Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
10:50am Saturday 4th February 2012 in News
By Mark Stead, Political Reporter
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.”
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.”
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.
Comments(86)
Mike Oxuge
says...
4:36pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Torycouncil2015
says...
4:36pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Woody Mellor
says...
4:36pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Justinheaven
says...
4:38pm Fri 3 Feb 12
tangyang
says...
4:42pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Newton1
says...
4:48pm Fri 3 Feb 12
AJButler
says...
4:55pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Ignatius Lumpopo
says...
4:55pm Fri 3 Feb 12
eastofcity
says...
5:02pm Fri 3 Feb 12
micky moodys hat
says...
5:06pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Newton1 wrote:Newton 1 is correct on this and I have to say well done to the council for having the balls to do this.
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.
bentanguay
says...
5:10pm Fri 3 Feb 12
newscritic
says...
5:25pm Fri 3 Feb 12
monkeyhanger
says...
5:32pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Andy1675
says...
5:41pm Fri 3 Feb 12
pw8757
says...
5:58pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Indigo75
says...
6:10pm Fri 3 Feb 12
the butler
says...
6:52pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Urban-Guerrilla
says...
6:53pm Fri 3 Feb 12
snugglebunny
says...
6:53pm Fri 3 Feb 12
The Straight Bat
says...
6:57pm Fri 3 Feb 12
hustler
says...
7:29pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Oaklands Resident
says...
7:34pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Silver
says...
7:57pm Fri 3 Feb 12
the butler wrote:The public toilets aren't cleaned by the council they're done by an outside contractor.
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!
emen
says...
8:06pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Newton1 wrote:Where does it say that the grant has to be paid back with "heavy interest over the next two years"?
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.
Older Sometimes Wiser
says...
8:32pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Gramayre
says...
8:37pm Fri 3 Feb 12
mickeytops
says...
10:50pm Fri 3 Feb 12
openallhours
says...
11:03pm Fri 3 Feb 12
ReginaldBiscuit
says...
12:00am Sat 4 Feb 12
snugglebunny wrote:Except you do not get true democracy and crucially, this needs to change.
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.
piaggio
says...
12:33am Sat 4 Feb 12
Torycouncil2015
says...
6:52am Sat 4 Feb 12
emen wrote:It's telling that Newton1 is the only of the Labourcouncillors/po
Newton1 wrote:Where does it say that the grant has to be paid back with "heavy interest over the next two years"?
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.
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.
Thisisme
says...
8:40am Sat 4 Feb 12
Woody Mellor
says...
8:53am Sat 4 Feb 12
Casual_Reader
says...
8:53am Sat 4 Feb 12
peter123456
says...
10:55am Sat 4 Feb 12
newscritic
says...
11:06am Sat 4 Feb 12
Oaklands Resident
says...
12:22pm Sat 4 Feb 12
thefutureis
says...
12:41pm Sat 4 Feb 12
bloodaxe
says...
12:47pm Sat 4 Feb 12
eastofcity wrote:The owners of the properties presumably have to pay council tax. The tax is on the property, not the occupants.
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?
thefutureis
says...
12:50pm Sat 4 Feb 12
bloodaxe
says...
12:54pm Sat 4 Feb 12
newscritic
says...
1:22pm Sat 4 Feb 12
thefutureis wrote:Why are the council saving £20 million if they don't have to?
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
pedalling paul
says...
1:55pm Sat 4 Feb 12
Urban-Guerrilla wrote: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.
We have to pay for the cops sending choppers up in the air to catch burgulars in wheelie-bins somehow, ye'know! Absolute Joke
Stevie D
says...
2:23pm 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?
thefutureis
says...
2:48pm Sat 4 Feb 12
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. "
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.
Micklegate
says...
3:16pm Sat 4 Feb 12
marvell
says...
3:29pm Sat 4 Feb 12
newscritic
says...
3:29pm Sat 4 Feb 12
thefutureis wrote:Nevertheless there are still £15 million of savings to be made £20 million including cuts by government.
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"
Magritte
says...
3:50pm Sat 4 Feb 12
thefutureis
says...
