IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> NTC Service Budget
Simon Kirby
post Dec 15 2014, 06:52 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



Up for review at tonight's Community Service Committee is the NTC Service Budget.

There's the usual casual dishonesty about inflation rates. The allotment rent is now set 12 months in advance (the Council now recognise that this is the right thing to do), and the council are proposing to increase the rent "in line with a projected inflation for 2016/17" of 3.0%. They don't say where they got that projection from so I'm guessing they just made it up because the Bank of England's best estimate is that CPI inflation will stand at around 1.2% this time next year. This is a inventive way of getting around the problem they had last year when they lied about the current inflation rate, as now they still get to set the increase "in line with inflation", but they get to choose what that inflation figure is.

One of the real stinkers in this year's budget is the doubling of the market management fee from £6,000 annually to £12,000. There's no explanation for why the management cost is doubling. This fee is the money they give to one of the market traders to supervise the market on market day, and it is in addition to the £17.5k of service team staff costs. That's a lot of administration for a market that runs twice a week. The gross cost of running the market is £104k which includes all of the administration staff and back-office overheads, and with a rental income of £58,000 the cost to the tax-payer of providing the market was this year £46k, so that's likely to hit £50k next year.

The standout problem for the council is the cost of their office accommodation. They've been particularly rubbish at leasing rooms in their rambling Gothic mansion and this one item has added £10k to their budgeted town hall costs, and this puts the cost of their office accommodation at around £70k annually. You can rent an awful lot of decent office accommodation around Newbury to £70k. It wouldn't be so imposing, but it would save around 5% of the precept if the Council simply gave up the old town hall and took a couple of offices on the Greenham Business Park.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Dec 15 2014, 07:31 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Dec 15 2014, 06:52 PM) *
The standout problem for the council is the cost of their office accommodation. They've been particularly rubbish at leasing rooms in their rambling Gothic mansion and this one item has added £10k to their budgeted town hall costs, and this puts the cost of their office accommodation at around £70k annually. You can rent an awful lot of decent office accommodation around Newbury to £70k. It wouldn't be so imposing, but it would save around 5% of the precept if the Council simply gave up the old town hall and took a couple of offices on the Greenham Business Park.


Interesting idea - on the same basis perhaps WBC should move to offices in Basingstoke?

The Town Hall is a white elephant, I could readily understand NTC if they opted to move (preferrably to somewhere in Newbury) but the Town Hall would not be that easy to sell - do they own it or is it WBC's freehold?

Alternatively we could do with a Newbury Museum - that could be a good use for the Town Hall!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Dec 15 2014, 08:32 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (blackdog @ Dec 15 2014, 07:31 PM) *
Interesting idea - on the same basis perhaps WBC should move to offices in Basingstoke?

The Town Hall is a white elephant, I could readily understand NTC if they opted to move (preferrably to somewhere in Newbury) but the Town Hall would not be that easy to sell - do they own it or is it WBC's freehold?

Alternatively we could do with a Newbury Museum - that could be a good use for the Town Hall!

It doesn't matter what its capital worth is, if it's costing the precept-payer £50k annually then giving it away would make financial sense.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Dec 15 2014, 08:48 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Dec 15 2014, 08:32 PM) *
It doesn't matter what its capital worth is, if it's costing the precept-payer £50k annually then giving it away would make financial sense.
You're presuming someone would want to take it on and keep it in good repair.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Dec 15 2014, 09:27 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 15 2014, 08:48 PM) *
You're presuming someone would want to take it on and keep it in good repair.


Like Greenham Parish Council perhaps?


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Dec 15 2014, 09:49 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



Frankly, in commercial terms the market is a dead loss and should now be closed down. Any other trader in the town making losses like that would have shut shop ages ago....indeed as has been the case. In effect, we are subsidising these traders, which is actually anti competitive. The Council can hardly claim value for this subsidy either, in real terms, the size of the market has declined significantly, even last year.

Again, the town hall cost is unsustainable. I'd wholly agree, giving it away would be a sensible option. Apart from that, it does not look as if any sensible attempt has been made to find other uses for it, even if they make it just break even. WBC for instance should not be renting any other commercial premises whilst this public building remains under occupied.

However, every cloud has a silver lining. There accounts are a very clear illustration as to why the Council is no longer fit for purpose.



--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Turin Machine
post Dec 15 2014, 10:39 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,682
Joined: 23-September 10
From: In the lower 40
Member No.: 1,104



Hey, keeping all that regalia clean and polished don't come free you know, someone has to pay so they look nice when they all dress up as pirates and swan around. Jeez, don't you know anything?


