jobs. i would say 99 out of a hundred would say no. its not there fault. Its the way of the world unfortunatly and its a job to pay bills just think give the claeners and ycc some gratitude

George Appleby says...
6:16pm Sat 4 Feb 12

We are on the receiving end of what our votes get for us and what those who ask for them can do to us. There is no limit.

This democracy has been turned upside down. We have 1% representation and responsibility for the 99% and 99% representation and benefits for the 1%.

A vote anywhere but Labour, Tory or floating Lib Dem is all but pointless. 50% of voters see nothing in it for them and don't to turn out, so even when we don't finish up with a so called 'majority government' like now; we have a minority government totally for those who used our money to make us, children and the poor suffer.

Only 6% of cuts passed have yet been made. 94% still to come.

We desperately need moderation to take over from the extremes of boom and bust politics which have brought us to where we are. They are still pushing people to 'rebuild the economy' and spend, spend spend with the national debt still rising.

Oh for a level economy and everybody paying their way.

roskoboskovic says...
6:22pm Sat 4 Feb 12

with all the fuss being made about the new monks cross development destroying the city centre the council numpties put up parking charges.priceless.

Von_Dutch says...
6:30pm Sat 4 Feb 12

cherokee wrote:
Whatever happened to all that money we were supposed to get from "Sustrans" to provide facilities for cyclists? Hepworth,turnout your pockets
Mr Usherwood - never lets an opportunity pass him by for peddling his anti-cycling bile...
Incidently, the CyclingCity money was from the central government DfT, not Sustrans (which is a charity).

AnotherPointofView says...
6:52pm Sat 4 Feb 12

Silver wrote:
the butler wrote: Is it not impractical to leave the streets not swept? further to this what would the total savings amount to? allow the cleaning crews to do a thorough job, including public toilets!
The public toilets aren't cleaned by the council they're done by an outside contractor.
Err think about it.

Who do you think pays the outside contractor?

Silver says...
7:37pm Sat 4 Feb 12

low class wrote:
Silver wrote:
the butler wrote: Is it not impractical to leave the streets not swept? further to this what would the total savings amount to? allow the cleaning crews to do a thorough job, including public toilets!
The public toilets aren't cleaned by the council they're done by an outside contractor.
i just wonder why most individual has a go at the public toilets the staff that do the job do there best more than the public knows it is not the staff or the ycc fault it is the something that is out of there hands, i just beg to ask you all a question would you do there jobs. i would say 99 out of a hundred would say no. its not there fault. Its the way of the world unfortunatly and its a job to pay bills just think give the claeners and ycc some gratitude
I never said a bad word about them just that they're not actually council staff so lumping them in the same category isn't fair and the mess in the toilets isn't their fault it's the fault of the people who can't use toilets properly.

Thisisme says...
7:55pm Sat 4 Feb 12

Check out your local ward committee meeting and get down to the only public meeting your allowed to be part of. Here is the link; http://www.york.gov.
uk/council/Wards/02w
ard_meetings/
They are to get rid of ward committees and their staff so councillors dont have to face the public anymore!!!!!!

Woody Mellor says...
8:32pm Sat 4 Feb 12

Come to think of it. I don't care, cos I'm really really rich!

tomcat85 says...
9:38pm Sat 4 Feb 12

Disgrace, the roads tonight are horrendous. Why werent they prepared for this snow?? Its been forecast all week. Bloody useless, waste of money.

Magicman! says...
9:55pm Sat 4 Feb 12

I can see both sides of this. Costs rise all the time on a linear scale - but ouncil tax can go up only once a year, so the tax is put up in a chunk, then a chunk again the next year - which if plotted on a graph would look like steps going up above the costs at the start of the year but being below the costs at the end of the year.... If the council took the government grant to freeze tax for one year only, then the next year the tax rise would be effectively doubled to meet the costs.

Still doesn't mean people like paying it though!!!