3:53pm Sat 4 Feb 12
newscritic wrote:Nope. £28 million of borrowing for something that they havent even specified yet.
thefutureis wrote:Nevertheless there are still £15 million of savings to be made £20 million including cuts by government.
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"
Has the borrowing got anything to do with the increased costs to me made concerning council housing through the localism Bill?
newscritic
says...
4:00pm Sat 4 Feb 12
thefutureis
says...
4:17pm Sat 4 Feb 12
newscritic wrote:Biggest government cut came last year. Thats been dealt with. There's $5 this year and nothing next year.
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.
newscritic
says...
4:53pm Sat 4 Feb 12
thefutureis wrote:What about the extra housing cost?
newscritic wrote:Biggest government cut came last year. Thats been dealt with. There's $5 this year and nothing next year.
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.
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
cherokee
says...
4:57pm Sat 4 Feb 12
low class
says...
5:00pm Sat 4 Feb 12
low class
says...
5:17pm Sat 4 Feb 12
Silver wrote: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
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.
George Appleby
says...
6:16pm Sat 4 Feb 12
roskoboskovic
says...
6:22pm Sat 4 Feb 12
Von_Dutch
says...
6:30pm Sat 4 Feb 12
cherokee wrote:Mr Usherwood - never lets an opportunity pass him by for peddling his anti-cycling bile...
Whatever happened to all that money we were supposed to get from "Sustrans" to provide facilities for cyclists? Hepworth,turnout your pockets
AnotherPointofView
says...
6:52pm Sat 4 Feb 12
Silver wrote:Err think about it.
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.
Silver
says...
7:37pm Sat 4 Feb 12
low class wrote: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.
Silver wrote: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
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.
Thisisme
says...
7:55pm Sat 4 Feb 12
Woody Mellor
says...
8:32pm Sat 4 Feb 12
tomcat85
says...
9:38pm Sat 4 Feb 12
Magicman!
says...
9:55pm Sat 4 Feb 12
Yorkie-Clifton
says...
10:48pm Sat 4 Feb 12
eastofcity wrote:But why should they ?? they do not cause any need to use the services provided . Like refuse collection etc . LOL
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?
YorkResident2012
says...
12:45am Sun 5 Feb 12
eboracum
says...
8:15am Sun 5 Feb 12
Matt_S
says...
12:37pm Sun 5 Feb 12
cherokee
says...
2:29pm Sun 5 Feb 12
Older Sometimes Wiser
says...
4:39pm Sun 5 Feb 12
Thisisme wrote: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.
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!!!!!!
RoseD
says...
5:16pm Sun 5 Feb 12
Torycouncil2015 wrote:Exactly. O hail the Almighty Tourist and P*ss Off! to locals.
"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
RoseD
says...
5:23pm Sun 5 Feb 12
Oaklands Resident wrote:Thank you Oakland for the synopsis. The cuts are appalling and giving residents only 10 days to assimilate the info is dodgy indeed.
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.
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....."
the butler
says...
6:35pm Sun 5 Feb 12
the butler
says...
6:47pm Sun 5 Feb 12
lioncub
says...
6:52pm Sun 5 Feb 12
the butler
says...
7:00pm Sun 5 Feb 12
leaky69
says...
9:03pm Sun 5 Feb 12
Von_Dutch
says...
10:31pm Sun 5 Feb 12
cherokee wrote:Go away & educate yourself Mike. Sustrans were not involved at all with this money. I don't know where you get your info from...
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
thefutureis
says...
12:10pm Mon 6 Feb 12
leaky69 wrote: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
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!
Chrido81
says...
12:33pm Mon 6 Feb 12
Marc77
says...
11:55am Tue 7 Feb 12
lango-yorkshire
says...
7:39pm Tue 7 Feb 12
Looking for a new career? Find a job in York and all around North Yorkshire
Search Now »
Love and friendship - find your perfect match.
Search Now »
Find properties for sale and rent in and around York.
Search Now »
Find used vehicles for sale all over Yorkshire and the North.
Search Now »
R'Marcus says...
4:24pm Fri 3 Feb 12
You want us to pay more for less.
A question: are you REAL or some political puppet?