--------------------
Gammon. And proud!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Dec 15 2014, 10:49 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



Sorry, the figures I used in the OP were from 2011, but the substance of the argument is the same. Net market cost including all its back-office administration and overhead is £43k, and the net Town Hall cost is £87k.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Dec 15 2014, 10:50 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Dec 15 2014, 10:39 PM) *
Hey, keeping all that reagalia clean and polished don't come free you know, someone has to pay so they look nice when they all dress up as pirates and swan around. Jeez, don't you know anything?

I know, I'm a bitter ungrateful wretch.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Dec 15 2014, 10:57 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 15 2014, 08:48 PM) *
You're presuming someone would want to take it on and keep it in good repair.

Yes, that's true, but I would like to put it on the market and see if there were any takers.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Dec 15 2014, 11:18 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



Here's an interesting question from July 2009:

QUOTE
In 2006 Council committed to the Installation of Solar Photovoltaic (PV) panels to the Town Hall roof. (P&R min 39, 16 October 2006) at a cost of £28,180.80 gross (£14,090.40 net after grant). Advice at the time estimated pay back time between 25 and 60 years.

I should like to ask this Committee:-
1. Has there been any measurable decrease in energy costs since the installation?
2. In the year to 31 March 2009, how many units of power were sold back to the National Grid?
3. What do officers now calculate the pay back time to be?
4. Did West Berks Council consult Newbury Town Council before committing to a similar project?

Response by Arthur Johnson:
“A similar question was raised to Council in January 2009, with response as follows:
Annual monetary benefit of the Solar Panels is currently in the region of £840, made up of approximately £620 saving in energy bills, approximately £70 in selling spare energy and approximately £150 in Renewables Obligation Certificates. On that basis, payback period is currently 17 years. Another way of looking at is that it is currently providing a 6% return on investment. We hope that it was the Newbury Town Council project that helped influence West Berkshire Council to progress their particular project”


I note that the solar panel income in the six months to September 2014 (the sunnier months of the year) is reported to be a whopping £44, whereas Arthur Johnson leads us to expect £840. Actually, it's not just that, Arthur Johnson says we're getting a 6% return on investment, and that means we shouldn't just be getting £840 per year, but the capital should also be safe. In reality a PV installation might be hoped to last for around 20 year, after which time it is irreparably decrepit, so you need to see £840 per month (ignoring inflation) just to see the investment break even. At a return of £44 per year that investment was money down the tubes.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gel
post Dec 16 2014, 11:38 AM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 948
Joined: 11-September 09
From: Thames Valley
Member No.: 337



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Dec 15 2014, 11:18 PM) *
Here's an interesting question from July 2009:



I note that the solar panel income in the six months to September 2014 (the sunnier months of the year) is reported to be a whopping £44, whereas Arthur Johnson leads us to expect £840. Actually, it's not just that, Arthur Johnson says we're getting a 6% return on investment, and that means we shouldn't just be getting £840 per year, but the capital should also be safe. In reality a PV installation might be hoped to last for around 20 year, after which time it is irreparably decrepit, so you need to see £840 per month (ignoring inflation) just to see the investment break even. At a return of £44 per year that investment was money down the tubes.

Yes quote right; the financials of these don't stand up to scrutiny and many thousands of householders have been
persuaded to fit*, but in
many cases the installers to repair/service have long since gone bust as have the manufacturers.
Majority of these panels not made in UK, but UK taxpayer funding is supporting our EU neighbours
with manufacturing industry; I recall heavy surcharges now imposed on any imported from China.

Cameron's Father in Law, a Baronet and large landowner is one of the many raking in income having
installed Solar...at taxpayer's expense of course.
*Whether future purchasers of their property want to take on the long term loan that funded the panels we will
have to see, as the loan is attached to the property.

And as recent articles in press show we are to pay for these subsidies for ever more:
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expressco...d-Prince-George
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Dec 16 2014, 06:18 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



Here we are, inflation is now 1.0%. The Consumer Price Index is at a 12-year low of 1.0%


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Dec 16 2014, 06:24 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



It really is about time, especially in these austere times, that a fresh look was taken as to the efficacy of a town council. Analysis needs carrying out as to the cost of running the council against what benefit they bring to the town if any especially knowing how their mistakes have cost precept payers extra needless thousands over the recent years?
Both local authorities are stating cuts need to be made somewhere and savings made so exactly what would be the consequence of abolishing the town council?
What would be the consequences of not making any subsidy to the Charter Market and making the stallholders cover the annual running costs?
Or would precept payers prefer to cut funds to the most vulnerable in our society?