Yorkie-Clifton says...
10:48pm Sat 4 Feb 12

eastofcity wrote:
Given the prolification of 'To Let' signs on houses which are obviously aimed at the ever increasing student population who do not pay council tax, perhaps this one of the reasons why residents are being asked to pay more to make up for lost revenue?
But why should they ?? they do not cause any need to use the services provided . Like refuse collection etc . LOL

YorkResident2012 says...
12:45am Sun 5 Feb 12

so the council are either closing adult services down for e.g. home support team or privatising services e.g. the re-ablement team. We have fortnightly waste collections reducing the services actually provided by them .... so exactly how many staff have taken voluntary redundancy? we talk of compulsory redundancy but what about the voluntary ... what are the figures for actual employed staff 2009-2010 - 2010 -2011 a forecast for 2011-2012 i bet they are decreasing significantly! and the justification for these rises? so MR Alexander your spending significantly less you keep telling us this! our services are being reduced! we even pay for York cards now! erm we no longer have a barbican leisure centre so if you live in acomb you have close a swimming pool and facilities if you live otherside of city tough ! theres the old yearsley baths if you fancy a swimor you can chance the ouse/foss! which if we are honest they would close yearsley in a heart beat based on its age ! reductions in housing benefit , increases in parking ... we are paying for tourists sod the quality of life for residents of York so long as we keep people visiting! we cant afford to live here rising rents and fuel bills expensive unreliable bus services but we shall serve! wonder how many or yorks residents are actually affluent ...

eboracum says...
8:15am Sun 5 Feb 12

Lets get this right - Residents, who pay York Council Tax, face a 20p per hour increase on parking charges - Non residents, who pay no York Council Tax, only face an increase of 10p per hour. Have the inmates taken over the asylum?

Matt_S says...
12:37pm Sun 5 Feb 12

"I don't mind paying higher council tax if our best interests are fought for and represented."

And this is exactly what the problem is. Different people have different ideas of what counts as our 'best interests'. But rather than realising that other people have different views, everyone just attacks the council which has to take into consideration all these different views.

cherokee says...
2:29pm Sun 5 Feb 12

Von Dutch So Sustrands got it's cash from the Dept of Transport,which,in turn got the cash from the Treasury As a taxpayer,owning my own house,not in reciept of any large government grants and a car owner to boot I paid tax for some of this cash and would like to know what happened to it

Older Sometimes Wiser says...
4:39pm Sun 5 Feb 12

Thisisme wrote:
Check out your local ward committee meeting and get down to the only public meeting your allowed to be part of. Here is the link; http://www.york.gov.

uk/council/Wards/02w

ard_meetings/
They are to get rid of ward committees and their staff so councillors dont have to face the public anymore!!!!!!
Not quite true!There are many York Council Meeting where the public have access. The papers are available before the Meetings on the Council website or the local Library, and there is a brief period at the start of each Meeting for relevant questions( and comments) from members of the public.
It is wise to know something about the subject discussed so that your input can be taken seriously. One has to register 24hrs before the meeting by telephoning the stated democracy officer and giving them an idea of what you wish to raise.
All Ward Committee Meetings are open access, and up to now provide a venue for electors to question their Councillors and Officers. I have contributed to both types of Meetings with varying success!
To stop these would be a serious reduction in the Democratic system and should be strongly resisted.

RoseD says...
5:16pm Sun 5 Feb 12

Torycouncil2015 wrote:
"without having to further cut funding to organisations such as Visit York." Tourists 1 Residents 0 Nothing but cash cows for Calamity James to milk
Exactly. O hail the Almighty Tourist and P*ss Off! to locals.

RoseD says...
5:23pm Sun 5 Feb 12

Oaklands Resident wrote:
The details are on the Council web site now. The above is only the tip of the iceberg. The two year Council Tax increase will be at least 5%. Council house rents are up by 7.4% and business rates by 5.8%. That’s on top of the water and sewage charges where an 6.1% increase was announced earlier in the week. But the real news is about the cuts. £2.6 million is being cut from care services, while extra money is going on an off road cycle circuit at the University, on extending the art gallery and on improving traveller sites. The libraries are going out of Council control and highway maintenance expenditure is being slashed. Providing pay on exit equipment at ONE car park will cost taxpayers £100,000. ResPark permit charges for small cars are increasing by 5.7% while large car owners get away with a 4.5% increase! Can’t imagine what the crew who protested about last years council budget will make of this lot when everything becomes clearer.
Thank you Oakland for the synopsis. The cuts are appalling and giving residents only 10 days to assimilate the info is dodgy indeed.

