New draft budget revisions will ease pain of cuts at North East Lincolnshire Council
A RAFT of measures to ease the pain of the cuts have been announced by North East Lincolnshire Council.
Among the ideas approved by Cabinet, in a series of revisions to the council’s draft 2013/14 budget, are:
-
Revisions to the council's draft budget include further investment in tourism, deferring an increase in taxi licensing fees and spending £30,000 on hosting the Britain In Bloom awards ceremony in Cleethorpes.
Deferring a planned increase in charges for meals on wheels for two years – £68,000.
Deferring an increase in taxi licensing fees – £12,000; and deferring the introduction of new-style taxi plates – £5,000.
Lanlords
Urgently Seeking two(2&4)bedroom properties for our Lengthy list of possible suitable tenants with the lowest FREES in town and excellent turn around rate for sourcing and managing.
Terms: terms and condition apply
Contact: 01472 355 553
Valid until: Tuesday, June 18 2013
Making further investment in promoting the area as a tourist destination, with £100,000 for events and £75,000 for marketing.
Scrapping the proposed transfer of half of one full-time Trading Standards officer into the licensing department. Instead it will fund a fixed-term post in licensing for the next three years at a cost of £7,000.
Spending £30,000 on hosting the Britain In Bloom awards ceremony in Cleethorpes.
The Britain In Bloom event will be paid for by cutting ward funding in each of the 15 wards by £2,000.
Ward funding will also be cut by a further £2,000 in each of the following two financial years, seeing it half from £12,000 this year to £6,000 in 2015/16.
The other revisions will be funded by taking £589,000 out of the council’s reserves over the next three years.
Council leader Chris Shaw said: “These revisions are all about supporting the council’s priorities, which are to support jobs, investment and employment, and look after vulnerable people.”
He added that although the council could only commit to the additional tourism funding for three years, it is hoped the move will generate revenue by increasing the number of visitors to the area.
Car parking income will be monitored to establish the return on the investment.
The decision to defer fee increases for meals on wheels and to scrap the cuts to Trading Standards came after concerns were raised by members of the scrutiny panels last month.
Councillor Shaw said: “People raised concerns and we always said we would listen to concerns. We asked councillors of the other parties to come up with some alternatives which they haven’t done, but we have managed to find the money ourselves.” He added that ward funding was “gravely” underused and so reductions to that budget would not impact on the local community.
The budget will go before full council on Thursday for final approval.
33 Comments
View all
by tickledpink
Saturday, February 23 2013, 8:26PM
“by GTWebonly
"The last time this happened the council signed off accounts that had revenues included twice..."
Does this relate to the £1.4 million income for school meals included twice in the budget on page 7 of the auditor's report?
http://tinyurl.com/b4wzhoh
21. The fundamental failings I have described above contributed to this perilous financial
position. They were exacerbated in 2002/2003 by a combination of erroneous and
incomplete budgeting and unacceptable accounts closedown arrangements. Five main items
contributed to the unbudgeted spending, as shown in exhibit 1 below.
"Income relating to school meals was included twice in the original budget."”
by justsaying
Saturday, February 23 2013, 12:53PM
“Labour bankrupted N E Lincs last time they were put in charge and many of those responsible last time will only do it again if they are not replaced. Who is to blame? The people who voted for them!”
by Davex66
Saturday, February 23 2013, 11:06AM
“"The Britain In Bloom event will be paid for by cutting ward funding in each of the 15 wards by £2,000."
The Britain in Bloom event is being paid for by digging up flower beds in our tourist areas.
There will be a future saving too because Britain in Bloom will not want to come to Cleethorpes again thanks to the destruction caused by Shaw and Burnett aided and abetted by Labours useful idiots!”
by tickledpink
Saturday, February 23 2013, 9:55AM
“GTWebonly,
" • the council spent £5m more than it had budgeted in 2002/2003, and ended the year with a completely inadequate general fund reserve of only £1m "
Which political party was in charge at the time?”
by stander
Friday, February 22 2013, 9:25PM
“HelloooOOO!
Pink Strawberry......”
by harryX
Friday, February 22 2013, 9:19PM
“How on earth – with a gender neutral user name and an avatar also giving nothing away – was I expected to know you were a woman?”
by stander
Friday, February 22 2013, 8:09PM
“Very brave of you harry, going around picking on women.”
by harryX
Friday, February 22 2013, 4:52PM
“by stander
Your own words are they, or helped along by a little plagiarism....
http://tinyurl.com/bya3zc4”
by stander
Friday, February 22 2013, 4:39PM
“That was a cabinet document from November 2002 addressing staffing issues and the backlog of work created within the council's Revenues and Benefits department due to problems encountered with IT systems.
It highlighted that employing extra staff in the Council tax department was funded by raising the summons penalty by 50%.
At a weekly cost of almost £1,200 for each worker, a total of around £9,500 was paid out each week to hire agency staff in Revenues and Benefits to overcome problems brought about by complications implementing a new IT system.
The focus should be put on how the council funded extra members of staff to sort out the IT issues. It was council taxpayers, penalised by summons costs who more than funded these extra members of staff because of a correspondingly disproportionate increase in the Summons fee.
The document implied that the Council could rely on at least 6,000 residents would be caught out each year by the Summons fee thus raising in excess of the additional £30,000 required to fund two extra staff to clear the backlog of work caused by IT complications.
However, the figure based on the subsequent three years average was not 6,000 but 12,277 householders liable for the summons penalty. The 50% or £5 increase in the Summons fee would therefore pay for in excess of four staff; more than double what it was looking to fund by residents caught out with these penalties.
The whole picture dramatically changes when you look at how profits increased by the second year into the new arrangement. For whatever reason the summons took a further 50% hike to £30, (200% higher than before additional staff were employed). The equivalent number of extra staff the council would be able to pay for from the additional revenue would top sixteen.
Whether or not the increased Summons cost was to fund the Council Tax establishment being increased by two members of staff or just intended as a temporary measure, the law doesn't permit householders caught-out with costs to meet the expenditure for administrating council tax.”
by chueca
Friday, February 22 2013, 12:53PM
“This is quite interesting.
Would all these issues have had anything to do with why the council, prior to the Audit Commissioner's report, were raising in excess of an additional £30,000 per year, by imposing an unjustified 50% hike in the summons cost for late payment of Council Tax?
http://tinyurl.com/b3ju9tm”