It really does need a serious debate now! rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Dec 16 2014, 10:48 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



Well, considering WBC are a unitary authority and before NTC was set up actually fulfilled all of these roles anyway, abolition would have zero effect. Probably even saving, given that we wouldn't need the dressing up box or anyone to launder and iron the new flag.

As for a debate, and a serious one at that, can I have some of what you're on Cognosco!


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Dec 17 2014, 04:29 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (On the edge @ Dec 16 2014, 10:48 PM) *
Well, considering WBC are a unitary authority and before NTC was set up actually fulfilled all of these roles anyway, abolition would have zero effect. Probably even saving, given that we wouldn't need the dressing up box or anyone to launder and iron the new flag.

As for a debate, and a serious one at that, can I have some of what you're on Cognosco!


Yeh! I know this is NTC we are talking about and they don't do talking or debating with precept payers do they? rolleyes.gif
I am one bad vexatious person I know! rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Dec 17 2014, 09:53 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Cognosco @ Dec 16 2014, 06:24 PM) *
It really does need a serious debate now! rolleyes.gif

I do agree, and it is so frustrating that our local councillors don't engage in any discussion.

I think it's unbelievable that the council can spend so much public money running the charter market, but then almost no one in Newbury will have any clue about how much money it costs, or indeed which council it is that runs it. Some honesty and openness from the Council would help with engagement. Of course what you get is a designation as a Vexatious Complainant for publishing those service costs.

The allotment service of course is ripe for self-management and not only would that save the tax-payer money, but the service would improve and the rents would halve. Again the only reason this doesn't happen is because the Council suppress it.

The mayoral dressing up box is a tired old game now and has no place in local government administration, though for a bit of civic colour it's still entirely possible for any local charity group that has a mind to provide a ceremonial mayor to open the odd garden fate.

A small and efficient parish council doesn't need a prestige building, it just needs an office, and there are plenty of those to be found around Newbury with the ad-hoc rental of meeting rooms for council meetings.

Most of the other bits and bobs that the Council do would be much more efficiently done by WBC like the parks, cutting the grass on the open spaces, and managing the cemetery.

But there is still a role for a parish council to help and support community groups to help themselves. There's be no glory in that and I can't imagine it would attract the same kind of councillors that currently blight our local government, but I think there are people out there who believe in community and who'd want to get involved in that kind of project.

But I feel that there has to be a debate. As it is the Town Council is grotesque.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Dec 18 2014, 04:25 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



To keep in line with the new way of openness in local Government.......that is breaking out in most other places.....Newbury excepted of course. Would it be possible for the council to hold a referendum on whether precept payers think NTC are value for money and do they think the NTC should be abolished as no longer necessary? rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post Dec 18 2014, 05:56 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



I'm sure that moving the Town Council to a nice office block might be a good idea but what to do with the current council offices. Do we believe that any business would want to rent it for their commercial use. Somehow I doubt it as it is a great rambling Victorian building with antiquated décor and accessibility with amenities for staff just about nil. No parking for staff and visitors of course.
So where does that leave us other than moaning about the town council occupying the town hall with no chance of renting it out and suggesting that they add to their already top heavy spend for modern offices. I suggest that people who wish to air their grievances about the expenditure of NTC at least major on the real excesses rather than muddying the water with easily deflected criticisms.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Dec 18 2014, 06:26 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Cognosco @ Dec 18 2014, 04:25 PM) *
To keep in line with the new way of openness in local Government.......that is breaking out in most other places.....Newbury excepted of course. Would it be possible for the council to hold a referendum on whether precept payers think NTC are value for money and do they think the NTC should be abolished as no longer necessary? rolleyes.gif

That's a sensible and serious proposal. ]Any ten parishioners can demand that their parish council hold a community poll. The decision is not binding on the parish council, but it would be a way of gauging opinion across the whole of the parish. Asking for the parish poll wouldn't be the problem, but informing the parish of the issues would take some organising and without an informed decision the poll would lack credibility. I think it would be a good idea to put some kind of proposal for a rationalisation of the parish council to the parish, though a more effective way of solving the problems at the town council might be to inspire 25 decent honest free-thinking individuals to stand for election to the parish council in May as independents, as they could then clean out the corruption and slim the thing down so that it could achieve some public benefit.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 03:58 PM