Mr Crabtree says...
6:13pm Sun 5 Feb 12

thefutureis wrote, "In 2012/13 the government has offering £1.8 million for freezing council tax and will give about £1.8 million in the New Homes Bonus according to these papers....."


I think the NHB of £1.8m may be wrong ?

York were allocated £714,173 in the 2011/12 allocations, presumably for new housing built in 2010/11. In 2010/11 there were 514 completions in York, but, in 2011/12 the council only expect 352 completions, and the NHB on a pro rata basis will only be around £489,000.
York has cut its own throat with it's unworkable affordable housing policy, which has killed off housebuilding in the city. We are all the losers because of their policy making stupidity !

the butler says...
6:35pm Sun 5 Feb 12

Why does it take three men in one truck to gather garbage? One man is or should be capable to do this job, there is a proper system, procedure, if the City would only look for it!!
There's a saving right away.. To add to the list, Who has a screwed up the Coppergate and Piccadilly upgrades that need to be done?

the butler says...
6:47pm Sun 5 Feb 12

Re buttle to Silver, even so, you do contribute funding for such to happen, Is it cost effective? I'm not sure. But I point out it is not done for free.

lioncub says...
6:52pm Sun 5 Feb 12

I think the council tax is great value for money! I would be happy to sell my house, all its contents and my car to pay for it!!!

the butler says...
7:00pm Sun 5 Feb 12

This column reminds me of an old quote
Put a Jewish banker in charge of your funds , Then a Chinese CEO.handling the mechanics of the system, and you will not need to look back!!

leaky69 says...
9:03pm Sun 5 Feb 12

What a load of guff! As the libraries and Adult Education Departments are plotting to come out of the remit of the Council and run as a private enterprise company they cannot justify using the money to fund the libraries! The Press is well aware of this development, which to say the least is ill founded, but should(or rather when) it happens then Council Tax will not be funding the running of the libraries at all! This will happen, watch this space!

Von_Dutch says...
10:31pm Sun 5 Feb 12

cherokee wrote:
Von Dutch So Sustrands got it's cash from the Dept of Transport,which,in turn got the cash from the Treasury As a taxpayer,owning my own house,not in reciept of any large government grants and a car owner to boot I paid tax for some of this cash and would like to know what happened to it
Go away & educate yourself Mike. Sustrans were not involved at all with this money. I don't know where you get your info from...
And I don't know what relevance owning your own house / car etc is. So do I & probably the majority of commentators on here.
U just have an unhealthy obsession with cyclists...

thefutureis says...
12:10pm Mon 6 Feb 12

leaky69 wrote:
What a load of guff! As the libraries and Adult Education Departments are plotting to come out of the remit of the Council and run as a private enterprise company they cannot justify using the money to fund the libraries! The Press is well aware of this development, which to say the least is ill founded, but should(or rather when) it happens then Council Tax will not be funding the running of the libraries at all! This will happen, watch this space!
Not true. The museums are run by YMT who are funded by the council. I would imagine the libraries will go the same way. What you have instead are libraries funded by the tax payer, but not accountable to the tax payer

Chrido81 says...
12:33pm Mon 6 Feb 12

Perhaps dear old CYC is continuing on the basis that more apathy = more cost to the taxpayer?

Marc77 says...
11:55am Tue 7 Feb 12

Perhaps they could stop having conferences/ events at overpriced function venues.

lango-yorkshire says...
7:39pm Tue 7 Feb 12

why do we have assistant directors,make the directors manage there departments,and we will save more front line jobs.

click2find

Most popular


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